[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

You posted all kinds of nonsense instead of just answering the nonsense question.

Finally, you get to the heart of the issue. You believe that humanity depends on burning fossil fuels for its existence.

No, not at all, just as I don't believe human existence depends on not burning fossil fuels. We have evidence that humanity existed long before fossil fuels were utilized, just that it was nasty, brutish, and short.

Clearly more people exist as a result of fossil fuel exploitation, so that suggests human existence is helped by it, not hindered.

Yet the scientific consensus is that burning fossil fuels threatens our existence.

There's no such consensus, and the most well regarded climate scientists make no such existential claims. Science is not the process of consensus; it's the process of making increasingly accurate predictions based on observation.

Humans can thrive with and without fossil fuels, but humans can't thrive with a destabilized climate.

Sure we can. We thrive despite destabilized weather.

Your dependence on burning fossil fuels is not only incorrect, but antithetical. You want your wants to be prioritized over humanity's needs.

I'll need some help unpacking this a bit more, but I'll take a stab at it anyhow...

I make 2 claims:

1. most of us wouldn't exist if fossil fuels were never exploited
2. human existence does not require use of fossil fuels

So my wants would never even exist if humanity didn't exploit fossil fuels because I'd have never been born. I'm grateful that fossil fuels were exploited resulting in my existence and the resultant wants.

As for humanity's needs, they consist primarily of reproduction, survival, and productive work.

True technological progress in the current era would be true ecological progress.

Very true. All technology derives from nature and therefore has a relationship with ecology.

Defining "progress" is the subjective bit.

Your viewpoint is from a previous era. You want industrial activities to overrule the 'laws of Nature.'

My viewpoint will always be the default one, so long as humans are around. That viewpoint being the necessity to impact the natural state of the world from one which is less hospitable to human flourishing, to one that is more hospitable to human flourishing.

We could all choose to live in teepees, going around raiding other primitive tribes, and generally having a small impact on nature, but nobody chooses to live that way when given the option.

The law of nature is "dog eat dog", so I am opposed to it. Since industrialism creates cooperation which "overrules" the law of nature, I'm for it. Would rather have a smartphone than someone's scalp adorning my necklace.

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

I'll rephrase: How much longer do the contrarians believe that humans can continue abusing the environment?

I don't think that's a helpful rephrase, and I'm skeptical that you're asking in good faith. I'll assume good faith as a default, and answer the question.

The Environment is not sentient, and therefore cannot be abused. That means nobody has ever abused The Environment, and never will.