• SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Doing it as fast as possible would crash the world economy because everything is setup up for oil. So it seems obvious what needs to happen, it’s a different story when you personally are now homeless and you just want a roof and food. We can do a lot better than we are though

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The alternative, parts of the world will be uninhabitable. Always gotta think about the economy… no matter how many people this is going to kill, or how much biodiversity we lose along the way.

      Is there any point of loss where we will say the economy isn’t important anymore, or do we have to be experiencing the loss already?

      • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        The problem is crashing the economy will kill a lot of people right now, no need to wait or come up with a better solution

        • futatorius
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you look at it on a case-by-case basis, it’s harder to catastrophize. Would the world economy collapse if petroleum-derived food additives vanished? No. Plastic bags? No. The vast volumes of cheap plastic packaging? No. Shipping? That’ll take a while. Fertilizers? Partial substitution can happen immediately, but a full changeover will take years. And so on through the list. You can rack and stack each case by its social value, how hard it will be to eliminate or replace, and the lead time needed to transition. Beyond that it’s engineering, planning and politics.