You’re absolutely right, that’s what needs to happen.
Good luck with that.
As soon as the no-kidding Star Wars invasion fleet shows up in Earth orbit humans will unite around their common humanity as a single family.
For about 5 minutes, then the aliens will disintegrate our planet. Just before* we split into 100 factions warring over how to best to surrender to, fight back against, or worship the aliens.
So we have that to look forward to. 
* Why just before? Because the aliens have seen this fractiousness on countless primitive planets. And they hate the sound of pointless whining and feuding.
I was watching Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy the other day, and wishing those Vogons would hurry.
I have a satchel with some salted peanuts, a large beach towel, a bottle of retsina, and a battered copy of the Guide. Does anyone know where I can pick up a used Babel fish?
Stranger
Sacrifice what? For who?
Should I put my family in poverty so some other jerk can live a slightly better lifestyle? Or worse, some abstract “future people”?
Figure out how to reduce the footprint of 8 billion people. That’s the real problem.
In practice the answers are “everything” and “for the rich”. The bulk of the population has for decades been lectured to about the need for sacrifice in various forms, while the wealthy and the corporations indulge in extravagant waste that makes any such efforts pointless. Just look at the massive energy usage of bitcoin mining and “AI”, for example. No amount of buying low wattage light bulbs by the general public will make up for that.
A defeat is also an ending. One way or another, everyone involved knew that the war would be over at some point.
And there you have it folks. The entire false rationale in one surly sentence.
Break it down:
- I will live in poverty if I give up anything at all.
- People I don’t know deserve nothing from me because they are ‘jerks’.
- It’s just ‘a slightly better lifestyle’, not feeding the starving, clothing the naked, etc. They are not suffering, indeed there is no undeserved suffering.
This grotesque angry selfishness is why there is no how to. You can’t make people have less ugly hearts by force. We did very well with it as long as people agreed that there was enough to go around and that it was good to have organized distributions to places that needed it (this we once called ‘government’). But as soon as there was any perception of scarcity, the worst, most loathsome and violent beliefs woke again.
And the flip side of that is that I shouldn’t enjoy any luxuries or a higher standard of living because somewhere in the world someone is poor?
Call me when you are ready to live without electricity and running water.
Yeah, news flash. People suck! And you want me to sacrifice for those a-holes? 
It really depends on what you call ‘luxuries’.
No outside electricity is only moderately difficult, but the Amish for example manage just fine. I have too, in the past. “Running water” may mean “indoor plumbing” to you, but it doesn’t to me. Everyone on earth has access to water. The house I’m living in didn’t have indoor plumbing until the 1940’s, and was continuously inhabited for a couple hundred years without issue. We have an excellent spring, and would be fine without indoor plumbing; it’s just inconvenient. Electricity is convenient, not an absolute requirement for a comfortable life. But that icy conscienceless heart of yours, that’s a bigger problem than any inconvenience could ever be.
What is the “greater good” in your mind? That 8 billion people get to enjoy a Western standard of living or that everyone collectively lowers their standard of living to more sustainable levels of resource usage?
I live in a metro area of 20 million people across 6000 square miles. We all can just run down to the Hudson River to fetch a pail or water or dump our shit. Even if we wanted to revery back to an 1800s lifestyle (which no one does), it still wouldn’t work for all those people. The only reason we can support 8 billion people at all is because of modern electrical grids, water systems, manufacturing, chemical plants, and so on.
Alll I can say is, one, there is no sustainable way to support 8 billion people on this planet, but there are certainly unsustainable ways, which we are presently engaged in.
There are, however, a myriad of ways to make human life both more equitable and more sustainable than it is right now. A big part of the problem is the wastefulness and panicked greediness of those enjoying a much larger share of resources than most. Even though some fairly simple lifestyle changes would be of great benefit, most people seem to feel that giving up anything is tantamount to giving up everything.
The question is legitimate.
This is not true.
In 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated that 2 billion people worldwide lack access to clean water.
I didn’t say it was safe water.
Sorry man, but I’m having trouble following your convoluted logic. But it is the sort of thinking that drives people away from liberal politics.
