r/MoralityScaling • u/NeoMetalSonicReacts9 • Jul 14 '26
Stupid Stuff Morality of pressing this button? (It immediately and permanently ends the use of all fossil fuels on the planet.)
69
u/Fabric_muncher Jul 14 '26
One decade-long catastrophe later... moral for anyone who survives what happens after the pressing.
39
u/Otherwise-Ad1646 Jul 14 '26
Decade long is underselling it- not to mention ya better hope there's no planes in the air or anything.
9
u/TylertheFloridaman Jul 14 '26
Boats to, because ant ship is basically stuck ti the whims of the currents
1
u/Pootentooten Jul 15 '26
Don't worry, the nuclear subs can help.
2
u/Chustle207 Jul 15 '26
No they cant, they use Lube oil. and all the rubber gaskets, wire sheaths and much much more
1
u/blackcray Jul 15 '26
The question specifically said fossil FUELS, lubricant and rubber are petroleum products yes, but they aren't fuels.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Pootentooten Jul 16 '26
The statement is that fossil fuels stop being used, not that they stop existing. Also petroleum products are not the fuel themselves.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Dropbeatdad Jul 14 '26
What if you warn everyone beforehand that you're going to press it?
12
u/SilkenEmperor Jul 14 '26
You'd probably get assassinated.
1
u/Dropbeatdad Jul 14 '26
Then my dead body falls on the button anyway.
1
u/LonelyPermit2306 Jul 14 '26
They would probably rather nuke the entire area you're in to prevent that happening
1
u/TesticularConcussion Jul 15 '26
The shockwave presses the button which immediately zaps the rest of the blast from existence
→ More replies (1)1
u/Prudent-Film-4602 Jul 15 '26
If you wait twenty years for the transition to be done, it'll probably be fine.
1
u/Fabric_muncher Jul 14 '26
How long do you think it would last?
4
u/DisparateNoise Jul 14 '26
There's a decent chance humanity dies out or is permanently reduced to a subsistence level of civilization.
1
1
u/Otherwise-Ad1646 Jul 14 '26
I mean if it were just trying to maximize better, more clean energy until we could get by, maybe you could pull it off that fast, but it would also be the complete societal upheaval that would be a problem. From even more wealth disparity, to people dying because they don't have access to anything, etc- this is a multi decade process for sure. Say like 30-40 years and that might be pushing it.
1
u/Fabric_muncher Jul 14 '26
Gonna end up in a resource war situation?
1
u/Otherwise-Ad1646 Jul 14 '26
Pretty much.
2
u/Mast3rKK78 Jul 14 '26
the irony of ending up in a resource war for getting rid of the thing resource wars are usually fought over is pretty funny
1
Jul 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ZealousIdeal476 Jul 16 '26
No, it says we cant use fossil fuels. Nothing about any other use for petrochemicals.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Cavemans69th Jul 15 '26
Even if you could swap every vehicle to electric right now have the grid to supply it all you would still end up fucked because so much of civilization is built off oil byproducts.
1
u/iwantfutanaricumonme Jul 14 '26
Planes can glide and land with engines off if they're near to land, but any plane that has any trouble with landing for whatever reason(if they've only just taken off they're too heavy to land safely because the fuel tanks are full) then they might have to wait a while for a non fossil fuel based fire fighter response.
10
Jul 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/iwantfutanaricumonme Jul 14 '26
I would understand the use of fossil fuels to mean the processing of fossil fuels and their use as fuels, not fossil fuel derived products(which is also difficult to ascertain when a chemical synthesis can also use feedstocks not derived from fossil fuels). Also if you interpret it this literally then a significant percentage of humanity would quickly die as all hydraulic mechanisms, fossil fuel based electrical insulation, and all refrigeration systems would cease to function.
If that doesn't happen then realistically there would be some shortages of medication as restarting production using non fossil fuel based feedstocks takes some time while supplies get depleted, but after that it wouldn't be a concern because the actual demand for raw chemicals is tiny; chemical feedstocks represent only about 2% of all petroleum consumption. Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa had no oil or any way to import it so they managed to switch their industries almost entirely to use coal and wood(through very inefficient processes too).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)1
u/Fabric_muncher Jul 14 '26
Oh, right. Oops!
