Saiwania wrote:Kilobugya wrote:The only "good" point of it is that primitivists have actually no chance to achieve their stated goal, the only for such a massive collapse of civilization to happen would be through a world war, dinosaur-killer asteroid, or something similar that is completely out of their reach, so while their ideology is criminal lunacy, they are actually harmless.
It is easy enough in my view. Humans keep adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and so much heat is trapped gradually that life becomes increasingly hard on Earth, to the point where most of civilization collapses, if humans don't go extinct altogether.
There is technology to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but there are many cost and scaling challenges to actually implementing it on a large enough scale to actually cause CO2 levels to fall back towards normal once again, instead of constantly increasing to where plants and the wider ecosystem can't keep up. A clean up will take many decades of capturing carbon and pumping it into the ground but it can be done.
If humans die out before then, the planet will be hot for centuries but will gradually repair itself and eventually flourish in our absence. People disappearing would technically speaking, be the best possible change for the environment. Our species is almost exactly akin to a virus that constantly expands, destroys, changes everything in our path in an unsustainable fashion.
Why should we value this environment non-instrumentally, though?
