If class warfare is weak, then it probably just annoys the upper class and makes them less likely to cooperate. If you have some violent “glorious revolution” in mind, then you very probably wreck the economy and damn a huge portion of the lower class to extreme poverty, including the deaths of tens of millions and you also probably create a new, even narrower, more corrupt class of oligarchs with even more control over policy and the “means of production”.

That makes it sound like all outcomes are similar, whether through apathy of doing nothing or through violent revolution, no? We’re not quite at rock bottom but it appears in sight, regarding climate change. The economy is a bit in a wreck already as well.

All outcomes aren’t similar, they are proportionately worse the more violent “class warfare” becomes. The best path forward is almost certainly (in my view) incremental cooperative progress towards a stronger social safety net. Nothing good is going to happen over night.

I would agree with that analysis, but there is a minimum amount of progress we need to pull the curve away from catastrophic failure. The longer we wait, the more extreme the solution will need to be to pull on the curve, in my opinion. We shouldn’t let the current crisis go to waste.

Very similar to mitigating an asteroid impact. If you wait too long, no amount of force and course correction will save us.

I read the parent as if class warfare is the desirable outcome.

Do you mean the bottom or the top class?

Top most class.

https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-worlds-richest-people-also-e...

“On Wednesday, British charity Oxfam released a study that found the richest 10 percent of people produce half of the planet’s individual-consumption-based fossil fuel emissions, while the poorest 50 percent — about 3.5 billion people — contribute only 10 percent. Yet those same 3.5 billion people are “living overwhelmingly in the countries most vulnerable to climate change,” according to the report. According to the data used by the report, individual consumption — as opposed to consumption by governments and international transport — makes up 64 percent of worldwide climate emissions.

Oxfam estimates that the world’s richest 10 percent of people have carbon footprints that are 60 times higher as the poorest 10 percent. Any estimation that generalizes large populations is difficult to make, but researchers at Oxfam also estimate that the emissions of the world’s richest 1 percent create an even larger emissions gap: the 1 percent could emit 30 times more than the poorest 50 percent and 175 times more than the poorest 10 percent.”

Before anyone gets on a soapbox, here's a quick reminder that if you're reading this post, there's a good chance that you're part of that top 10%.

Those in the developed west who get on those soapboxes probably already fall into crunchy green subcultures anyway and are cognizant of their own carbon footprints.

And the active HN reader, whether they fall into that camp or not, are unlikely to be in the actual part of that global 10% who dictate industrial policy that have far-reaching effects on the rest of the world.

Our buying habits have a drastic effect on the rest of the world. Just look at Avocados and Chocolate for two ridiculous examples. The average American's love for both has had a huge impact on the lives of those who farm as well as deforestation in affected areas.

Just having our preferred foods year-round can completely change the lives of others. Just thinj about the effect that owning things like cars and houses has on the rest of the world.

Don't kid yourself. Like it or not you and I are part of the problem.

Top 10% is like 700m people, a.k.a most Western World population. Not a lot of “class-warfare” can happen if you classify countries as just having a single class.