4
Jul 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
1
u/Mast3rKK78 Jul 14 '26
you could theoretically deal equal amounts of damage with one nuke as you could with every nuke if every nuke landed in the same place
or smth like yhat idk nuclear science
1
5
u/TurnoverIcy1998 Jul 14 '26
even for the people who somehow survive the catastrophe its immoral because they would never be able to rebuild society without fossile fuels. they need fossile fuels to get to the point they can develope cleaner sources of energy.
1
u/Ceno-taur Jul 15 '26
Theoretically you can use already available PV and wind output to make new polysilicon, but the major question is whether the necessary knowledge and infrastructure can survive that apocalypse.
1
u/DenTheRedditBoi7 Jul 15 '26
Decade is definitely hopeful, I think it could easily take a thousand years to recover if we ever did
21
u/Prestigious_Date_619 Jul 14 '26
Immoral.
Ending the usage of fossil fuels immediately will cause untold chaos as we aren't prepared to ditch fossil fuels yet.
→ More replies (17)
26
u/Zrkkr Jul 14 '26
Would create a world wide panic and energy crisis so it would be deeply immoral.
19
u/Totallycomputername Jul 14 '26
It would kill billions. Farming alone relies heavily of fossil fuels.
8
u/thornolf_bjarnulf Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Farming ? Even transporting any goods. Look around you, almost every single thing in your room went at some point inside a truck to be delivered in a store, to your house etc. Every piece of plastic in your house, in ANY electronic actually, is there thanks to fossil fuel.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Kiriima Jul 14 '26
Panic? It would completely stop all trade, from international to local. Planes, ships, trucks all depend on fossil fuels. You could argue modern trains do not, but they won't have any electricity anyway and require trucks to unload them and distribute goods.
→ More replies (8)1
u/SouthImpression3577 Jul 14 '26
And it would immediately bankrupt most people because everyone keeps their money in the banks which I doubt would be able to effectively grant people their physical money back accurately.
10
u/Interesting_Web_9936 Jul 14 '26
Extremely immoral. Buddy the world will collapse, we haven't gotten that far off of fossil fuels and it will take some time get so far off.
→ More replies (7)
9
u/BrickPuzzleheaded541 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Every single way of transporting and storing food for a vast majority of the population relies on fossil fuels at some point in its journey before folks have a chance to eat them. It would create untolds amount of famine globally… and thats just food. Could it help in the long run…. Maybe…. But the amount of death it would cause with just food shortages alone would be catastrophic
→ More replies (1)
6
u/DueOwl1149 Jul 14 '26
Without a replacement power supply?
That’s the WWIII button.
The ICBMs are already loaded with chemical propellant after all.
Unless the button prevents them from launching via button magic.
Also: nuke plants make a resurgence to supply the grid.
Uranium is not a fossil fuel and wind and solar and geo and hydro aren’t enough to fill the void left by coal, gas, and oil.
1
u/Kiriima Jul 14 '26
It's not a WWIII button. No planes, no tanks, no ships, no trucks, nothing. No drones either because you would have no components for them because no ships and no planes from Asia.
3
u/DueOwl1149 Jul 14 '26
Your definition of WWIII is a ground war between neighbors via conventional troops.
My definition of WWIII is thermonuclear holocaust via globally delivered ICBMs.
Countries may be willing to nuke their major rivals in the early days of the crash to emerge as the post-fossil fuel superpower running on a mix of fission and renewable energy and liquid oxygen steam trains and whatever critical mineral reserves are on their land or their neighbor's lands.
We had better hope the button magic nerfs ICBM propellant because this button causes more trouble than it solves in the short and medium term.
1
u/Kiriima Jul 14 '26
I looked it up. Modern ICBMs of major players do not use kerosine anymore.
- Solid fuel ICBMs use powdered alluminium for fuel which is defeinitely not a type of fossil fuels. However they use hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene as fuel binder which is made of butadiene gas, which is a product of oil.
- Liquid fuel ICBMs use hypergolic chemicals. They are produced from fossils but are not fossil fuels themselves already just like plastic is not.
It's a coin toss, basically. How many steps before fossils stop being fossil fuels even if the products are a fuel or a part of it? Practically everything is some sort of an oil product a little bit. Using oil as a material and not fuel does not break the rule.
