We do still have a choice that will at least soften the impact of what we're heading towards: economic degrowth and refocusing our society's efforts towards maintaining a decent global standard of living at the lowest GDP possible (this will of course require major shifts in agriculture, transit, and so on). GDP and economic productivity, not population in itself, are generally considered the primary drivers of greenhouse gas emissions.
It's unlikely that we as a society are going to make the necessary decisions to get out of this intact, but it's defeatist and, honestly, monstrous not to try - the consequences of not doing so are dire, particularly for the "global south" and the less affluent parts of the world, and will likely be far worse than any previous crisis in human history...
. So the question you raise is: "Is it defeatist not to try..." vs "Is it denial to hope for a solution."
. What I wonder is when you say: "We do still have a choice.." who is this "We" ? and when you say "our society's .." which nations do you suppose will stop opposing one another (with both wars, cyber attacks, & trade/economic wars) ? Which would be necessary in order to have even a chance of 'solving' some of the problems.
. Given both all nations' track records, and individuals selfishness, which created all the problems in the first place, it would seem any alien viewing the situation objectively, and with no emotional bias or stake in the outcome, and a knowledge of the fates of all past empires, and animal extinctions, would clearly see which way the pattern is likely to repeat.
. It may be well to remember that the present world "stability" is based on the premise of "mutual assured destruction", by enough nuclear weapons to cause a nuclear winter, and this has been the case for decades, since a short time after WWll.
Edited by shiftingshadows, 20 August 2021 - 11:14 AM.