About your second paragraph. Can you clarify? It's a little vague. If you're in doubt of either anthropogenic climate change or the seriousness with which we should take it, I'd appreciate your sharing the sound reasoning underpinning your perspective.

Or have I misunderstood, and you're simply expressing sanguine resignation to the inevitability of extinction events, on planetary timescales?

> They have done so multiple times in the past and will do so again multiple times in the future. Earth has a long storied history, we have been on it a brief fraction of that time.

Why do people repeat this platitude as if it is at all obviatory (or even relevant)?

In the language of the article:

> I wanted to believe in the limitlessness of resilience

>this is not the first time in history that glaciers are melting en masse worldwide. They have done so multiple times in the past and will do so again multiple times in the future. Earth has a long storied history, we have been on it a brief fraction of that time.

That's irrelevant, as the other times we weren't 8 billion of us, in a highly fragile, interconnected, civilization, with thousands of cities and hundreds of megacities, for the impact to be the same. Nor is the mechanism for the current issue (or the speed of it), as explained by scientists within the current consensus, the same as those times...

Not to mention a huge percentage of the population just died at those times too...

You either didn't get to the end of the article or really missed the author's entire point.

She doesn't remotely seek to conflate her brother's mental illness to climate change. She is simply juxtaposing a personal experience with her brother to a professional observation she has(and sources).

Moreover, you clearly didn't read the whole thing because your entire last paragraph is filled with points she made and addressed in relation to her thesis regarding memory, both ecologically and humanistically.