6 ms·

Conversely, this attitude is why I believe that humanity won’t make it. Selfish faith does not affect actual temperatures. Faith does not decrease measured CO2

Conversely, this attitude is why I believe that humanity won’t make it. Selfish faith does not affect actual temperatures. Faith does not decrease measured CO2 levels, or stop the proliferation of extinctions, or stop the conflagrations currently burning out of control in California, Spain, and elsewhere. Selfish faith doesn’t restore migratory patterns, or ocean temperatures, or arctic ice levels. Record and ever worsening heat waves don’t stop advancing simply because we reply with a “oh, I’m sure everything will work out.” But hey, someone predicted something wrong in the past, so that means I can brush my hands of it. A psychologist would certainly say that’s a healthy attitude to take, but perhaps what is needed to stave off extinction are unhealthy ones. But that might upset someone, and we wouldn’t want to do that now would we.

Recurecur 8y ago
> Conversely, this attitude is why I believe that humanity won’t make it. Selfish faith does not affect actual temperatures. Faith does not decrease measured CO2 levels, or stop the proliferation of extinctions, or stop the conflagrations currently burning out of control in California, Spain, and elsewhere. Selfish faith doesn’t restore migratory patterns, or ocean temperatures, or arctic ice levels. Record and ever worsening heat waves don’t stop advancing simply because we reply with a “oh, I’m sure everything will work out.” None of that is relevant. What is relevant is that there are known mitigations, which are simply a matter of engineering. If in fact climate sensitivity to CO2 is at the high end, humanity will have no choice but to geoengineer. There are several approaches that could provide outcomes ranging from less severe warming, to returning the Earth to the temperature regime of 280 PPM CO2. The crux of having this capability is further scientific progress, and development of high-density power sources like advanced fission reactors and fusion. Humans should also aggressively colonize elsewhere in the solar system, to avoid the "all eggs in one basket" problem - starting with the Moon, not Mars. The Chinese are on the right track there, and the US seems to be coming around. In the shorter term, the best thing is to work towards win-win outcomes between economics and cleaner energy. Cheaper solar cells will lessen the use of fossil fuels. Same with better wind turbines (I vote for quiet to be one of the main design criteria ;). Support advanced fission reactor designs like those from ThorCon, Terrapower, and NuScale - they are also cost effective, safe, and produce no CO2 or other pollution. Humanity has a bright future. The only things standing in the way are stupidity, defeatism and negativity.
- mr_overalls 8y ago
  > simply a matter of engineering. Remember that these are hypothetical, untried mitigations. > Humans should also aggressively colonize elsewhere in the solar system Another idea that requires decades or centuries of continued technological progress - which in turn depends heavily on stable societies and supporting ecosystems. I'm a bright green environmentalist, too - I think that the convergence of technological change and social innovation provides the most successful path to sustainable development - but you're being a bit overly optimistic here, I think.
- Recurecur 8y ago
  @mr_overalls: >> simply a matter of engineering. >Remember that these are hypothetical, untried mitigations. They are based on well-understood science. Two that would clearly work are orbital sunshades (adjustable as needed via various techniques) and CO2 sequestration (great, but tons of energy is required). >> Humans should also aggressively colonize elsewhere in the solar system >Another idea that requires decades or centuries of continued technological progress - which in turn depends heavily on stable societies and supporting ecosystems. Which has nothing to do with anything. My comment on space colonization wasn't intended to present it as a "solution" to catastrophic warming - instead, to present it as a reason for long-term optimism. >I'm a bright green environmentalist, too - I think that the convergence of technological change and social innovation provides the most successful path to sustainable development - but you're being a bit overly optimistic here, I think. LOL...if the two alternatives are global catastrophe, or aggressive geoengineering, do you really think geoengineering won't happen? At this time, global warming is not understood well enough for accurate prediction, especially over longer timescales. As that changes, the best course of future action will become clear. In the meantime, the best focus is as outlined in the "In the shorter term" paragraph in the parent...
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    > if the two alternatives are global catastrophe, or aggressive geoengineering, do you really think geoengineering won't happen? Why hasn't it happened already, then? In case you haven't noticed, we're already staring down the barrel of global catastrophe. The problem is that it's happening on a scope that our human systems aren't set up to address. It's interesting how much faith supposedly hard-nosed engineers are willing to put into imaginary future technology that doesn't exist, but which will supposedly be invented and deployed at a planetary scale in the next 10 to 20 years.
mindcrime 8y ago
Conversely, this attitude is why I believe that humanity won’t make it. Not be be all nihilistic or anything, but ultimately humanity won't "make it" and we know this. Barring some seriously sci-fi level developments, one or the other of two things is going to wipe out humanity: 1. The collapse of the sun (if we're still a single planet species when it happens) 2. The heat-death of the universe. Unless we come up with some "Fringe* like technology, or repudiate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, human life has a fixed shelf-life. Of course that doesn't mean we should stop trying to fix problems in the short-term. Even though death (both at the individual level and the species level) appears inevitable, we don't have to embrace nihilism. One can choose to find meaning wherever / however they want. As the old saying goes "the meaning of life, is a life of meaning".
- kerbalspacepro 8y ago
  People talk about the heat-death of the universe like its on par with other existential threats... but the heat death is literally trillions of years away. We're only at 0.5% of the universe's lifespan. A universe devoid of us for 99.5% of its existence is not as good!
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  So because we are dead in a few billion years we should give up after ~20k years? That's beyond nihilistic and straight into middle school emo
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    So because we are dead in a few billion years we should give up after ~20k years? I don't understand the point of this comment. You just restated something as though I said (or implied) it, when I very explicitly said the exact opposite. So no, it is not the case that "because we are dead in a few billion years we should give up after ~20k years". However, it is valuable - I believe - to keep things in perspective.
    - mrguyorama 8y ago

