[FussyZeus]

> without forcing anything into others

You are not an island. Neither am I. If we only act in our own individual best interests, we denigrate society as a whole. We are social animals. We do our best work and are at our most capable when we work together.

Individualism is fine enough for small communities. On the world stage, we need to get past our petty bullshit if we want to continue living the way we do on this planet. And the worst part is failure to do so will not affect those who failed, but their children, and their grandchildren.

I don't think humanity will die off. We're too clever for that. But our world will look quite different in many ways in a few hundred years, and good luck explaining to our children that, well, Amazon Prime was just too good to let go of.

A metaphor: You and your fellow fishermen live in a bog. The bog's water level is kept just so to allow for optimum fishing, and this is accomplished with a dam that was installed many years ago by your ancestors. However, one year the fishing isn't great, and you and your fellow fishermen are now working extra long days to make up for the bad fishing, and to keep your output strong and your family fed. One of the villagers explains that the dam is leaking; it's causing the water to rise, which is messing with the fishing and also threatening the village at large.

Your individual interest is to keep fishing, because you're already having trouble meeting your goals for fish to sell. Now more than ever. You might say something like "I can't help fix the dam, I'm barely making ends meet as it is! I don't have time!" And your fellow fishermen will say the same. But the fishermen are the only ones who know how to patch leaks in boats, so no one else in the village can do the work.

In this example, your individual needs are legitimate, and your objection to fixing the dam is correct; if you take time to fix the dam instead of fish, your family will go hungry. However, if no one fixes the damn, then everyone's home could be flooded, the fishing will continue to get worse, until the entire village is destroyed.

This would be where some kind of authority would come into play, either a tribal leader, or some elected official, who could step in and say "No fishermen. Today you will fix the dam, and in return, we will feed your families while you do so with the village food stocks." It's directly opposed to their individual interests, but is in alignment with the group's interests. And nobody goes hungry.

This incredibly simple stuff is what has made mankind the dominant species on the planet. The ability to not just group together, but to perceive and understand larger threats to that group and react accordingly with proactive solutions, and is the lack of that activity, because, as Greta Thunberg best put it I think, the leaders are too busy telling each other fairy tales of infinite economic growth, that we are now in trouble.

[tucaz]

I like how you are stating your opinions in a respectful way. Thank you for that.

For part of my opinion see my response below.

As for the other part, I just say that it is naive to expect “someone” to fix the worlds problems. No government or authority can fix it.

If the two fisherman can’t get in an agreement for the greater good and they both die, so be it.

What we can’t do is use apparently good excuses that will hurt and kill millions of people for the “greater good”.

When we demand that countries lower their emissions what we are doing is forcing them in poverty, hunger and death.

The world is not made by super advanced countries like US or European ones.

For people fighting for food on a daily basis these kinds of demands are simply not achievable.

[pjc50]

> If the two fisherman can’t get in an agreement for the greater good and they both die, so be it.

Literally this is what the EU fish quota fixes - although in that case it's the risk of the fish dying out.

> When we demand that countries lower their emissions what we are doing is forcing them in poverty, hunger and death.

Not reducing emissions also does that in many cases. Large areas of Bangladesh are predicted to be physically underwater, for example.

[michaelmrose]

There is enough of everything including food for all the world. If not killing the planet requires a transfer of wealth so that foreigners can both eat and help us achieve our goals I don't see why this would be an extreme barrier.