I'm poutting things togethe rin that way that to me it makes the most sense, takes single details best into account, and matches in the easiest way. This is common procedure in science. If you have several theories to explaind a set of observations and they have the same explaantory value, pick the one which is the less complicated.
Also, I take into account psychological habits of people, that for example is they resist chnage, and want to stay with the old and familiar, because that is known to them, and what is known is associated with security and safety. I also consider who profits most from making society not changing the old ways, and that is the establishment, the profiteers of the old familiar ways and the old fashioned economy game. Those who benefit the most from the status quo have the most to lose.
I already have observed climate changed in my very own life span. I must not wait to see it happening. Summer is not what it was 30 years ago, and winter the same. It is countable fact that the number of regions having to deal with numerous symptoms telling a change to the worse have seen steep increases in the past 20-30 years. weather phenomenons have undergone drastic changes as well. We know for sure that the ocean is changing too, is becoming warmer and of changing ph-indices. We already see a steep rise in natural desasters like landslides and floodings, we see the shifting of climate zones and species following the changing climate barriers, and we see unnormal ground water levels and erosion, loss of agricultural soil and annormal plancton and alga levels in the oceans which have undergone dramatic changes in the past 30 years or so.
But what you are telling us is that these phenomenons are questionable, their mere existence must be researched, and if they exist they mean nothing. sorry, but that is just not good enough.
We have more than enough data to draw parallels to past societies, the way they pumped up population levels, boosted productivity, consumed more ressources than their environment could maintain and replace, and finally collapsing. when there was room to pout aside reserves for future times of crisis, this usually was not done, but the surplus wa sused to grow population level even more, ifngoring that these additonal people have to be fed as well. We also could see parallels between the present and the sociological and political decision-makings of the past. the most stunning thing one could learn if investing time into these matters is: in the past, it were
rational, reasonable decisions leading societies into their fall. It's not just some safety failing, one person giving a wrong command. It's something like a psychological double-blind-trap. Often, interests of poltical prestige, religious motives, and power in general went hand in hand in cementing the old ways and habits even when they had become suicidal already. Cultures have a tendency towards not wanting to chnage, to protect their feeling of identity. In this context here, this inner tendency works for our worst.
Just consider this: in classic economy and state theory, growth is assumed to be potentially unlimited, and the needed precondtion to foster society, and produce more common wealth (how I love this word shell). But this growth is what has led us to excessively overconsummate ressources, living beyond our means, destroying our envrionment, and boosting population more and more. We thought and still think that the future generation would fix things, so we party on. Those who habe the most profit at rsik, keep telling us that the debts we make will be dealt with "in the future", when "the ecojoym has become better", etc.etc. etc. I heared this already when being at elementary school. And today, more than thirty years later, they still say the same. Where we are aware of a resources being limited, we think: "okay, it should be saved, but if I do not take it, then somebody else will, so better I take it myself before the others do." Social psychology knows this as the "prisoiner's dilemma", politics knows it as the "dilemma of communal property", it all is variations of these two well-described problems (I even had to talk about it in one of my verbal exams, btw.
). We still argue for unlimited growth in the economy - although the insane Western production levels of material wealth and the creation of Western living standards in no way can be maintained on a global scale, for a population of over 7 billion. This is insanity, and it is potentially suicidal. But still we get preached that what we need is economical growth. As a matter of fact our communbal systems are designed to depend on the financial income this produces, yes. That does not mean their must be growth - it means that the design of our societies is flawed in a very fundamental, most vital basis: it's a flaw that makes sure socieities of our dewsign cannot survive in the long run, and their wealth only is a temporary affair. Those taking profit from this only are intersted in the situation being stable for the duration of their lives. And after them: the flood, who cares. And yes, it is reasonable weighing of options in decision-making, and reasonable thought causing this misery. You see the great danger?
Being so rational and reasonable is what is spelling our doom and is ruining the planet. And how could one argue against being reasonable and rational? I tend to praise myself for trying to be rational and reasonable, don't I?
The point is -
reasonability and rationality need altruism in the meaning of the old christian concept of "agape" to complement them . Else it is maximum egoism in action. And egoism is what eats us up, one by one, the weak ones first, the strong ones last. That the consequences of our actions unfold slowly and creepingly only, and thus are hard to recognise (like you also do not see the grass growing, but it does - just very slowly), doesn't make it easier.
Instead of trying to establish delays and more delays and make hesitation the rule of the game, we need to understand that the time to understand we are in trouble, is over. The data to understand that - we already do have, and since long. What we need is research not on this old joke, but on the question if and how we could adapt to the challenge - a challenge that we have set up ourselves: rationally and very reasonably, psychologically maybe inevitably, but when taking the problem for itself: unneeded. If we fail, the world will not be the same anymore, and will move on without a global human civilisation. If we succeed (I am pessimistic), the world also will be a very different one afterwards.
Message of that is: the world we know from the present, will no longer be what it was. Man will understand that, or will not - it does not matter. Whether he understands, is not important for the planet, but only for man himself. The situation is not revolving around us - the planet just moves on with it's history, with or without us playing a future role in it.