Recurecur 8y ago

> Conversely, this attitude is why I believe that humanity won’t make it. Selfish faith does not affect actual temperatures. Faith does not decrease measured CO2 levels, or stop the proliferation of extinctions, or stop the conflagrations currently burning out of control in California, Spain, and elsewhere. Selfish faith doesn’t restore migratory patterns, or ocean temperatures, or arctic ice levels. Record and ever worsening heat waves don’t stop advancing simply because we reply with a “oh, I’m sure everything will work out.” None of that is relevant. What is relevant is that there are known mitigations, which are simply a matter of engineering. If in fact climate sensitivity to CO2 is at the high end, humanity will have no choice but to geoengineer. There are several approaches that could provide outcomes ranging from less severe warming, to returning the Earth to the temperature regime of 280 PPM CO2. The crux of having this capability is further scientific progress, and development of high-density power sources like advanced fission reactors and fusion. Humans should also aggressively colonize elsewhere in the solar system, to avoid the "all eggs in one basket" problem - starting with the Moon, not Mars. The Chinese are on the right track there, and the US seems to be coming around. In the shorter term, the best thing is to work towards win-win outcomes between economics and cleaner energy. Cheaper solar cells will lessen the use of fossil fuels. Same with better wind turbines (I vote for quiet to be one of the main design criteria ;). Support advanced fission reactor designs like those from ThorCon, Terrapower, and NuScale - they are also cost effective, safe, and produce no CO2 or other pollution. Humanity has a bright future. The only things standing in the way are stupidity, defeatism and negativity.

mr_overalls 8y ago
> simply a matter of engineering. Remember that these are hypothetical, untried mitigations. > Humans should also aggressively colonize elsewhere in the solar system Another idea that requires decades or centuries of continued technological progress - which in turn depends heavily on stable societies and supporting ecosystems. I'm a bright green environmentalist, too - I think that the convergence of technological change and social innovation provides the most successful path to sustainable development - but you're being a bit overly optimistic here, I think.
Recurecur 8y ago
@mr_overalls: >> simply a matter of engineering. >Remember that these are hypothetical, untried mitigations. They are based on well-understood science. Two that would clearly work are orbital sunshades (adjustable as needed via various techniques) and CO2 sequestration (great, but tons of energy is required). >> Humans should also aggressively colonize elsewhere in the solar system >Another idea that requires decades or centuries of continued technological progress - which in turn depends heavily on stable societies and supporting ecosystems. Which has nothing to do with anything. My comment on space colonization wasn't intended to present it as a "solution" to catastrophic warming - instead, to present it as a reason for long-term optimism. >I'm a bright green environmentalist, too - I think that the convergence of technological change and social innovation provides the most successful path to sustainable development - but you're being a bit overly optimistic here, I think. LOL...if the two alternatives are global catastrophe, or aggressive geoengineering, do you really think geoengineering won't happen? At this time, global warming is not understood well enough for accurate prediction, especially over longer timescales. As that changes, the best course of future action will become clear. In the meantime, the best focus is as outlined in the "In the shorter term" paragraph in the parent...
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  > if the two alternatives are global catastrophe, or aggressive geoengineering, do you really think geoengineering won't happen? Why hasn't it happened already, then? In case you haven't noticed, we're already staring down the barrel of global catastrophe. The problem is that it's happening on a scope that our human systems aren't set up to address. It's interesting how much faith supposedly hard-nosed engineers are willing to put into imaginary future technology that doesn't exist, but which will supposedly be invented and deployed at a planetary scale in the next 10 to 20 years.

mindcrime 8y ago

Conversely, this attitude is why I believe that humanity won’t make it. Not be be all nihilistic or anything, but ultimately humanity won't "make it" and we know this. Barring some seriously sci-fi level developments, one or the other of two things is going to wipe out humanity: 1. The collapse of the sun (if we're still a single planet species when it happens) 2. The heat-death of the universe. Unless we come up with some "Fringe* like technology, or repudiate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, human life has a fixed shelf-life. Of course that doesn't mean we should stop trying to fix problems in the short-term. Even though death (both at the individual level and the species level) appears inevitable, we don't have to embrace nihilism. One can choose to find meaning wherever / however they want. As the old saying goes "the meaning of life, is a life of meaning".

kerbalspacepro 8y ago
People talk about the heat-death of the universe like its on par with other existential threats... but the heat death is literally trillions of years away. We're only at 0.5% of the universe's lifespan. A universe devoid of us for 99.5% of its existence is not as good!
mrguyorama 8y ago
So because we are dead in a few billion years we should give up after ~20k years? That's beyond nihilistic and straight into middle school emo
- mindcrime 8y ago
  So because we are dead in a few billion years we should give up after ~20k years? I don't understand the point of this comment. You just restated something as though I said (or implied) it, when I very explicitly said the exact opposite. So no, it is not the case that "because we are dead in a few billion years we should give up after ~20k years". However, it is valuable - I believe - to keep things in perspective.
  - mrguyorama 8y ago