Alternate view: Learning geoengineering will unleash an insane amount of understanding and learning of our climate, introduce new methods to clean it, lead to an advanced understanding of...
Alternate view: Learning geoengineering will unleash an insane amount of understanding and learning of our climate, introduce new methods to clean it, lead to an advanced understanding of atmosphere creation, Terraforming, and create a pathway to understand how the climate has direct interactions on any given area creating more research based discussions on the topic of area given climate control and effects on a small area vs a wide area.
We understand very little about the atmosphere, any research that aides us in understanding the literal thing that is keeping us alive and developing methods to keep that life going is a net positive.
The argument that "knowledge of X Is a detriment to society" is a fallacy founded within the confines of luddite principles since the dawn of technology. We are terrified of things we don't understand, and it is our job as a species to work steadfast to understand everything we can to improve ourselves and our place in this universe.
Another problem is that more CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the amount of heat that gets trapped. Ocean acidification is not good for many animals and plants. There is evidence that...
Another problem is that more CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the amount of heat that gets trapped. Ocean acidification is not good for many animals and plants. There is evidence that suggests that while CO2 increases plant growth, it does not increase the amount of micronutrients in plants, that is to say the amount of micronutrients per calorie becomes lower.
I'm with Raymond on this. Our childish belief that we understood our environment well enough that we could mold it to our will without consequence got us here. I'm reasonably certain more of that...
I'm with Raymond on this. Our childish belief that we understood our environment well enough that we could mold it to our will without consequence got us here. I'm reasonably certain more of that thinking isn't a great idea.
We don't understand the complexities of earth's systems, take as evidence our ever changing models of what exactly climate change is going to look like. We know a lot, more all the time, but when it comes to what exactly will happen to the larger systems if we tweak X, we have educated guesses at best. We should be real with ourselves, we can't even reliably predict the weather a few days out yet.
I like geoengineering as a last ditch option if we arrive at a point where there aren't any other choices. Right now we know we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we should focus on that.
It's a big problem, the future of humanity vs late stage capitalism, makes it easy to get distracted by shiny things that look comparatively easy.
I understand Raymond's very valid concerns, but I disagree with this view. I'd say more of that thinking is great idea, because it would be a welcome change of pace. We didn't get where we are...
Our childish belief that we understood our environment well enough that we could mold it to our will without consequence got us here. I'm reasonably certain more of that thinking isn't a great idea.
I understand Raymond's very valid concerns, but I disagree with this view. I'd say more of that thinking is great idea, because it would be a welcome change of pace.
We didn't get where we are because of scientists full of hubris, who thought they can control the environment. We got here because of people chasing wealth, who at each point along the way were faced with a question, "should I do this and make some money, at the cost of some negligible environmental impact", a question to which they answered with a resounding "yes"... and it was fine, and it ushered us into age of unprecedented wealth, until all the countless negligible environmental impacts accumulated into the mess we're in right now.
We got here because of short-term, greedy optimization - which is the opposite of understanding and controlling the environment. Until now, we didn't even try controlling the environment. Now we have no choice but to do so, because we've almost pushed it out of its stability envelope. So we may as well get good at it.
Is geoengineering an answer? No. A part of the answer? Possibly, but maybe it's too dangerous. But we need to start applying a bit more brains, and a bit less of profit-chasing to the question.
Just to be clear, I never said anything about scientific hubris (though it's of course a thing). Any good scientist in a relevant field will be the first to say we don't know a hell of a lot. As...
Just to be clear, I never said anything about scientific hubris (though it's of course a thing). Any good scientist in a relevant field will be the first to say we don't know a hell of a lot.
As clarified by continuing to read my original post ;) I agree that greed and shortsightedness are the core problems.
That said, in the coming years a lot of people are going to want to do more than study and learn. They're going to want to actually start geoengineering. That's a problem when the actions of one country (or private group) can impact the entire world, potentially irreversibly.
At some point we'll have to come together and make decisions globally, hopefully before people start pressing buttons just to see what they do.
Alternate view: Learning geoengineering will unleash an insane amount of understanding and learning of our climate, introduce new methods to clean it, lead to an advanced understanding of atmosphere creation, Terraforming, and create a pathway to understand how the climate has direct interactions on any given area creating more research based discussions on the topic of area given climate control and effects on a small area vs a wide area.
We understand very little about the atmosphere, any research that aides us in understanding the literal thing that is keeping us alive and developing methods to keep that life going is a net positive.
The argument that "knowledge of X Is a detriment to society" is a fallacy founded within the confines of luddite principles since the dawn of technology. We are terrified of things we don't understand, and it is our job as a species to work steadfast to understand everything we can to improve ourselves and our place in this universe.
Another problem is that more CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the amount of heat that gets trapped. Ocean acidification is not good for many animals and plants. There is evidence that suggests that while CO2 increases plant growth, it does not increase the amount of micronutrients in plants, that is to say the amount of micronutrients per calorie becomes lower.
I'm with Raymond on this. Our childish belief that we understood our environment well enough that we could mold it to our will without consequence got us here. I'm reasonably certain more of that thinking isn't a great idea.
We don't understand the complexities of earth's systems, take as evidence our ever changing models of what exactly climate change is going to look like. We know a lot, more all the time, but when it comes to what exactly will happen to the larger systems if we tweak X, we have educated guesses at best. We should be real with ourselves, we can't even reliably predict the weather a few days out yet.
I like geoengineering as a last ditch option if we arrive at a point where there aren't any other choices. Right now we know we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we should focus on that.
It's a big problem, the future of humanity vs late stage capitalism, makes it easy to get distracted by shiny things that look comparatively easy.
I understand Raymond's very valid concerns, but I disagree with this view. I'd say more of that thinking is great idea, because it would be a welcome change of pace.
We didn't get where we are because of scientists full of hubris, who thought they can control the environment. We got here because of people chasing wealth, who at each point along the way were faced with a question, "should I do this and make some money, at the cost of some negligible environmental impact", a question to which they answered with a resounding "yes"... and it was fine, and it ushered us into age of unprecedented wealth, until all the countless negligible environmental impacts accumulated into the mess we're in right now.
We got here because of short-term, greedy optimization - which is the opposite of understanding and controlling the environment. Until now, we didn't even try controlling the environment. Now we have no choice but to do so, because we've almost pushed it out of its stability envelope. So we may as well get good at it.
Is geoengineering an answer? No. A part of the answer? Possibly, but maybe it's too dangerous. But we need to start applying a bit more brains, and a bit less of profit-chasing to the question.
Just to be clear, I never said anything about scientific hubris (though it's of course a thing). Any good scientist in a relevant field will be the first to say we don't know a hell of a lot.
As clarified by continuing to read my original post ;) I agree that greed and shortsightedness are the core problems.
That said, in the coming years a lot of people are going to want to do more than study and learn. They're going to want to actually start geoengineering. That's a problem when the actions of one country (or private group) can impact the entire world, potentially irreversibly.
At some point we'll have to come together and make decisions globally, hopefully before people start pressing buttons just to see what they do.