Let Nature make the decision for us
Steve Keen revisits Meadows (1972) Limits to Growth and reposes their three decison alternatives:
All the evidence available to us, however, suggests that of the three alternatives—unrestricted growth, a self-imposed limitation to growth, or a nature-imposed limitation to growth—only the last two are actually possible. (Meadows, Randers et al. 1972, p. 168)
After ‘updating’ LTG scenario’s to recent developments he concludes that the world has more or less performed (since 1972) in accordance with LTG scenarios, and that the three decisions alternative are the same.
Today - fifty years on - there is no sign of mankind putting limits on the growth-machinery.
[The] likely outcome is that humanity in general and the powerful in particular will delay the decision to act, hoping instead that GDP can return to pre-Covid-19 growth rates, while ignoring the dependence of this growth rate on an increasing use of carbon-based energy that will accelerate Global Warming. We will, in effect, let Nature make the decision for us.
Wagner has similar cynism about the inevitable coming of risky solar geoengineering project - as humanity incapability to stop greenhouse gas emissions continues.
Fabre is more hopeful - that the pure scare of real geoengineering can eventually move more players towards high-mitigation ambitions.
That’s just of hope in a pressed situation. May be ‘Nature will decide for us’ means that we will get all of evils - first: unlimited emissions growth - second: solar geoengineering - third: as geoengineering risks realize - Nature decides (Collapse?)