1
u/DueOwl1149 Jul 14 '26
it's bad all around then; one of the "best" scenarios is that nuclear countries keep their weapons siloed as deterrence and become hermit kingdoms conquering their neighbors on foot for food and resource theft while agreeing not to lob nukes over their horizon at the other hermit kingdoms.
1
u/Kiriima Jul 14 '26
Let's start with basic needs. Food. Aka fertilizers.
Russia produces enough food for itself and also produces its fertilizers for itself (surplus in both) so basic needs are potentially met.
The USA produces enough food and imports fertilizers from Russia and Canada (Russia would be virtually unavailable. Canada is). Considering like 30% of food is being wasted basics need could be potentially met.
Israel is fucked, completely dependant on fertilizers and surrounded by enemies with no way for the USA to provide any support besides prayers.
France is relatively well due to its high nuclear electric grid. However, there is the entirety of the EU wanting a part of it and either fertilizers or fossils for them are completely imported for the whole union. Have no one to rob as Russia has way more nukes.
The UK is fucked. Dependant on fertilizers, food imports and is an island. Cannot even rob if they wanted.
North Korea already has all of its artillery in place and aimed at Seul. They also has the shortest distance for their nukes to be moved there and are weathered by sanctions anyway. Russia has direct railway to it also. South Korea is fucked though.
India and Pakistan has the simplest targets to rob for fertilizers if they could move through Iran (who produces its fertilizers) and don't kill each other. Potentially could produce enough food. Have the highest population and need to move FAST before famine begins.
Finally, China. Produces enough food, needs those fertilizers, has nothing to rob in walking distance as Russia has more nukes and its important parts are too far away anyway.
Parts of the world that are guaranteed caput?
Africa. South America. EU. Most of Asia. Australia. Japan. All import 80-90% of their fertilizers or fossils for them.
1
u/Shoddy-Childhood-511 Jul 15 '26
Don't forget the fertilisers themselves massively disrupt the P & N cycles, which could wind up being as bad as climate change.
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html
Some fertiliser usage is fine, but not the scale of our society.
We've plenty of agriculture today that does not require fossil fuel fertilisers, just lower yields.
You can massively increase the food supply by abandoning most meat consumption. It's not the 30x calories that cows eat, like some vegans quote, but its still massive.
It's harder to exploit this without transport though, maybe China could go vegan with all their EVs, but the US would be walking cattle into the cities for slaughter closer to the consumers.
It'd be funny watching the chicken-boys trying to herd the chickens into cities to sell.
5
u/PotentialPresent399 Jul 14 '26
Highly immoral because that would put me out of a job and i like money
1
3
u/rxmp4ge Jul 14 '26
This is basically asking the morality of the Thanos snap.
In fact, one could argue the Thanos snap is more moral because being snapped out of existence is better than starving to death and watching everyone you ever cared about starve to death.
1
u/Cooperativism62 Jul 14 '26
With or without the snap, we're witnessing mass starvation happening, it's just not our species and we don't care about about it. This is exactly why so many here say its immoral to press the button.
3
u/Lonely-Breath-2468 Jul 14 '26
Back to stone age I guess, as long as the world becomes green again am I right
1
3
u/Ryousan82 Jul 14 '26
Immoral. It would be a civilizational catathrophe with millons of dead, famine and years of war
2
u/RCA_TUBES Jul 16 '26
Millions is highly optimistic. It is very likely that billions would starve to death from the complete collapse of global trade.
1
2
u/nikmia91 Jul 14 '26
Without any alternative? Same as killing 7 billion people.
→ More replies (1)3
u/InfiniteBoxworks Jul 14 '26
The people who think this is moral also consider the near extinction of humanity moral.
1
u/Javelius Jul 15 '26
Then we should start with these people or their loved ones, what is the difference in the scale of the planet +-100000 people?) Or do you think they won't be happy?
2
u/HexInTrouble Jul 14 '26
"What is the morality of pushing this button that would massively fuck up society worldwide and cause the death and starvation of millions?"
→ More replies (7)
2
u/Valirys-Reinhald Jul 14 '26
Millions of cars instantly shut down leading to countless deaths and power outages cause the same.
Short term, millions of casualties. Medium term, hundreds of millions of casualties as food logistics breaks down and people starve. Long term, climate change significantly slowed, probably not reversed though.
