Climate change is good!
With the undue value placed on human beings and human life in general, we sanctify ourselves more than we need to. The idea of what it is to be a human and the value of oneself is very moralistic and detached to the idea that we are at the end of the day animals living in an ecosystem with other beings. The myopic nature of our selves deceives us often to the reality of the world we live in.
There is a population controlling mechanism for most animals on this planet. It can be in the form of predators, disease and natural calamities. Man on the other hand is immune to such happenings, at least on a mass scale. The largest threats to mankind currently are related to stress, eating habits, lack of exercise and mosquitoes. War and strife kill people but not on the scale that is threatening the survival of the human race itself.
Climate change possess that unique possibility that keeps the question of mass-population in threat. With ever increasing technological innovations and the growth of hypercapitalism, inequality, spiritual discontent, boredom.. it is important to question ourselves, how long will this world exist in the shape and form it does? When will the next big change happen that will revolutionize the way we live, not in the form having a new technological advance like a cellphone but a more moral change to the way we live, interact and consume. Sure, cellphones and the internet have contributed to a lot of societal changes but the change has been cosmetic in the way we absorb information while providing tools for more capitalistic and governmental scrutiny of who we are and how we consume.
The present system of how the world operates does not have a perinnial viability, there would be a radical change that will alter the way humans live. In the years that have passed it has been religions, technology and societal systems but the capacity for future developments in these areas are bleak. Sure, a man can live 20 years more and there could Coporation-states but is that what we strive to be? At the same time the population demographics are only going to increase and that too in parts of the world that are under-developed (depending on the universality of the metrics) and still opening to the widespread consumptory disease that must fuel the money making machine. If the entire nation of India, China and a few handful African countries consume the same way as Western countries do so now, it would be a catastrophe on levels even unimaginable now.
Man killing another man is steeped in guilt, justice and morality which is fair, considering our cognitive capabilities. But this lack of any danger also feeds our arrogance, as one can observe that the same people who pollute and destroy are also the ones who call for restraint. I was once at a Climate Change demonstartion where there huge vans with loudspeakers that were going around the city blasting music with people smoking cigarettes and consuming mass produced goods like there was no tomorrow, supporting the same companies and systems that got us into the mess in the first place. This duplicity goes unnoticed and people who go to the extreme and practise some variant of veganism, go full 'alternate' in their lifestyles while conforming to a lifestyle fad, end up consuming a product made by Coca-Cola or Nestle and carefully marketed to not be identified as the parent brand. Though the choice is commendable, the real corporations that pollute escape scrutiny. Corporations in the end are run by humans that might exhort the same fashions that they sell. The intersection between money and morality is one seeped in a lot of truth concessions.
The next big change would not be aiming for net prosperity if it is based on the same rules as and systems as of now. To reshape the current command centers would need a fundamental changefor which no short-term thinking politician or civilian will step up to. In this case a natural disaster is the best hand one can expect, as it effects large population centers a majority of the world's regions. This would also wall-off the places that better adapt to the climate crisis than the ones that do worse, just like any other refugee situation. These climate refugees will be plundered, slandered and eventually slaughtered by the then existing state/commercial establishment without impunity, as when the scarce resources are in question, morality becomes a luxury.
It is in this case that there is a possibility for reorganization. If a power like the US or China is directly impacted by climate change, there will a huge gap in the political landscape of the world, meaning whoever is in power next will be the ones who decide what is going to happen with the planet. Or such a federation will not rise and there will be buffer zones of uninhabitability (like the possibility of Bangladesh and Maldives ceasing to exist while Sub-Saharan Africa turns in a furnace) which act like buffer borders, cutting off the global supply-chain networks. This would make the return of self-dependency a central focus and the powers of global industry are reduced to nil. This is important to go back to a state of relative self-dependency while also the people should be very well aware of the history of the past world to make sure that the dependency on a cut-throat capitalistic world is not made for a few luxurious upgrades. The society need not be some kind of Communist termite hole as well, this would be a world very conscious about the people who live in that space and who are very aware of their surroundings and what they consume. This back to basics approach focuses just on the necessities for survival and not the full menu of things, as in the final calling man will realise that it has been a purposeless pursuit anyway.
So eat your cows, travel by planes, take your SUV everywhere, buy single use plastics, turn on the airconditioner to energy inefficient settings and buy the shares of Saudi Aramco when they go up on sale. Make conscious choices for making this planet uninhabitable, that might be our only ticket out.