...
To follow your analogy: humanity/civilization is being shot at right now by its own carbon emissions, but may hopefully still succeed in preventing itself from being killed. The more carbon we emit, the more likely extinction will be. Or do you think that's already inevitable?
Excellent question, and i have a complete answer to it - been thinking about it for a long time already.
Short answer: i think that "big" mankind - billion-scale population, - will inevitably perish, indeed. However, i do not know for sure if humans as a species will extinct, i.e. whether or not _all_ humans will perish. However, in order to increase chances of the survival of the "small" mankind - million-scale population, - through the thermal maximum of 21st/22nd century, it is much more efficient to spend efforts on preparation, adaptation and backup plans/systems than on large-scale and extremely expensive projects aimed to limit further carbon emissions, such as methane emissions from methane clathrates and land permafrosts.
Long answer:First of all, it is required to understand the nature of mankind in a bit of detail. Mankind is not an "army" of exactly same clones. Quite the opposite, men and women who together form present day mankind - are very different. So what's in the mix?
1st, there are few who do care about global matters, who do understand that without caring about the whole, parts will inevitably fail sooner or later. Many people on this here forum are of this kind. Sadly, it's on the order of 1% of world population who are such people - possibly even less, on the order of 0.1%.
2nd, there are the opposite, in a sense: people who care only about themselves. Egoistic, lying, cruel, merciless. Unfortunately, "natural selection" favors such people in the corridors of powers that be. It's those people who can provide the largest investment returns. It's those people who have no doubts about exploiting environments, ruining ecosystems, cutting down forests and destroying local, self-sustaining agriculture. By doing so, they get very real additional profit - which only this kind of people can ever get. And so, they get promoted in corporate world, and in gevernments, often even in armies (not so muchi narmies though, though it's another subject), and they rule the world - and this will continue as long as there are indeed significant "externalities" - in other words, "free wealth" to mercilessly take away from nature and other people. Still, this kind is also quite few - perhaps also on the order of 1%. Still, due to the power they wield in modern economy, politic processes and corporate management, those are the ultimate force on Earth right now. Collectively, they and their decisions is what shapes the Earth itself now. Fighting the system which those folks steer - the system being modern global industrial and post-industrial civilization, - is suicidal.
3rd, there are "usual folks". Some are really nice and good people, others are jerks, yet some others are silly, and yet some others are just a petty scum. But more than all those, it's the "just the usual guy" people - who are busy working their job, raising their kids, loving their husband/wife, growing old and, if lucky, being happy raising grandkids. Those are vast majority. I group them together, though, because those did not, are not, and will not make any significant difference on the course of events, in terms of the fate of big mankind and following events. Still, this group is very important, because it is the engine of the economy - and since the economy is controlled by the group #2, this vast majority, this "7 billions of average Joes" - are the source of the ultimate power of the group #2. Another very important thing about this group is that it's this group which creates demands and pressures of 7-billion population; they all need food, water, shelter, and they all want VERY much to enjoy what they expect to enjoy - be it a good car, or simply a better hut. Desires and needs of 7 billions people already stretch Earth's renewable resources beyond 120% mark (so at present, the mankind is cutting into renewable resources main "capital", and this situation can't last long). Good example of this is ground water - i hope you're aware that mankind is depleting this renewable resource fast now, and i hope you know how important it is for modern agriculture to provide as much food as it did during last few decades.
Knowing this, it's then easy to see that the big mankind which we have now - 7 billions and growing, - will keep on track about destroying the planet. Indeed, who can prevent it? Group #1? Nope, we can't, since the destruction itself is a result of activities of other two groups, thus stopping it would mean, at least to a large extent, to also stop activities of other two groups. In case of group #2, if we'd SERIOUSLY try to stop their activities, then group #2 would see an enemy in us - and considering the amount of political and economic power group #2 have, it'd be very easy to crush and/or corrupt and/or stall us. Which indeed happens with any seriously big attempts to stop or even slow the industrial and post-industrial global civilization. For many years now we know about efforts of anti-globalists, for example; we know the narrative, we see why indeed much of what most intelligent anti-globalists say - would be good to do. However, results are still not achieved - globalization goes on, faster than ever. Next big bunch is Greenpeace. Holding a whale-killing vessel for a couple days does not cancel continuation of whale overkilling, sadly, - and the group #2 sues and convicts (in courts) even for such a desperate attempts. Plus, there are signs Greenpeace itself is much corrupted, nowadays... As for trying to "stop" group #3 - the average Joe - well, can be done to some extent, but would only be a delay before the inevitable. See, group #2 actively presses for increasing population - and had been for a long time, - because every additional citizen means additional taxes, additional power, additional security. If we manage, somehow, to dramatically reduce appetites of group #3, thus reducing its impact on Earth, - group #2 will just press for even higher population, and the end result will be the same, except people in group #3 will be living yet worse than their fathers and grandfathers, due to consuming less resources. One another thing of reality is that reducing consumption of group #3 is normally a long process - a matter of couple generations. People are quick to get used to better conditions, but to part with them are et to worse conditions? Difficult. Revolts, protests, even civil wars if you do any big reduction. So normally it'd take changes in culture and education, and couple generations, to achieve that ethically. But we don't have that much time, so we can't do that. Plus, group #2 is now massively influencing education and media systems, - consumer "culture", police states, "pacificatin" of masses, you name it.
