args

We need to change the way we live or we will all die

The intention and general idea of your concept is kind, But the details are muddy. "We need to do something" is well intended, But not exactly constructive for a complicated series of issues that institutions have been trying to solve for a long time. First, "we will all die" is a blanket statement. Even when the effects of global warming completely engulf lowly elevated areas, And exacerbated natural disasters kill millions of people, I doubt this means extinction of the human species. Question: does the evidence of global warming, So far, Reasonably indicate that every single area of the planet will be inhospitable? What if, Hypothetically, 80% of people died. Quality of life would be absolutely terrible, We'd enter a dark age and our whole lifestyle would "We need to do something" is well intended, But not exactly constructive for a complicated series of issues that institutions have been trying to solve for a long time. First, "we will all die" is a blanket statement. Even when the effects of global warming completely engulf lowly elevated areas, And exacerbated natural disasters kill millions of people, I doubt this means extinction of the human species. Question: does the evidence of global warming, So far, Reasonably indicate that every single area of the planet will be inhospitable? What if, Hypothetically, 80% of people died. Quality of life would be absolutely terrible, We'd enter a dark age and our whole lifestyle would change, But we wouldn't be extinct or endangered. The big causes of extinction for other species such as highly restrictive diet and natural predators don't exist for people. It's reasonable to believe a portion of humanity would survive, Reproduce and take a much smaller role in the world. Second, Is it feasible to control population? As you said, It's a self-regulating system. Should every government do what China did and outlaw having more than one child? The largest source of population growth is development of underdeveloped countries. Populations do stabilize once the economy is developed enough. If dirt poor countries, Like Zimbabwe, For example, Had a major technological or agrarian revolution, The population would swell. Would we yoke the growth of poor countries to achieve population balance? It reproduces until the environment can no longer support the bacteria and they starve to death. If you are a follower of Darwin you must take in to consideration that we too are a species that has the same natural instincts of all other living creatures. Reproduce and protect yourself. We continue to grow as a species but we are the first species to ever to have the opportunity to evade our own death. My argument here is that change needs to occur. We, As a species, Must decide what we are going to do. Third, Who is we? Is it the common person? As moralistic as the "tragedy of the commons" argument is, Me buying a hybrid car won't do anything if the rest of my country is still driving Hummers? And even if the rest of my country uses clean energy, What happens when other countries like China refuse to? Do we need a global government to enforce this? Overall, Our role as people in this earth is very limited. We should reduce the harm of global warming as much as we can, But the decision won't sway the outcome much. If we act now, We'll attenuate tragedies, But not avert them. If we don't act now, I don't think it'll be the end of humanity.