> We are not [making a difference]. And we cannot. (...) Same with this ridiculous fantasy of being able to affect climate change at any level. I don't care if the discussion is about keeping it as it is today or reversing it. This is is irrelevant. The entire idea is a fantasy.
But in a comment above you said:
> Humanity burned fossil fuels with incredible energy content per cubic meter. Massive, unthinkable amounts.
> This is how we caused change.
I think the person you are replying to is merely saying in their comment (which you are apparently arguing against) that humanity is currently causing CO₂ buildup and climate change by continuing to burn fossil fuels. It sounds like you don't disagree with what they intended to express, but with some other interpretation. For example, perhaps you are saying that preventing the continued burning of fossil fuels is politically infeasible for some person or group, perhaps collectively the readers of HN?
There are two problems there: ⓐ the collectively suicidal course of action of humanity, of continuing to burn more and more fossil fuels without sequestering the resulting CO₂, and ⓑ the relative powerlessness of that person or group, who hypothetically would be more rational and/or altruistic, therefore choosing a better course of action that would engender a happier future for humanity, even if that meant degrowth. Or have I misunderstood you?
With regard to point ⓑ, I'm not sure what to say. But with regard to point ⓐ, as I explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42424292, we're already off that path, even if whatever group of people you're talking about collectively lacks the autonomy to get us back on it.
> We are not [making a difference]. And we cannot. (...) Same with this ridiculous fantasy of being able to affect climate change at any level. I don't care if the discussion is about keeping it as it is today or reversing it. This is is irrelevant. The entire idea is a fantasy.
But in a comment above you said:
> Humanity burned fossil fuels with incredible energy content per cubic meter. Massive, unthinkable amounts.
> This is how we caused change.
I think the person you are replying to is merely saying in their comment (which you are apparently arguing against) that humanity is currently causing CO₂ buildup and climate change by continuing to burn fossil fuels. It sounds like you don't disagree with what they intended to express, but with some other interpretation. For example, perhaps you are saying that preventing the continued burning of fossil fuels is politically infeasible for some person or group, perhaps collectively the readers of HN?
There are two problems there: ⓐ the collectively suicidal course of action of humanity, of continuing to burn more and more fossil fuels without sequestering the resulting CO₂, and ⓑ the relative powerlessness of that person or group, who hypothetically would be more rational and/or altruistic, therefore choosing a better course of action that would engender a happier future for humanity, even if that meant degrowth. Or have I misunderstood you?
With regard to point ⓑ, I'm not sure what to say. But with regard to point ⓐ, as I explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42424292, we're already off that path, even if whatever group of people you're talking about collectively lacks the autonomy to get us back on it.