There are plenty of examples of technological advances that in one fell swoop entirely eliminate a class of societal problems. Haber-Bosch, for example, completely eliminated famine as a barrier to world populations growth. Penicillin and vaccines eliminated entire categories of terminal disease.
We don’t NEED to reduce emissions. So long as we clean up as much or more than we pollute, what’s the problem?
Those are poor, poor examples; but before examining them - I can simply refer you to my previous comment. You are doing exactly the three things I caution against: Attempting to divert the discussion, confusing prospective futures with reality, and reinforcing a supposed dichotomy.
As for the examples:
* For every example of a technological advance that eliminated a class of societal problems, there are five examples of advances which didn't, and untold examples of advances which just never happened (or never happened the way they were expected to). Where is our transmutation of led to gold? Airships? Or Dennard scaling for that matter? No use writing efficient software, our computers will just get faster and it'll be fine.
> Haber-Bosch, for example, completely eliminated famine as a barrier to world populations growth.
And we (= humans) now have to work hard, and suffer through all sorts of problems, to establish barriers to population growth, and to cope with the resource use pressure of the huge population on the Earth.
Not to mention -
* Famines are alive as well.
* Massive energy requirement; and once the population is up - you can't just give this agriculture-industrial choice and let people starve.
* More industrialized economies able to produce a lot more than less-industrialized/poorer economies and areas, exacerbating all sorts of power dynamics, e.g. agricultural "dumping" and mass destitution of peasants who become unable to compete, without a transition having been planned.
* Some detrimental environmental effects.
That's not to say this process shouldn't be used - it's just that it's not a panacea.
> Penicillin and vaccines eliminated entire categories of terminal disease.
They did not. They reduced the fatality rates significantly, for a long period of time - which, apparently, may be drawing to an end over the next few decades:
I don’t think I can continue this conversation in good faith. I hope someday you can see the intrinsic evil of the world view in which more people = bad.
We don’t NEED to reduce emissions. So long as we clean up as much or more than we pollute, what’s the problem?