Now, what can realistically be done?
Reducing emissions - forget about it. IPCC issued its 1st report 20+ years ago. Since then there is not a shadow of doubt that main powers-that-be are aware about the reality of global greenhouse effect, man-made. Did the knowledge help? A little bit, it did; few countries are trying things like industrial-scale so-called "renewable" power sources, some countries got smarter and are trying to limit population and/or "quality of life" growth (both are equally important in terms of how many resources big mankind uses, and how much waste itgenerates; 1 child in USA does as much load on planet's carrying capacity as do 50+ childs in poorest India regins, for example). However, it is now very clear that needs and appetites of group #3, and merciless pressure of group #2, are growing faster than any sane response to the situation. Not just CO2 emissions during last 2 decades, but also continuation of corporate power increase, resource wars, mainstream media hypocrisy and speculative activities indicate very well that we, group #1, do not wield sufficient power, and are not a sufficient force, to stop suicidal (in long-term) activities of the big mankind.
Interestingly, similar situation had already happened in Earth's distant past: our ancestors were in the situation where they were not able to rule or defeat or ignore other beings, and were very threatened by other beings. This was when dinosaurs walked the Earth, and small mammals - our ancestors, - had no chances to win against dinosaurs with teeth and claws. So, what our ancestors did? They ran away into the forest, they learned to hide from big reptiles, and they learned to survive on what little they could get after dinosaurs took the best part of available foods, waters, shelters.
The same thing seem to be as the only realistic survival strategy for our kids and grandkids. I expect CO2 emissions to keep growing. Kyoto was a fail, in terms of total emissions. Recent highest-level attempts to do any binding agreement on emissions - were complete fails as well. Darn, group #2 even became so impune they even felt free to agree not to try to make any legally binding agreement on emissions till 2020, you know that? Similarly, many other kinds of pollutions will go on, vast damage done to environments by modern industrial agriculture will go on, and the world will continue to become even unfriendlier place as years go by. In the same time, though, there are still palces which are not "best food" for the abomination of modern global industries. Boreal forests, subpolar tundras, certain mountain ranges and platous do not offer any industrially beneficial resources, and are left to be. It is there where "small" mankind will end up survivng, - if surviving at all. It is there where new, local, lower-tech, self-sufficient "oases" of civilization will be formed. It is there where we, people from group #1, may end up fleeing to. Group #2, like dinosaurs of the past, will not see us as a threat if we go to those remote, "unproductive" regions. Group #3 won't be willing to join us, as life in those remote regions will be tough due to initially difficult climate and soil and ecosystem conditions, and because there will be few, if any, conviniences of modern global civilization there.
And this is where the key understanding comes. It's difficult, as it is, for any locally-self-sufficient human settlement to survive in boreal forests, or tundras, or in mountains. Very difficult, and always had been so.
One of great siberian rivers, Ob, had such a settlement for 400+ years - called Surgut. Until the late 20th-century oil-boom, it was rather little settlement, few thousands people tops, living in wood-made houses. Despite all the benefits of a great river right next to it, despite rich, in its own way, ecosystems of the region, only that many people were able to live there - and there were no other human settlement of comparable size for hundreds kilometers around. However, it'll be even mcuh, much more difficult than that in the much more polluted (some pollution is indeed global, - can't hide from it), and certainly much more scorching world of the future.
I lived in said place - Surgut, - for 2 years in 1990s. Continental climate. Summer temperatures reaching 40+ degrees celcius. God only knows what will happen with siberian taiga if that gets some 5-10 degrees higher in the rather short, but quite arid and intense (loooong days) Siberian summer. Forests are already on massive increase of fires in 'em... Might well end up to having to survive without much forests around, which possibly means no or little wild berries, nuts, mushroms, game. And in the same time, winters there are long and cold. Very little insolation in winter months - even in much warmer world, it'll still likely be long periods of strong frost during winter. It's good for health in a way - various insects and bacteria which transfer many deadly diseases simply die off to frost, - but it definitely makes surviving the frost period itself to be quite demanding task, too.