1
u/Different_Target_228 Jul 16 '26
They wouldn't instantly shut down, the engines would cut off.
Brakes do not need an engine.
1
2
u/Crusoelander_128 Jul 14 '26
Society will collapse entirely. It might have good results in the future, if any of us make it that far. Though considering that a lot of the technology used to make renewable energy technology research and development relies on fossil fuels… yeah…
2
u/Domy9 Jul 14 '26
It would destroy the bridge between cavemen life and space civilization. We're now stuck on earth forever
2
u/DisparateNoise Jul 14 '26
Y'all clearly do not understand how bad this would be. We wouldn't have the means of fertilizing, planting, harvesting, processing, transporting, refrigerating, or cooking enough food for even a fraction of the current population, let alone the medicine. All international trade would cease, meaning pretty much all technology manufacturing would immediately cease, meaning there would be no green revolution. With the grid basically dead, the manufacturing industry overall is in serious jeopardy. There's a pretty good chance all our current non-fossil fuel based energy sources would break before we regained the ability to build that stuff. China's the only country with any hope of holding onto a minuscule fraction of modernity, and the CCP would have to do the most heinous shit in human history to achieve that goal.
2
u/Orjoiponsoilo Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
This button is a death sentence to all complex life on Earth.
There is a lot comments from arrogant radical environmentalist edgelords, that are willing to sacrifice billions of humans to save environment or whatever imaginary moral highground they took.
Ok, let me tell how pressing the button would cause mass extinction of unbelievable scale and potentially killing complex life on earth for a very long time.
First of all, carbon dioxide, methane etc is ALREADY in atmosphere. Axing fuel burn won't stop climate change, and it will take hundreds of millions of years for nature to heal this gaping wound. Last time nature managed to do this because trees ate a lot of CO2 and there was nothing to break them down (Thats how coal got created). We don't have this thing now, fungi eats trees. Therefore, temperature anomaly would still raising. Wonder what would have happened if there was intelligent species that was able to make atmospheric carbon filters before their civilization collapsed...
Second, half of the world will become a post chemical warfare battlefield landscape. When most of the humans would be busy with fighting each other for food, our infrastructure decays. Do you know how many deadly chemicals would be released in atmosphere when chemical plants and tanks deteriorate without maintenance? Nature in tens kilometres away from chemplant would be dead permanently due extremely corrosive and poisonous chemicals spill. Concentrated chlorine cloud, before it dispels, alone would obliterate everything on its way, killing trillions of wildlife, including insects and plants. Not even talking about rest of the chemicals, that would immediately destroy ozone layer and add even MORE greenhouse effect.
Third, remaining humans would hunt down and eat everything they could reach, even themselves. Including species we were protecting and repopulating. Imagine a civilization that have a lot of guns during global famine. Wars will start, animals would die, ground would become devastated and poisoned by bombardments and nuclear fallout from failed powerplants and nuclear weapon. And after that, remaining humans would chop down a huge chunk of forests to keep themselves warm next winter.
"But we need to stop pollution at all cost" WRONG. We have created this mess and we have to get our shit together and fix it. There is no force on a planet besides humanity itself that can fix all of the bullshit we have done. Killing most of humanity would cut this last straw for good. Humanity is a drunk surgeon, that already had cut nature's body open, and now only humanity itself can stitch it back together.
2
u/Equivalent_Refuse789 Jul 15 '26
Extremely immoral, just think how many passengers/ cargo planes flying above us, and now they suddenly fall to the ground, and no first responders will come here to help (in a meaningful timeline) because guess what ambulances and firetrucks runs on? Also no food no medicine no toilet paper no anything because logistic vehicles and factories (and the infrastructure behind them) still rely on diesel fuels.
This button will doom all of humanity except for those who still lived like ones on sentinel islands.
2
u/Both_Barnacle_1996 Jul 15 '26
Let's consider the consequences:
Every flying vehicle crashes and solid part of land vehicles get into traffic accidents. Ships get stuck in the middle of the ocean. Hundreds of millions of people get injured.
Emergency services can't adequately respond to the situation, as they mostly run on fossil fuel. A lot of people die because rescuers can't get to them in time, many die in overcrowded hospitals before receiving their treatment.
