Korten says the former «leads further down the scorched Earth path we are currently on,» while the latter «leads to the path to a viable and
prosperous human future.»
Not exact matches
All of this is to say that the rapidity and enormity of changes humanly caused make it imperative for us to give close attention to the question of «alternative
futures» in order that we may have the best possible prospects of moving toward a tomorrow in which
human beings can at least survive, and, hopefully, live in a peaceful,
prosperous, joyful world.
Will we enter into the shining
future of a
prosperous, globalized world without borders, managed by experts and guided by the high ideals of
human rights?
This has always been the only serious risk and what must be avoided if the US and the developed world is to have a
prosperous future that will allow
humans to have access to the fossil fuel - generated energy needed for continued economic progress and improved
human welfare and if plants are to not to lose partial access to one of their basic nutrients (assumming CO2 emissions reductions have any real effects on atmospheric CO2 levels).
It's about options: what can
humans do to improve our chances of a reasonably
prosperous and secure
future?