Richard Pauli commented on a video on YouTube.
Naomi Oreskes always advances discussion.  To my experience, this is new analysis.  Thank you so much for this plain speaking.  I agree with much but find it difficult to accept her positivism, but she makes so many great points - about the Malthusian question:  can we survive?   answer; only by radical, radical change.   

Our philosophical adoration of technology has driven the explosion of our civilization. I like to say that our failed future will be harmed by  "apocalyptic cornucopianism"  - where the faithful, affluent technocrats secretly knowing that the game is up, the battle lost, ... and so a carpe diem plunder of all the luxuriant bounty of our world is permitted, encouraged by political ideology.  The cornucopians now crippled by apocalyptic inevitability, now must call on denialism to help hold only 2 possible endings:  either there will be a miraculous solution to global warming - (quick! invent and deploy of fusion energy!)  Or a horribly chaotic and hot demise - inevitable scenarios.   Each is unthinkable - because one is not yet invented, and because the other is too complex or painful to face.  So we all deny the severity, the certainty and the timetable.  Hope is a form of anti-disruptionism - a salve, a form of denial.   Even when presented by scientists.    

In a carbon polluted world, the price on carbon should be infinite.  Since the risk is infinite.  This is a ferociously interesting time.   Naomi Oreskes really helps with the analysis and consideration of the future.  This is an important video.. eager for more.
Shared publiclyView activity