Adapting to +8C will be a lot more expensive than reducing moderately to hit +4C and adapting to that.

And the only way to limit to +4C IMO is to try and limit to +2C and inevitably missing.

Adaptation is key to any solution, but there is a wide spectrum between "prevention only" and "adaptation only." There's no reason not to have both, and they complement each other. And, if nothing else, adaptation has to be funded somehow, and most modern solutions aimed at prevention generate revenue. Some or all of that revenue can be used to fund adaptation efforts.

One issue with adaptation is that the people being asked to adapt aren't the same as the people being asked to prevent. It's all fine and good for the USA to say, it's most economically efficient to adapt, because prevention is expensive! But you don't see the USA dedicating a large portion of that profit stream enabled by their externalities to fund adaptation efforts in Bangladesh.

At some point we have to realize that neither this planet nor the universe cares much about the human species. There is no compassion built into the material universe. Living off the land - in a bigger context - means learning how to live in self-sustaining biospheres on but in particular off planet. Part of the exercises of having a smaller footprint is conducive to this end - while other self-mutilating and progress restricting suggestions are contra-productive and regressive. I am sure reason will prevail and we’ll strike the right balance.

I am not serious at all.

I live in an area that will still be habitable even with 4°C warming. The problem is that the vast majority do not live in this area. They aren't going to die in their hometown. They will have to move and I don't have a lot of space. So the person living here will either be me or them. A lot of people are willing to risk their lives in overloaded smuggling boats and it's not uncommon for them to sink by accident. If necessary, a single shot from a destroyer is enough to prevent them from crossing the sea at all.

It's been argued that a hose pipe, a helium balloon, and a bit of sulphur could easily cool the planet as much as we want.

But of course, people get mad about "playing god" or "using pollution to fight pollution". Kinda like a bad parent who refuses to ever punish their child, because they're afraid of being responsible if things go wrong (despite them already being responsible for things having gone wrong).

There's also the risk that eventually carbon will acidify the oceans too much, so clearly there's a limit to how much we can have.

There's no such thing as adapting to runaway climate change.

Unpopular opinion: adaptation at +4C is genocide