• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      That’s not what anyone’s suggesting.

      Now that you mention it, though, there ARE fossil free alternatives available for almost everything we use fossil fuels for today.

      There’s ABSOLUTELY no doubt that, were we to rapidly transition away from all of those, much fewer people would die DURING the transition than are being killed by fossil fuels right now and afterwards, almost nobody for all time.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        16 hours ago

        💯 we could dramatically reduce fossil fuel usage in only a few years if we actually cared to.

        I know because I’ve done this on an individual basis without any significant decrease in quality of life, and the options available to a whole society are even greater.

    • Ignotum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      If all narcotics disappeared today, a ton of people would get seriously ill or die from withdrawal

      Guess narcotics are good and we shouldn’t try to reduce their usage

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Good analogy, bad specific example.

        As much misery and death as can result from substance abuse, most narcotics can actually be beneficial (or at least not severely harmful) when using appropriate amounts the right way.

        Burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, has only ever been a bad and EXTREMELY harmful (but lucrative) way of accomplishing things that could increasingly be achieved without it.