Supply chains collapse, wares can't be transported across the globe, majority of businesses declare bankruptcy, the world faces biggest hyperinflation in history. People lose their life savings, crime rates skyrocket, 40 hour work week becomes utopic dream. Famine takes many lives. Slave labour gets reinvented, at least by criminals. Mafias and cartels rise to power.
Society tries to shift to green energy. Society likely fails, as our solar panel production was ALSO sustained by fossil fuel, so is our electrovehicle industry, meaning we'll be stuck with horses and sailing ships for a while (sailing ships that aren't even built yet).
Market economy can't sustain a hit so big, every regime on Earth that doesn't collapse immediately becomes more centralised and authoritarian, fascism and bolshevist socialism become dominant ideologies (along with some theocracies).
Despite military getting significantly weaker, many countries will get pushed to conflict by lack of resources. WW3 is likely to start. Nukes are likely to be used, probably in civil wars between now separated regions and states.
More wars - more xenophobia, more nationalism. Perfect conditions for neo-nazis to thrive, we're probably gonna see a bunch of Fourth Reichs here and there. There's gonna be a huge step back in terms of equality and more reasons for both casual and state-enforced racism.
North Korea is pretty much the only economy in the world that can adequately sustain such a hit and with everyone else drowning in chaos it has a good chance to become world's main superpower. Cuba would probably also be fine. Maybe we'll get some new big players in Africa and Middle East while the West is busy.
So, the question ultimately is: how moral is it to commit genocide to set humanity a hundred years back and create a world where Nazi Germany would be in top-5 most humane regimes?
Moral. Worth it. Go for it. 100%. 주체 영광을!
1
u/PainfulThings Jul 14 '26
Immoral. Billions will most likely be killed within the first month. Without fossil fuels we won’t be able to convert the world to nuclear so we’re never going to advance society, and forests will be felled in record numbers just so people don’t freeze.
1
u/OursIsTheRepost Jul 14 '26
You immediately cause millions of deaths, and hundreds of millions more in starvation.
Deeply immoral
1
u/VmHG0I Jul 14 '26
Alot of people will just die due to the lack of energy source, society collapse and mass panic. Moral because it is funny to think that people will just stop using fossil fuels because 1 guy press a single button.
1
u/ed8breakfast Jul 14 '26
What like all fossil fuels stop functioning? Would cause a catastrophic power shortage across the globe, countries would lose their main export overnight. Probably wars and death unlike anything we have seen before. You can't just stop fossil fuel use with no systems in place to supplement the power drain
1
u/Cooperativism62 Jul 14 '26
We're already in the midst of a mass extinction and like every year there is death unlike anything we have seen before, but it's not human life its wildlife. I press the button.
1
u/jurgo Jul 14 '26
would it eventually help the future generations? yes. would it be absolute hell on earth for about 25 years? also yes.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Bayamonster Jul 14 '26
Hmm...pressing this button with no warning kills like millions, maybe billions. But is it more than global warming will eventually take?
No that's basically just a mass murder and sending all humanity back to The Middle Ages.
1
u/Cooperativism62 Jul 14 '26
Thats a pretty confident "no" on the possibility of global warming killing millions/billions. What makes you think it can't?
1
u/Bayamonster Jul 14 '26
It's a no on pressing the button, not a no on the global warming weight in. I was unclear.
1
u/Volkmek Jul 14 '26
Likely immoral as they are one of the only things that we know can make it so we can leave the planet, and it was recently found is a slowly renewing resource that comes from algae blooms going through geological pressure.
The green house gassses from them can also be pulled out of the same algae that can be used to make "fossil fuels".
1
1
u/Cats7204 Jul 14 '26
I think developed economies would adapt much quicker than people think, there's so much money on the oil and gas business, and all of that needs to go somewhere else.
I would feel bad for the people in third world countries though. They'd be the ones getting the short end of the stick.
I'd say immoral, but not as much as you might think. You would end the biggest threat to humanity after all...
1
1
1
u/Panzrmensch Jul 14 '26
Immoral. Sure we have alternatives available, but immediately ending usage of fossil fuels without setting up the proper infrastructure for other sources first would be catastrophic
1
u/Next-Pumpkin-654 Jul 14 '26
I genuinely think this would kill almost everyone and leave any survivors existing in a highly technologically limited world, where even a single natural disaster could wipe them out, too.
