Sanctimony doesn't work that well. Incentives do. Shaming someone into feeling like a robber baron may sting, but behind them may be a family to support, a sick partner, a struggling child, a gender transition and associated medications and surgeries, and more. The world is a complicated place and reducing it by wagging a finger can only get you so far. Changing systems and incentives is key.

I hate to use such a dire trope, but sometimes it’s better to have someone thoughtful in a bad place than leaving it to the others all by themselves. I think the point OP was trying to make was, change has to start somewhere, and it won’t happen all at once.

The OP is explicitly talking about an honest assessment of shortcomings. They're saying it's necessary. They said nothing about it being sufficient.

Presumably, the implicit message the OP tried to get across is to also work within the system to improve it.

A person could reasonably believe it won't destroy humanity. Or that expensive energy could also destroy humanity.

Humanity is delicate. There are a lot of risks, and trade-offs in how to address them.

> What drivel.

Sagan says we're just a mote of dust. Jesus says throw no stones. Hate cannot drive out hate, MLK.

Humans evolved as carnivores, killing to survive. Bleaker still, the universe doesn't care when the tiny speck we live on boils away.

And here we are but for a brief moment. A tiny kindness goes a long way.

The parent poster was being pragmatic. They're going to die, just like the two of us.

Work to end the perceived problem instead of talking about it sanctimoniously. Because mimetic vitriol creates interference waves and drives us into factions. It accomplishes nothing and amplifies hate.

If no one or to few talk about the problem, the problem will not be solved either. So both is needed, the talk and the doing. That means the talk is legitimate as well.