If that’s the same criteria you use for looking for that someone, and you proceed with an open and courageous heart: it won’t be a dream.
And I would say that we have general artistic conventions of depicting elements the previous commentor suggested: smell lines, meat in teeth, etc… Their absence from the scene leads me to believe the commentor’s interpretation is far from the artist’s intentions.
Like, technology is cool. Engineering is cool. Building better weapons to kill each other and strike enough fear to garner compliance has never solved the impetus for their creation: the fear that a human will kill you, so you attempt to kill them first.
It’d be tight if a “rising china” or “rising anyone” meant that we as a global society would benefit from new helpful tech that gave people more choice and autonomy to improve their lives and the ones around them.
I believe the intent discussed in the article is that the U.S. would choose to enter in reparations. The argument being, beyond ethics, that as climate change displaces more and more people the walled gardens of the U.S. will be be beset by humans seeking refuge as well as climate change (catastrophe, crisis, choose your version). Therefore the practical answer is to gird vulnerable nations to survive well on their own for the sheer fact that it’s less work in the end. And account for potential serious action to curb their own emissions as reparations could/should be weighted for potential future emissions.
Your comment does speak to a chilling line of thought that crossed my mind as a dystopian alternative; where the U.S. would rather violently oppose change while the land dies and, those who can, fall back to closed shelters mimicking their nation’s stance. I don’t see how that is a preferable alternative to doing what we can to ensure fair survival for everyone. Surely engaging in war on a dying planet is more costly than providing aid with the justification of historic and future damages.