3 ms·

> Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? For those of us who don't have a particularly strong desir

> Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? For those of us who don't have a particularly strong desire to have children this is very much a dealbreaker. > It just rings like all of the people claiming “end times” for hundreds of years. The only way that would be the case is if you ignore the evidence that makes the current situation untentable in a way that no other prior instance of history has been.

brightball 7y ago
The current situation? We’ve previously had the threat of nuclear war situation and 2 world wars in the last 100 years. With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere, we could be having a totally different conversation.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  > With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere ... and reverse the laws of thermodynamics, too! Recapturing atmospheric CO2 means working to transform from a high-entropy state to a lower-entropy state. That's not going to happen for free. So you need to have: 1) A fast efficient carbon-capture mechanism. 2) A way to generate lots and lots of power that doesn't itself produce CO2. You're not describing a "single scientific advance" as much as you're describing dozens or hundreds of major feats of engineering. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I would not bet the planet on it.
  - brightball 7y ago
    Nuclear already accomplishes the power requirements though. As far as I can tell it’s more about having a working option and then paying for it. But even if we aren’t betting the planet on it...this is akin to a poker game where all of your money is already in the middle. Folding the hand just means you lose. There is literally nothing to gain by giving up. Nothing.

3 ms·

> Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? For those of us who don't have a particularly strong desir

by Daishiman 7y ago

brightball 7y ago
The current situation? We’ve previously had the threat of nuclear war situation and 2 world wars in the last 100 years. With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere, we could be having a totally different conversation.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  > With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere ... and reverse the laws of thermodynamics, too! Recapturing atmospheric CO2 means working to transform from a high-entropy state to a lower-entropy state. That's not going to happen for free. So you need to have: 1) A fast efficient carbon-capture mechanism. 2) A way to generate lots and lots of power that doesn't itself produce CO2. You're not describing a "single scientific advance" as much as you're describing dozens or hundreds of major feats of engineering. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I would not bet the planet on it.
  - brightball 7y ago
    Nuclear already accomplishes the power requirements though. As far as I can tell it’s more about having a working option and then paying for it. But even if we aren’t betting the planet on it...this is akin to a poker game where all of your money is already in the middle. Folding the hand just means you lose. There is literally nothing to gain by giving up. Nothing.