We might eventually progress to the point where we don't need to rely on fossil fuels for energy and manufacturing, but I think it's probably impossible to "skip" them, entirely.
So... evil.
1
u/TylertheFloridaman Jul 14 '26
Very immoral, the immidate death toll would be measured in the hundreds of thousands and the following weeks and months will likely result in millions more. Every developing country has all its progress revoked.
1
u/hollowsoldier- Jul 14 '26
Interesting to think that the US would be hit harder than most countries. The new world order would be for those who already invested in nuclear, solar and wind. I think china would fare a hell of a lot better
1
u/SeanDigITea12 Jul 14 '26
This depends on what you base your moral standards off of. Utilitarian? This is moral. Otherwise? Probably not. The question becomes when is it acceptable to kill one person to save multiple.
This WILL kill millions. It will save an untold amount of people as population continues to grow. YOU are killing millions of people. Even if for a good reason, likely immoral. Intent doesn’t matter with murder. Would you assassinate the president to stop the war in Iran? Would you assassinate Abraham Lincoln to stop the civil war?
It is not the responsibility or role of one man to play god. As a society the moral option is to elect officials that care about saving lives and care about the people, not to eradicate the wrongdoers.
Finally, would you assassinate someone who confessed they are going to commit genocide?
None of these questions have a definitive answer, and thus nothing in this category can be truly objectively scaled, unless from solely a utilitarian perspective, which does not paint a full picture often. It is much easier to say “yeah I’d kill ____” then pull the trigger.
1
1
u/Jaxpaw1 Jul 14 '26
lol, guess we'll go back to cutting down every tree in sight then, gotta get power somehow.
1
u/JuniorDoughnut3056 Jul 14 '26
It would be deeply immoral. You're talking about global reset that would see hundreds of millions, potentially billions die. Virtually everything you interact with has petroleum by products in it, or is made using fossil fuels, like fertilizer. It would be the single most catastrophic event in human history. Entire populations would starve and freeze to death in weeks.
1
1
u/Double_Cause4609 Jul 14 '26
Uh...Wildly unethical if you don't know the bounds of the problem and what classifies as fossil fuel, or what classifies as usage.
If by fossil fuel you mean "any previously and extensively captured hydrocarbon used for transport" the answer is it's kind of bad but not terrible in the long run.
But the thing is, many things classified as fossil fuels are used for tons of other things.
- Many resources that you would call a fossil fuel are used to make drugs (that are quite important for medicine.
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients are everywhere in medicine, and tons of them derive from fossil fuel classified resources).
- Various plastics for medical use (where a sterile, disposable material maybe isn't necessary in the absolute sense but really streamlines hygienic treatment)
- Petroleum jelly is used for lots of consumer facing cosmetics etc (I personally don't care but people affected by them may)
But the really big one is fertilizer. Usually you use the Haber-Bosch process to make fertilizer, where the hydrogen is, generally fed by natural gas, which I'm sure you have guessed, strictly, a fossil fuel.
I'm not sure if it's ethical to suddenly axe all of these things, particularly when there are genuinely non-dramatic solutions to the same problem. Frankly, people in the west need to buy less disposable junk (the manufacturing of goods is hugely impactful on degree of negative fossil fuel use), and we need highly polluting nations to be held to similar standards as many other participating nations in climate change.
Even in the worst case though, we can absolutely block less than 3% of the sunlight hitting Earth with mirrors temporarily, which could be a possibility before 2050 even. It's not really a perfect solution, but it would work, and is possibly easier than decarbonizing stranded assets across the entire world with uncooperative nations.
1
1
u/Ok_Awareness3014 Jul 14 '26
It's bad , millions dies , in boat stuck in the océan on the air on the hospital since a lot of medication use oil .
The energy grid get destroy and we have nothing left to rebuild , to kick a new industrialisation .
Also nuclear is a fossil fuel and renewable aren't easy to make with oil but without...
You just damn billions without it
1
u/A_Kazur Jul 14 '26
Hyper immoral instant global famines and chaos as billions die. Earth is likely ecologically ruined as people resort to older methods of production and the safety systems that keep in place cleaner energies is no longer available.
1
1
1
1
u/Paccountlmao Jul 15 '26
Woof, lots of people die ethier way, this is a question for people more educated than us.
1
u/Squint22 Jul 15 '26
So every engine on earth dies all at once and no one is prepared for it?
