I will try to understand the point you're trying to make here, but I'd like to interject with some questions and propositions of my own.
"...everything turns to lava at 14 miles down."
-I would like some source on the claim that everything turns to lava at 14 miles down, where are you getting that information from? From what I've, briefly, read - the answer is more nuanced. The Earth's crust is fairly thin at parts, like at the bottom of the ocean, but also denser. The mantle isn't fully magma either, so I don't think it's fair to claim "everything turns to lava at 14 miles down." The more nuanced take would be to say it depends on the material, temperature, depth, etc. before something may or may not turn into lava (actually magma, lava is when it comes out of the surface of the Earth).
"This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball."
-For a bit of levity: Objection! Relevance?
"I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit."
-Ah, got it. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you do not believe in man made climate change at all? Not even as an addition to your proposed superheating core proposal? Hence your point above about small livable zone, correct?
-But also, like @ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works asked, what about climate data seems bullshit to you? And how would you justify that? You made a claim, and I will now ask you for data for that claim. Seeing as you see things in a nuanced way, this shouldn't be an issue.
"I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time"
-Might be a bit of a tangent since it's not directly about climate change, but are you then proposing we don't try to lower pollution even for health and safety reasons because solving it does not actually solve climate change, according to your claims?
"Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?"
-Specifically, what do you mean by progress? Societal? Technological? Scientific? And why would backtracking mean we live more in tune with nature and that progressing won't? Is wind or hydro or solar power not more environmentally friendly than coal? Isn't deriving insulin in a synthetic way kinder to animals, and nature, rather than having to harvest tons of organs from cows and pigs?
-Why is having "actual green energy" leading us to a dystopian future? Is that not an overt claim as opposed to a nuanced one?
