3 ms·
I am not sure more science can be an issue, it is still a ridiculous small amount of money compared to defence, debt servicing, etc. Who knows, someone might f
by seren 7y ago
I am not sure more science can be an issue, it is still a ridiculous small amount of money compared to defence, debt servicing, etc.
Who knows, someone might find a negative feedback loop for climate change that we could leverage, even in something as improbable as mycology ?
(Likely increasing defence budget is also another way to mitigate climate change if we don't do it in a more civilized way...)
- achenatx 7y agothe best negative feedback loop is a depression. Kill the global economy for 20 years and CO2 production will crash. Ironically trumps tariffs are likely to do more to slow climate change than any other policies.
- weberc2 7y agoI wonder if this is true or if we will just use cheaper, dirtier technology to get by?
- webmaven 7y agoThat depends to an extent on how deep the depression is. As transportation gets more expensive, after a certain point, solar panels and wind turbines are cheaper to ship around than huge amounts of coal and oil. However, at a certain point after that, efficient solar panels and wind turbines (not to mention batteries and motors) may become too hard to manufacture due to unavailability of critical materials and components. If anyone is looking for a big meaty research problem that may influence just how far our technological society might fall, either work on non-rare replacements for rare-earth elements (semiconductor dopants, magnets, etc.) or on ways to shorten the supply lines (eg. economically/sustainably extract them from ordinary dirt or seawater, perhaps with synbio).