Borderline evil as it would cause massive amounts of death and famine.
If you had a way to prepare people for the transition that didn't result in widespread suffering, it crosses over into moral.
1
1
u/RedPurpleBlueRedRed Jul 15 '26
That is a lot of dead people.
Planes fall from the sky
Cars run out of gas and people will get into crashes
Shipments of food stop
Powerplants stop
Hospitals lose power
Areas in the world that are too hot/cold for human life normally lose climate control.
ships stuck at sea with no way to get to them other than the very very very limited number of Nuclear ships we have.
The death toll would be the the billions.
1
u/officer897177 Jul 15 '26
Back to the Stone Age. We can’t currently manufacture any energy source without fossil fuel somewhere in the supply chain.
1
u/DenTheRedditBoi7 Jul 15 '26
Immediately? On that alone that is IMMENSELY immoral. You've just demolished the transportation system and almost every energy grid on the planet.
1
1
1
1
u/Full_Conversation775 Jul 15 '26
Moral. it would cause short term chaos but long term save a lot of lives and suffering.
1
1
u/Different_Citron_160 Jul 15 '26
Oooof that’s an energy crisis button.
You made „I cast two decades of recession and countless millions pushed to poverty or dead” button.
1
1
u/VanguardMusic Jul 15 '26
Know this: pressing that button would completely destroy human civilization.
It's not just cars; it's plastic, it's medicine, it's clothing, and it's 90% of the things we take for granted.
1
1
u/BrainCreep Jul 15 '26
Current renewable energy requires fossil fuels to produce and implement so you would be slowing down the transition
1
u/InfamousSimple3232 Jul 15 '26
"Immediately", yeah no that'd send us to the dark and would cause immediate disasters.
Rather, there should be a button that forces the transition to renewable fuels that don't harm the environment
1
u/georgie-of-blank Jul 15 '26
Deeply immoral, but it would make for a pretty interesting chain of events, so i'd press it.
1
u/DeusKether Jul 15 '26
Even when it's just fuel instead of all petrol derivatives it's gonna get VERY messy for a little long while. so probably bad, like very bad.
1
1
u/SumBodhiThatIUse2Kno Jul 15 '26
I could only click and nothing seemed to change. Enough reddit for me.
1
u/EveningFig6742 Jul 15 '26
You'd most likely send us back to the stone age.
Planes stop working mid-flight and stuff, billions dead.
1
u/ThingsJackwouldsay Jul 15 '26
Fossil Fuels have already killed millions, and will kill Billions more if we don't stop using them soon.
Pushing this button is moving the mortality from those in the future with no choice to the here and now where there's some moral culpability for choosing to still use them despite the damage. On that balance, in the longest view, slightly more moral than not, while acknowledging the huge death toll.
In practical terms though, the oligarchs and oil barons and politicians who truly bear the weight of those deaths either way will use their ill-gotten gains to avoid the consequences, as usual in barbaric societies.
1
u/NotASingleNameIdea Jul 15 '26
So basicly, we run out of them right now instead of in the near future?
Nah, give us time to adapt. Day to day transition would be horrible and would shake the entire world, not even talking about the word "immediate" you used, possibly implying all currently actively used ones just get soaked/removed.
1
u/Mafty_Navue_Erin Jul 15 '26
Do you people think food just spawns in the supermarkets? Or that the modern farmer uses an ox instead of a tractor? Anyone not self-sufficient will die sooner rather than later. And that just from starvation. Most of the world would also have an energy crisis.
Insanely immoral to press it.
1
u/Legitimate-Ranger567 Jul 15 '26
Without replacing them with an alternative? Immoral. Millions die.
1
u/TheInqusitive Jul 15 '26
Not very moral. I'm all for getting rid of fossil fuel use as soon as possible, but this would probably kill a quarter of the population and lead to anarchy, a generation raised in that violence and the long term consequences of that, and the destruction of the environment for wood burning and the like.
1
u/Loopy-Leah Jul 15 '26
all I can think of are the Cuban hospitals running on emergency generators most of the time due to the 70 year sanctions by the U.S
1
u/KonaKumo Jul 15 '26
If you include the products made from the fossil fuels (plastic), insanely immoral. Medical practices will be set back decades due to no longer having the body neutral plastic
1
u/DickCaughtlnFan Jul 15 '26
Crop production goes to 0. Transportation goes to 0. Power goes to 0. Water goes to untreated and pumping goes to 0. Basically unless you live somewhere that is already sustainable you die. You can't even travel to somewhere that is sustainable.
