First off, we are not at existential risk from climate change. Most reasonable estimates suggest on the order of single-digit percent productivity losses for society over the next several decades. Substantial and unfortunate, but not existence-threatening, and in fact not even enough to outweigh reasonably expectable productivity gains from technological development. There are much more serious existential risks to humanity than climate change.
Second off, no one has enough information about the global state of the world that "just think about the big picture" is actually good, actionable advice. People only have enough information and processing power to do local maximization, and this actually works exceptionally well. If you want whatever arbitrary "big picture" stuff you're into to factor into people's decision-making process, the best way to do that is things like tax incentives. How well this works is up for debate, but it's certainly better than vague appeals to "save the environment".
I'm not sure what you're calling the "death economy". Could you explain that further?
Does that include the increased risks of nuclear war, new disease vectors etc? Because, while the probable outcome is relatively little impact the butterfly effect means you can get some less predictable results indirectly.
Aka migration causes war X which due to _ spiraled into WWIII. Granted the world without global warming could alos end randomly as well so you can just say unknown unknowns are always a risk even if it does mean a slightly less stable geopolitical environment that does not nessisarily mean anything terrible happens.
you do realize that initiating nuclear war is suicide, right? the u.s. took advantage of the only chance of actually using one because they were the only nuclear power at the time.
you don't need to consider the entire set of humans, only those with the ability/drive to obtain enough power/influence to gain control over a nuclear weapon.
First off, we are not at existential risk from climate change. Most reasonable estimates suggest on the order of single-digit percent productivity losses for society over the next several decades. Substantial and unfortunate, but not existence-threatening, and in fact not even enough to outweigh reasonably expectable productivity gains from technological development. There are much more serious existential risks to humanity than climate change.
Second off, no one has enough information about the global state of the world that "just think about the big picture" is actually good, actionable advice. People only have enough information and processing power to do local maximization, and this actually works exceptionally well. If you want whatever arbitrary "big picture" stuff you're into to factor into people's decision-making process, the best way to do that is things like tax incentives. How well this works is up for debate, but it's certainly better than vague appeals to "save the environment".
I'm not sure what you're calling the "death economy". Could you explain that further?