2 ms·

Yes, we’ve always used technology to alter our environments and we’ll need to continue to do so. The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no techn

Yes, we’ve always used technology to alter our environments and we’ll need to continue to do so. The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. We’ve only put minimal effort into geo-engineering solutions, but even with that minimal effort there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. [1] https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html [2] https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ [3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-rock-on-farms-could-improve-soil-and-lower-co₂/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-ro...

incompatible 7y ago
Alternatively, there may be no political progress and the technological ideas never get implemented (or only when it's too late to do any good).
coldtea 7y ago
>The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. If part of your house is on fire, it will burn completely in, say, 5 hours, and you don't have the technology to stop the fire, assuming that "all will be OK" because you'll invent something in the meantime is idiotic. It's also not science (science is actively working on a problem). Optimism of this kind is just wishful thinking that happens to concern scientific breakthroughs. Soberly speaking: - We might not find the necessary breakthroughs in time, same way we still don't have AI, human-like robot servants, flying cars, cold fusion, miracle drugs, and all kinds of other stuff we'd "surely have" or that's always "20 years in the future". - If we find some breakthrough, it might need too much time, energy, resources to put into action. There's no guarantee from the universe that any technology we find is also immediately (or timely) applicable. - A solution might have downsides (e.g social, economic, etc) for which there might be no consensus, political will, easy way to sell to masses or easy way to convince elites... - A solution might require coordination across nations, which might be the inverse of what we will get (every country for itself, wars over diminishing resources, and so on). In fact already we see rifts into global coordination (from the China trade war, to Brexit and so on). All of those are real concerns, it's not just "technology will save us", as if it owes us... >there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. LOL.
- ridewinter 7y ago
  Not “technology will save us” - human creativity can save us. It has in the past and survival will require our creativity infinitely into the future. You may laugh but let’s tslk again in 30 years. When avg temps rise more than the 1 degree they have so far, political attitudes will change. Overpopulation prophesy from 50 years ago. At the time 1 in 4 people globally were in famine and author prophecized it would only get worse. Instead global population has doubled while worldwide hunger reduced to 1 in 10, due to creativity and technology. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-world...
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Not “technology will save us” - human creativity can save us. It has in the past and survival will require our creativity infinitely into the future. Well, when discussing practical solutions to problems, creativity/technology is more or less same thing. >You may laugh but let’s tslk again in 30 years. When avg temps rise more than the 1 degree they have so far, political attitudes will change. They could very well change for the inverse: people/countries being more selfish, fiercely fighting to save their own (and why not? In a world of fewer resources / access to good stuff / areas with declining climate, that could be a wining move). "Human creativity" didn't save the huge Babylonian empire from being reduced to dust, the huge Roman empire from declining (and entering centuries of "dark ages"), and so on. And those were just political issues, not political + environmental, like today. And of course there's also the inverse argument: we haven't signed any contract that something that worked in the past (e.g. creativity solving some problem) will work in the future too.

incompatible 7y ago

Alternatively, there may be no political progress and the technological ideas never get implemented (or only when it's too late to do any good).

coldtea 7y ago

>The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. If part of your house is on fire, it will burn completely in, say, 5 hours, and you don't have the technology to stop the fire, assuming that "all will be OK" because you'll invent something in the meantime is idiotic. It's also not science (science is actively working on a problem). Optimism of this kind is just wishful thinking that happens to concern scientific breakthroughs. Soberly speaking: - We might not find the necessary breakthroughs in time, same way we still don't have AI, human-like robot servants, flying cars, cold fusion, miracle drugs, and all kinds of other stuff we'd "surely have" or that's always "20 years in the future". - If we find some breakthrough, it might need too much time, energy, resources to put into action. There's no guarantee from the universe that any technology we find is also immediately (or timely) applicable. - A solution might have downsides (e.g social, economic, etc) for which there might be no consensus, political will, easy way to sell to masses or easy way to convince elites... - A solution might require coordination across nations, which might be the inverse of what we will get (every country for itself, wars over diminishing resources, and so on). In fact already we see rifts into global coordination (from the China trade war, to Brexit and so on). All of those are real concerns, it's not just "technology will save us", as if it owes us... >there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. LOL.

ridewinter 7y ago
Not “technology will save us” - human creativity can save us. It has in the past and survival will require our creativity infinitely into the future. You may laugh but let’s tslk again in 30 years. When avg temps rise more than the 1 degree they have so far, political attitudes will change. Overpopulation prophesy from 50 years ago. At the time 1 in 4 people globally were in famine and author prophecized it would only get worse. Instead global population has doubled while worldwide hunger reduced to 1 in 10, due to creativity and technology. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-world...
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Not “technology will save us” - human creativity can save us. It has in the past and survival will require our creativity infinitely into the future. Well, when discussing practical solutions to problems, creativity/technology is more or less same thing. >You may laugh but let’s tslk again in 30 years. When avg temps rise more than the 1 degree they have so far, political attitudes will change. They could very well change for the inverse: people/countries being more selfish, fiercely fighting to save their own (and why not? In a world of fewer resources / access to good stuff / areas with declining climate, that could be a wining move). "Human creativity" didn't save the huge Babylonian empire from being reduced to dust, the huge Roman empire from declining (and entering centuries of "dark ages"), and so on. And those were just political issues, not political + environmental, like today. And of course there's also the inverse argument: we haven't signed any contract that something that worked in the past (e.g. creativity solving some problem) will work in the future too.