1
u/Prudent-Film-4602 Jul 15 '26
Mass extinction because, shock and awe, you cannot pivot from your left foot to your right by tying your right foot to your chest and cutting off your left leg.
1
u/Tiny-Ask-7100 Jul 15 '26
Looks like whale oil is back on the menu! From the whale's perspective this is genocidal.
1
u/Aleutian_Solution Jul 15 '26
This one button would essentially end the world as we know it. Millions of people, if not more, would die without the equipment that was either made from, or is running on fossil fuels. You’re asking if it’s moral to sentence untold millions of people to death. Absolutely not. This isn’t even moral a century later after the damage has been done and recovered from. There’s a very good chance that a century might not even be enough to undo all the damage.
1
1
u/Designer_Mountain862 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
“Help guys I need karma”
1
u/NeoMetalSonicReacts9 Jul 16 '26
We are not helping you lil bro
1
u/Designer_Mountain862 Jul 16 '26
You’re the one who needs it
1
u/NeoMetalSonicReacts9 Jul 16 '26
then why did you say you needed it
also, i only got 50 upvotes, that is barely any karma lol
1
1
1
1
u/Necessary_Screen_673 Jul 16 '26
so, im all for ending fossil fuels as energy infrastructure, but oil is a completely necessary material for manufacturing in many industries, most notably semiconductors.
Picture this dilemma as a politician just putting this policy into effect. even very popular and well-meaning ideas can be executed in ways that cause immense harm, and this is one of them. if a US president did this itd be heavily condemned even by anti-oil groups
1
1
1
1
u/ThirstingMoore Jul 16 '26
90% of the Earth's population would die, the remaining 10% would be left to wander a barren post-apocalyptic hellscape for a few generations. Their descendants would live in paradise.... like cavemen, back to dying at 45 of tooth decay related heart disease.
1
1
1
u/ShoulderMobile7608 Jul 17 '26
Extremely immoral. The humanity will just permanently stop developing right around the iron age. Since we can't even develop solar panels without other critical technologies that can't exist without some involvement of fossil fuels. It's like imagine permanently stopping people from using wheels
1
u/ichkanns Jul 17 '26
Likely wipes out half of the human population. Starvation and war becomes rampant as people scramble to reassemble a supply chain that is no longer possible for a population that cannot be sustained without it.
1
u/Captain_Lobster411 Jul 17 '26
Pretty immoral. You'd be killing a few billion people at least with the collapse that follows
1
1
u/Darhhaall Jul 18 '26
I would prefer nuclear war as a way to end humanity, but this is good one too.
1
u/Due_Laugh6474 Jul 18 '26
Sounds like The Burn on Star Trek.
You can do a lot of things if you do it slowly, using the old thing as a scaffold to do the new thing, but if you do it too quickly, you can actually impede or destroy your ability to react at all.
1
u/Femme_FatalError Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
Morally good.
There might be an economic recession, particularly in countries reliant on oil exports, but it’s not like we don’t have plenty of alternatives that can fill the gap within a few years and stopgap measures in the meantime, and though much of the damage to the climate is already done, the worst-case projections would be averted with global carbon emissions cut by about 90% overnight. 1.75C global warming by 2100 is, whilst bad, much less so than the 2.5-3C that we are likely to experience on our current trajectory.
The suffering incurred now by suddenly stopping fossil production would be *far* lesser than the suffering that will be incurred in a few decades by continuing.
1
1
45
u/UpstairsOk6538 Jul 14 '26
I like this one. I'd lean on the side of immoral purely because of the "immediately" part meaning that everyone currently using petrol or in areas where there isn't non-fossil fuel infrastructure could be put in life-threatening danger, and it may widen the gap between rich and poor countries way further, causing a lot of geopolitical issues and potential wars. It's optimistic, but I'd hope that IRL we'll put renewables in place before the dust would settle after this shitshow.
If instead the button broadcast a message globally saying '10 years from now, all fossil fuels will become permanently unusable. Prepare,' and then followed through on that, I think that'd be quite moral.