4 ms·

The problem with geo-engineering solutions to global warming is that they would require global consent. Anything else would be a drastic violation of human righ

The problem with geo-engineering solutions to global warming is that they would require global consent. Anything else would be a drastic violation of human rights, and potentially a cause for massive conflict. We all have to share the same planet, and some peoples might be drastically opposed to (potentially) irreversible processes such as the scattering of chemicals in the atmosphere. Any "for the good of mankind" justification is almost beside the point.

idbehold 9y ago
Wait, so everyone is allowed to contribute to global climate change without permission, but we need everyone's agreement to prevent it?
- archagon 9y ago
  Unfortunately, yes? Nobody made the decision to contribute to global climate change; it just kind of happened as an emergent consequence of the discovery of oil. Whereas a single country deciding to permanently tint the sky is not going to go over well with the global community, probably to the point of tanks on borders and missiles at ready.
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    It wouldn't require global consent, just consent of the few global powers strong enough to do anything about it.
    - archagon 9y ago
      Sure, but I think it'll be very difficult to get the US, China, and Russia to agree on something as drastic as this before catastrophic climate-related events start taking place. (And let's not forget all the other nations with nuclear missiles. The playing field is a lot more level these days, for better or worse.)
      - adrianN 9y ago
        Luckily(?) catastrophic climate-related events are already happening.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      Only one. If the USA, Russia or any other nuclear power does it there won't be a war. Nuclear is the key word here, Those wars are much more costly than any amount climate change.
  - DennisP 9y ago
    So altering the climate is fine, if it's a side effect of making money. It's just doing it at a financial loss that's a problem. Maybe we should focus on ocean fertilization with iron as a way of increasing fish yields. Who can begrudge some poor fishermen trying to bring home more fish? It's not their fault if it also sequesters CO2. Solar radiation management also offers possibilities though. We already spew lots of soot and other pollutants into the air without anyone rolling out missiles. We just need to figure out industries with the right kind of pollution and we're good.
- Sharlin 9y ago
  This is basically the root of most coordination problems. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
jacobush 9y ago
I think many peoples are drastically opposed to what is happening right now with rising CO2 levels.
civilian 9y ago
Most good engineers are wise enough to ignore the public and philosophers like you. :-P If you look at medical history, it is littered with Doctors who discovered something crucial and revolutionary who were met with resistance. The same story goes with astronomers. How about this: Are people allowed to act in a way that will save themselves, even if it sames everyone else on the planet, and has some side effects? I think the answer is an emphatic yes!
- alphapapa 9y ago
  > How about this: Are people allowed to act in a way that will save themselves, even if it sames everyone else on the planet, and has some side effects? I think the answer is an emphatic yes! Who decides which ways will save and are therefore allowed?
sqeaky 9y ago
Screw consent. If I pull off some massive project like this what is another person/business/country going to do about? If someone "solves" climate for some value of solved are you going to invade them and start a war over your economy being saved?
- alphapapa 9y ago
  So, just to be clear, you want to impose your will on the planet, as a whole. You don't care about any form of democracy. You don't care what anyone else thinks. You think you're right, and anyone who opposes you is wrong. And since you're right, you're justified in doing whatever you think is necessary. Am I understanding you correctly?
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    > So, just to be clear, you want to impose your will on the planet, as a whole. When it comes to saving countless lives, the economy and in the most extreme of possible outcomes all civilization... YES.
    - alphapapa 9y ago
      Vast tragedies throughout history were perpetrated by people who thought they knew better than everyone else, that their ends justified imposing their means on the rest of the human race. Your attitude is dangerous, because you can use it to justify anything (e.g. you think you're about saving lives). It is evil, because it places you above everyone else and leads to death (e.g. you think you're saving civilization, which requires destroying the bad parts of it). You either have not learned from history, or have learned the wrong lessons from it and are following in the footsteps of millennia of anti-heroes.
- nikdaheratik 9y ago
  That's not feasible. Even the most isolated nation-state in the world (i.e. N. Korea) has a hard time getting its high tech projects finished if all of the other countries are working against it. And they have the advantage of a fanatical following and oppressive control of the military and media. Something on this scale would be pretty much impossible to pull off if all the G-8 countries put you/your company on an embargo list for high tech materials.
bigbugbag 9y ago
Isn't Drastic violations of human rights the other name of the USA and also all other nations around the globe ? This view is also a specist one, what about all the other lifeforms on the planet that we could not have life favorable condition on earth ? insects, plants, ocean life, corals, etc. Switch from compete to cooperate mindset and there would be a lot less lifeforms rights violations. Also instead of having the USA lifestyle as a model we try try to reach and have for ourselves, we should aim for the India lifestyle so we could all live on earth without destroying the planet.

