So if i understand each aisle of the wildfire debate it’s:

- we can prevent / mitigate this next time by doing x,y,z.

vs

- we can’t do anything / nothing can be done and this will continue to happen bc climate change

is that right? i feel like im strawmanning but these are the arguments im seeing…

only the former seems useful to me

the latter argument boils down to an impossible ask of “we need to stop life as we know it”

building /juicebox | product marketing & growth | prev. NounsDAO, RAW DAO | learning to code

I’m genuinely seeing people I thought were otherwise smart say this 😂

Is that truly the establishment / left answer? Do nothing? Am I missing something?

we will engineer our way out, colonize another planet, or die trying

so weird to accept dying without a fight. some people have zero survival instincts.

I think many on the left, particularly leftists rather than liberals, feel (not believe) that climate change is going to be the end of the world within their lifetimes. and the only solution they see is to abandon fossil fuels and go 100% renewable while drastically reducing energy use worldwide.

and since they don’t feel this is politically possible (it’s not), they go on the climate doomer arc of believing that nothing can be done and that it’s all hopeless.

to anyone with an ounce of optimism or belief in humanity’s ability to solve problems with technology, this comes across as a pretty defeatist and useless way of thinking.