It might also help if you have a bit more understanding of economics. Economics is just the study of money or how rich people get rich. It’s about structuring societies to turn raw materials into the products and services to meet the wants and needs of the people living in it. The way you get humanity to “sacrifice for the greater good” is to structure economic systems that incentivise for the greater good and capture actual costs associated with detracting from the greater good. For example, there is often no economic cost in dumping your shit into the local river.
The problem is when push comes to shove, it’s very hard to cordon off resources like rainforests or oil reserves and say “we can’t touch these” because when other sources become too expensive or inconvenient, the incentives become too high to not develop them.
People are largely stupid and selfish and as COVID shows, they won’t even change their behavior when it costs nothing to do so (like wear masks). My sense is that people are no longer looking to build wealth to solve world problems but so they can avoid them.
The Holocene Extinction Event (Earth’s Sixth mass extinction) is already underway and could last hundreds of thousands of years. If nothing’s done to curb it, this crisis could even surpass the destruction caused by the Chicxulub asteroid impact (Earth’s 5th mass extinction), potentially wiping out countless species—including humans. Cockroaches, however, will likely survive.
Humans may not be willing to make drastic changes in lifestyle in order to improve the lives of far future generations, but may be willing to make moderate changes now in order to slow the extinction progression and prevent the catastrophic weather events we currently face.
The first and most urgent step in preventing mass extinction is slowing the current rate of biodiversity loss. This won’t be easy—it’ll require widespread systemic change and personal sacrifices—but it is still within reach, provided enough people commit to the effort. Convincing the masses won’t be simple, but it’s not impossible, especially when the stakes are clear: mitigating the worst effects of climate change now and ensuring the survival of future generations.
While many individuals are already taking action, personal efforts alone won’t be enough. Governments must intervene decisively, reinforcing sustainable practices with stronger policies and stricter penalties for those who refuse to adapt. Consequences could range from higher taxes on environmentally harmful activities to prison sentences for the most egregious violations.
As sustainable living becomes the norm over time, enforcing even stricter policies will become more feasible—not only to halt extinctions but to actively reverse environmental damage. Each generation will face new challenges, but gradual adaptation could buy humanity—and countless other species—the time necessary to avoid the worst consequences of the Sixth Mass Extinction.
Successive generations will face stricter lifestyle restrictions, but since the changes are incremental over time, they should be endurable.
Initiatives to Slow Global Warming Now:
Transition to Renewable Energy – Governments and corporations must accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels, expanding solar, wind, and hydroelectric power while phasing out coal and natural gas.
Reforestation – Restoring forests and protecting existing ecosystems help absorb carbon dioxide while preserving biodiversity.
Stronger Regulations on Industrial Pollution – Enforcing stricter emissions limits on factories, transportation, and agriculture can significantly cut greenhouse gas output.
Sustainable Agriculture – Reducing deforestation for livestock, cutting methane emissions from agriculture, and promoting plant-based diets can lessen the environmental impact of food production.
Urban Planning – Expanding public transportation, creating walkable cities, and investing in green infrastructure can reduce reliance on cars and lower overall emissions.
Carbon Pricing and Taxation – Implementing carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs can incentivize businesses and individuals to adopt greener practices.
Corporate Accountability – Governments and consumers must hold corporations responsible for unsustainable practices while encouraging investment in clean energy and ethical supply chains.
Public Awareness and Education – Spreading knowledge about climate change and sustainable living is essential for fostering long-term commitment to environmental protection. Keep broadcasting Carl Sagan’s senate hearing testimony, for one thing.
These initiatives won’t just slow global warming—they could help reshape economies, create jobs, and build a more resilient future. By acting now, we can still alter the trajectory of this crisis and secure a livable planet for many generations to come.
I have doubts we humans are willing to to take even these incremental changes in lifestyle to heart. But, with consequences so dire, I’ll remain optimistic. How do we get humanity to sacrifice for the greater good? By giving them something tangible in return.
This is far too hard to demonstrate to the irretrievably stupid and shortsighted, which make up the majority of the electorate, apparently. But I agree with everything you said.
The Ancient Mariner said it best "Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink”
Though people are drinking it. Or else they’d be dead.
Some boil it. Others drink it and get sick, Other do die- about a million a year.