idbehold 9y ago

Wait, so everyone is allowed to contribute to global climate change without permission, but we need everyone's agreement to prevent it?

archagon 9y ago
Unfortunately, yes? Nobody made the decision to contribute to global climate change; it just kind of happened as an emergent consequence of the discovery of oil. Whereas a single country deciding to permanently tint the sky is not going to go over well with the global community, probably to the point of tanks on borders and missiles at ready.
- cortesoft 9y ago
  It wouldn't require global consent, just consent of the few global powers strong enough to do anything about it.
  - archagon 9y ago
    Sure, but I think it'll be very difficult to get the US, China, and Russia to agree on something as drastic as this before catastrophic climate-related events start taking place. (And let's not forget all the other nations with nuclear missiles. The playing field is a lot more level these days, for better or worse.)
    - adrianN 9y ago
      Luckily(?) catastrophic climate-related events are already happening.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    Only one. If the USA, Russia or any other nuclear power does it there won't be a war. Nuclear is the key word here, Those wars are much more costly than any amount climate change.
- DennisP 9y ago
  So altering the climate is fine, if it's a side effect of making money. It's just doing it at a financial loss that's a problem. Maybe we should focus on ocean fertilization with iron as a way of increasing fish yields. Who can begrudge some poor fishermen trying to bring home more fish? It's not their fault if it also sequesters CO2. Solar radiation management also offers possibilities though. We already spew lots of soot and other pollutants into the air without anyone rolling out missiles. We just need to figure out industries with the right kind of pollution and we're good.
Sharlin 9y ago
This is basically the root of most coordination problems. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

jacobush 9y ago

I think many peoples are drastically opposed to what is happening right now with rising CO2 levels.

civilian 9y ago

Most good engineers are wise enough to ignore the public and philosophers like you. :-P If you look at medical history, it is littered with Doctors who discovered something crucial and revolutionary who were met with resistance. The same story goes with astronomers. How about this: Are people allowed to act in a way that will save themselves, even if it sames everyone else on the planet, and has some side effects? I think the answer is an emphatic yes!

alphapapa 9y ago
> How about this: Are people allowed to act in a way that will save themselves, even if it sames everyone else on the planet, and has some side effects? I think the answer is an emphatic yes! Who decides which ways will save and are therefore allowed?

sqeaky 9y ago

Screw consent. If I pull off some massive project like this what is another person/business/country going to do about? If someone "solves" climate for some value of solved are you going to invade them and start a war over your economy being saved?

alphapapa 9y ago
So, just to be clear, you want to impose your will on the planet, as a whole. You don't care about any form of democracy. You don't care what anyone else thinks. You think you're right, and anyone who opposes you is wrong. And since you're right, you're justified in doing whatever you think is necessary. Am I understanding you correctly?
- sqeaky 9y ago
  > So, just to be clear, you want to impose your will on the planet, as a whole. When it comes to saving countless lives, the economy and in the most extreme of possible outcomes all civilization... YES.
  - alphapapa 9y ago
    Vast tragedies throughout history were perpetrated by people who thought they knew better than everyone else, that their ends justified imposing their means on the rest of the human race. Your attitude is dangerous, because you can use it to justify anything (e.g. you think you're about saving lives). It is evil, because it places you above everyone else and leads to death (e.g. you think you're saving civilization, which requires destroying the bad parts of it). You either have not learned from history, or have learned the wrong lessons from it and are following in the footsteps of millennia of anti-heroes.
nikdaheratik 9y ago
That's not feasible. Even the most isolated nation-state in the world (i.e. N. Korea) has a hard time getting its high tech projects finished if all of the other countries are working against it. And they have the advantage of a fanatical following and oppressive control of the military and media. Something on this scale would be pretty much impossible to pull off if all the G-8 countries put you/your company on an embargo list for high tech materials.

bigbugbag 9y ago

Isn't Drastic violations of human rights the other name of the USA and also all other nations around the globe ? This view is also a specist one, what about all the other lifeforms on the planet that we could not have life favorable condition on earth ? insects, plants, ocean life, corals, etc. Switch from compete to cooperate mindset and there would be a lot less lifeforms rights violations. Also instead of having the USA lifestyle as a model we try try to reach and have for ourselves, we should aim for the India lifestyle so we could all live on earth without destroying the planet.