Is it a good purpose? In my personal opinion, yes! I am not a climatologist and heard of opposing views, but the fact that the carbon steadily increases in the atmosphere is a heavy sickness of the biosphere (not just the temperature increases, that is just a symptom) that is extremely worrying.
Can it be reached?
I will propose the measures of my
These measures are entirely “counter-productive” in the sense that they would reduce people’s resources during a short-time period and do reduce very much. In fact, I am essentially proposing to build a communistic economy. We all know that the communistic economy is not effective. But it is our purpose: to reduce the amount of work, to make the economy, in a sense, less effective, to reduce carbon.
If our enemy were Hitler again, we would need capitalism to sustain a powerful industry to build weapons against him, but now our enemy is our own industry, we need to make it diminish the work producing carbon. So this time capitalism is not a solution.
So my proposed measures:
- Distribute money equally among people. During a war, we should try to feed everybody, not just rich.
- Base economy mainly on volunteer work. Volunteer work is the most effective kind of work (for example math research of one human may be worth in value an industry), but it is also the least available kind of work because not many people want to be true volunteers. We need to reduce the overall amount of work but in the little remaining amount of work choose the best we can have.
- Cancel all patent and copyright laws (except for so-called “moral rights”). We need to distribute resources to all mankind not support “effective” work of not many rich persons.
- Disallow FIAT money completely and switch to crypto, because crypto is more energy efficient than banks. Furthermore, disallow mining BitCoin and similar cryptocurrencies because mining indeed takes much energy, instead use a system like CryptoNGO tokens to gain new cryptocurrency from old crypto that was already mined.
If we succeed to draw carbon emissions to zero, then later we could
Should we later restore copyright laws again? Not sure, software should be free anyway, as it was demonstrated on example of Linux that is free but much better than Windows.
And what does Extinction Rebellion means personally for me?
Earlier I reasoned this way: I am a great mathematician, my personal carbon emissions are almost not important, because my influence on carbon emissions goes mainly through my influence on the rest of mankind by my math research and other nonprofit activity. Is my math research good or bad for reducing carbon emissions? At first, it would be a bad thing to do such a research, as it was noted that as economy grows emissions increase. But I reasoned this way: If we do nothing, the biosphere is most likely to be doomed; rather I would do something rather than nothing in the hope that in some future my math research would somehow help to do geoengineering and reduce carbon. It is better to do something that completely nothing, I thought.
But if Extinction Rebellion comes to reality, our timelines for this are really short and my scientific research cannot to be in time to produce a significant change. So I myself personally could probably better maximally reduce using air conditioner and hot water. (I have no car.)