Perhaps most important, though, is the social structure of those future "oases" of post-collapse civilization. It can't be capitalism - doesn't fit local self-sufficient society, and can't function for a truly long-term anyways (as we see it showing many signs of being in death spiral in today global system; when there is no room to grow, and to grow fast, capitalism just chokes and then dies). It can't be communism either, - thing is, group #2, which eventually will form up in those new "oases" of civilization, sooner or later corrupts communistic systems from inside, leading to collapse of society - just like it was in USSR. So it'll have to be neither of those two.
So, to me, the right thing to do is spending one's energy trying to figure out how those future "oases" of civilization would work, what technologies will be long-term operational (don't forget, it'll have to be self-sufficient, local endeavor - even if it's some relatively large region and couple millions people, it still can't do as good as combined efforts of 7 billions+ people do; for example, i am quite sure there won't be any much electronical, at least not during initial 50 years after big mankind dies out - too complex a technology, can't function without massive underlying industrial complex; pre-collapse devices will only function for some 10...25 years, tops, after which it's inevitable "death" of semi-conductors due to diffusion processes, renders electronics dead.
One other major problem to solve is physical and informational disconnectedness of majority of group #1 people: most are very lonely, and have no means whatsoever to communicate with any like-minded people. There are few communities which have many people being from group #1, like certain select (FAR from all!) small "eco-cities" there, but there is no "central", no readily visible large international, or at least natinal, centers for cooperation on required scale. And we, folks from group #1, definitely need to cooperate in order to achieve any significant result, and in order to indeed noticeably increase the chances that human species would ineed make it through incoming global crisis. Both this and previous problems seem to be large enough to occupy minds and hands of many for life, and lots of resources in practical implementations (it's better be more than just "plan A", too). We can spend those efforts and resources trying to halt the mighty power of modern industrial civilization and its adepts like fossil fuel companies (oh, some of them are SUCH a skilled artists and impersonators, sometimes it's very difficult not to percieve 'em as "good folks") - to limit further carbon emissions, to try and prevent the worst cases by, say, some seriously genious geo-engineering (gaia-engineering is the proper term though). I say, even if we spend ALL resources we can get doing either, - we still won't achieve any big difference. I say, it is now time to stop fighting the dinosaur and start doing what we can to survive consequences of the dinosaur's reigh. It'll die itself, crushed by a sum of internal and external stresses. We can't kill it ourselves, last two decades is a proof to it. We can't even any significantly hasten its demise - not any more than ancient tiny mammals could hasten the death of a tyranosaur. What we can do is to build us some "nests", to prepare us some methods and supplies, and to learn how to live together and cooperate and maintain at least minimal levels of civilized state. I am not positive we have enough time to do that well, even; but we gotta try, because i think it's the only thing we could do now to make a real difference to the chance of survival of our own grandkids and all the generations after them.
And, being quite smart folks, we, the group #1, can even find many ways of mutually beneficial cooperation with both group #2 and group #3, while preparing and adapting. We'll need quite alot of goods and services, and many, if not most, of those can be aquired for least effort and/or money through the ways of modern civilization and industrial complex. Electronics are to be used as long as possible, modern pharmacology is to be known and indeed efficient substances are to be at hand for as long as they are safe to store/use, modern firearms are definitely a big help in any settlement - both against whatever wild life there would be, if any, but also by local police and armed forces - against humans who endanger others in unacceptable (like, violent) ways. Etc etc. So, i think, we need to stop "opposing" global industrial civilization, and start to build the alternative to it. Won't be easy, won't be quick, and, perhaps the most sad for so many, won't be any profitable (in $ terms, that is) enterprise.
Conclusion:So you see, i still hope that humans, as a species, - and much more importantly, as cultures (because there are many) - will not perish, will not extinct; but previse answer to your question would therefore be: no, i don't see it as inevitable, however, it is possible it is - and i just am unable to see enough to realize it; still, i hope it isn't.
Sorry for typos, man, i hope there are not too many. Please, consider seriously what i said. Oh, and may be read
http://esotericonline.net/docs/library/Philosophy/Environmental%20philosophy/Environmental%20Issues/Lovelock%20-%20The%20Vanishing%20Face%20of%20Gaia.pdf , and may be read another free book online (just google it), called "Beyond Collapse: Surviving and Rebuilding Civilization From Scratch". Both books have many bits which are disputable, and some few which are perhaps highly doubtful - but much more than such bits, these two books also contain information which seem (to me) to be entirely correct and of utmost importance.
Best of luck!
