Shouldnt we be spending more time discussing how to adapt humanity to global warming?

Answer 1

No. We have the technology to produce energy cleanly--and in the long run at lower cost--than with fossil fuels. Fossil fuel technology is obsolete--basicaly 19th century methods. The only reason it remains dominant is the political power of the corporations that are making huge profits--at consumers' expense.

So--why shoulld people have to "adapt" to global warming, when we can be better off economically by eliminating the cause? Keeping the oil company execs well supplied wth caviar doesn't seem to be a good enough reason.

Answer 2

One of the big problems is that the people who are least able to adapt are the ones that are being hardest hit and will continue to be into the future.

In the US, Europe, Japan and the rest of the developed world we have the finances and resources to mitigate many of the consequences of global warming without too much inconvenience. In much of Africa and Asia they don't have this option and have to content with whatever global warming throws at them.

Humans themselves are pretty adaptable and it would take a massive change in the climate before we were very seriously directly affected. A big problem is that most of the effects are indirect. For example, a flood in Asia not only affects the local people and their economy but disrupts our food supply chain, the spread of disease vectors such as those causing malaria is another problem.

Whilst some people can adapt to some extent it's far from an ideal solution and at best is only really a stop-gap measure. If we don't tackle the root causes of global warming then the problem will get progressively worse and each generation is going to have to keep adapting. Far better to treat the cause than the symptoms.

This is where much scientific attention is now being focussed. There is of course still much work going on regarding the causes and effects of climate change and how we can adapt but increasingly attention is being turned towards finding a solution.

Answer 3

To a degree, yes.

We can't stop global warming entirely, so we'll need to adapt to it some.

But doing nothing to reduce it and relying only on "adapting" is stupid. Some reduction will make the adaptation much much (as many muchs as you want) less difficult.

The proper balance between reduction and adaptation is a worthy topic of debate. But either extreme is wrong.

Answer 4

Well the warming process is natural so we will adapt as it happens whihc will take hundreds of years. the thing about global warming is that we need to slow the process cause our children and grand children will be the ones in trouble.

Answer 5

either we adapt and live in harmony with nature or we will have the same destiny as the dinosaurs! mother nature does not need to adapt to man kind but we need mother nature! most likely she will be better off w/o man kind! in order for her to heal from our exploitation she will do anything in her power even if she has get rid of us as any living thing would get rid of any kind of infestation! peace

Answer 6

Debate is not what we need. TIn this case, talking is a waist of time and energy. just adapt. love life and do what you can to make life better for everyone. Check out CooingEarth.org

Answer 7

we should, shouldn't we.....if you can't prevent it, join it........if we can't slow down global warming, then we should try to adapt humanity to global warming.....i agree with you 100%

Answer 8

yeah like hybrid cars and such or are you talking about moving people out of miami cause its going to flood in 2100?

you do what you got to do

ill go buy a hybrid next time and prevent the flood of 2100

hopefully

probably

Answer 9

sure, we should find ways to implant gills in humans, when the oceans start covering the land we could dive and swim away.
don't you think we should spend more time trying to save the planet and not just ourselves.

Answer 10

Yes - because its natural and we can't cause, or stop it.