GRA wrote:As to dystopian, the world we live in now is dystopian; probably they all are.
We live in a beautiful world. It's sad so many cannot see that.
Regardless, even if you think the current world is dystopian that is not a justification to make it worse by polluting it more.
Of course, whether or not the world is beautiful or not, or dystopian or not, depends a lot on where you're viewing it from. If you're looking at it as a citizen of the developed world it probably looks pretty good. If you're looking from South Sudan, or Libya, or Syria, or Myanmar If you're Rohingya, or Guatemala/El Salvador/Honduras, etc., it looks a lot worse.
Just to take one issue, we've had the ability to feed the world's entire human population adequately for a couple of decades now, if we distributed food equally. But of course, we don't:
Of the roughly 7 billion people in the world, an estimated 870 million suffer each day from hunger.
That's hunger from malnutrition or not eating even the lowest amount of daily recommended calories—1,800—while often enduring food insecurity, or not knowing where the next meal is coming from.
The consistently massive population of hungry people—along with variables like severe weather and economic downturns—sometimes spark warnings that the planet faces impending food shortages.
And yet more people in the world—1.7 billion—are considered obese or overweight from a daily caloric intake that in some cases is at least six to seven times the minimum.
Do you think the 2/3rds of Americans (as well as all others) who are overfed and under-exercised would be willing to voluntarily reduce their caloric intake and food options, if by doing so it meant that food would instead be distributed to people who are undernourished, providing food security for all? I don't. So yeah, I have no hesitation in describing human society as dystopian, for that and many other reasons. And people being people, I don't expect we'll ever not be dystopian in some way.
I'm not trying to pollute more, only to provide us with more non-fossil-fueled options, preferably ZEV but net- or better yet negative carbon will do (i.e. biofuels that don't take up cropland). Let's face it, private citizens, no matter how concerned they say they are with energy efficiency, only prioritize it up to the point at which it begins to impinge on their preferred lifestyle (assuming they can afford to pay extra for that), at which time its priority drops down to the AOTBE category, i.e. as long as they can get it at no cost to other things they value more. Anybody living in a developed country can increase their energy efficiency and reduce their energy usage and environmental impact, but most people are unwilling to do so if it involves having to make any significant personal sacrifice.