As the world heads toward exceeding the 1.5°C target, UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed urged states not to give up: "Overshoot is not a reason to surrender." Is it rational to keep pursuing a goal you are likely to miss? Does the relation you draw between acceptance and striving for individuals also apply to humanity's shared tasks?

I think two questions are mixed together here. If the goal is an "absolute standard," then I think the value of pursuing a standard that can never be reached lies in the personal stability gained along the way. I would recommend it for someone who is psychologically anxious, but if a person is in a healthy state, I think it is irrational.

If the goal is a relative standard, then at least by believing in it and moving forward, the situation can be made better, so I think it can be rational. In particular, since the problem of global warming is a matter of spectrum, I think it would be good to create an atmosphere where people can make the greatest effort they can.

I think the relationship between acceptance and struggle at the level of individual cognition also applies well to groups. This is because our society shares a certain ideology, and the hearts of the individuals who support it come together to create political momentum. If anything, I think the decisive power of acceptance or struggle mechanisms is even more blatant at the group level than at the individual level. For an individual, variables such as emotions or experiences come into play, but once it becomes a majority, it is not easy for a variable that can overcome that inertia to emerge.