Younger generations grew up on a message of climate change and it can be disconcerting to walk into a grocery store and find the entire produce department to be a geography lesson. This from Peru, that from Mexico, the other from Alaska, all flown and trucked in on a cold chain straight from some far-away monoculture farm.

If anything I suspect the increased supply chain insecurity (2020 through today) will help a lot of younger folks (unfortunately) develop an appreciation for the marvel of megamarts' supply chains.

Deglobalization of agriculture -- as a downstream result of trade policy, political instability, shifting weather patterns, or some combination thereof -- isn't exactly hard to imagine. Or even hypothetical! See: East Africa, right now: drought at home + major trading partner at war = starvation.

Looking at the shelves of a grocery store and thinking "the set of social and physical conditions required to make this possible might not be stable throughout my lifetime" is not "scolding". Hell, it's not even unreasonable, especially given that the very premise of the thread is that this is all quite new to begin with...

I think this is a big part of it. We were (and are) okay with teachers and children’s entertainment giving children strident, non nuanced messages thinking that they’d get the more complex picture later. That looks like a mistake.

Basically the older generation not taling responsibility, first for climate stuff, and then for raising "self righteous tiresome scolds".

I specifically said “where did we go wrong,” isn’t that taking responsibility?

That would be taking responsibility as a generation if the generation as a whole was asking that and taking steps to fix it. That doesn't seem to be the case, even if you as an individual are doing it. Just like me trying to not be self righteous won't change the fact that my generation is like this. At least all the generations seems to have people that have a sense of personal responsbility, that's good news.

I'm moderately young (36) and I consider myself an ecologist, not the one who buy the hat but the one who really care, and I fail to see solutions and even ecology in much of the so called "ecological moves"/Green Deal.

Entomophagy to my eyes is sold as ecological, but sound much more a way to industrialize even more the food production chain simply because we can't produce anything good from insects without a full-scale industry behind, while we can all raise chickens nearly everywhere in the world. Industrialization per se is not bad nor good, it might be one AND the other in various proportion, but so far food-production industrialization have created abundance bubbles and deep crisis vanishing most of the initial production stability it have given, so I highly doubt insisting in that direction can be of help at least IN THE ACTUAL TERMS.

I see proposal for fully-automated factory-farms and I've no doubt they can work BUT I doubt they can scale. They might be able to grow some veggies in Island and Chile, i.e. in unfriendly climatic conditions, they might do that with nearly local-only resources at least to sustain the production once the factory is built but the output is still far less than a classic "grandfather's garden" behind the house, in those areas of the world where it can exist witch are not so vast but also not so few... Now IF we push all of that because we think we are doomed and it's time to plan an artificial life in bubbles planning a migration to Mars in a century... Well... Ok, it's clear that such move can be done only by VERY FEW, probably so few that they can't reproduce with healthy children, even with genetic engineering help. If the target is "let us create some small artificial pseudo-paradise bubbles while most will feel the disaster in their own skin and only the most adaptive of them will survive allowing us few to be the new "élite" who holds scientific/industrial knowledge and survivors are just young and strong slaves to exploit... Again I doubt it can't work for more than few generations.

If the target is a mass civilization shift to really adapt as much as possible to climate change... Well, I see veeeery little sustainability in all modern "green" tech innovations.

I'm curious to see other outline-scenarios about the future to just try imaging how can they possibly work, in mere theory at a high sight.

Let's say we can push anyone in modern buildings (who need to be built, BTW) so the civil energy needs goes down much. Industry needed behind? Let's say in my new house (built few years ago with p.v. etc) I can sustain intermittent grid electricity services, I do not need gas to heat/cook. Good. What about my solar panels (made in China), inverters (made in Austria and India), batteries (China, perhaps with South-American or Russian lithium and some others raw materials)? How can be made in the new world? Who will be able to build them? Let's say I also buy an EV so I can go around with my own energy (for just few years, cfr battery lifetime), did the farmer can do the same? Maybe, I'm pretty convinced that agrivoltaic can made us erase tractors needs, but it's just an idea so far AFAIK, did the supply chain can do the same anyway? And so on.

Long story short: IF/when a day we will be able to build Star Trek alike ships/isolated environment that once built can self-repair and work for decades, we adapt to live in them, with no genetic issues due to a low variety of seeds etc well... We will/would have found a solution. But we are probably more than a century behind such tech. I see no really feasible recipe so far in little time and on scale. Not counting the fact that when things start to go bad people tend to be a bit upset so unrest and revolutions and wars happen and they are not exactly ideal to build something new, in the short time span they just consume and destroy and MOST on the from the history have no more plans than the short-term win.

Can't you see that the majority of people don't care? Leave us alone already.

This is the context in which that term is being used.