4 ms·

I would aggressively vote and promote a us presidential candidate who stated they would negotiate an arrangement to do this for financial compensation on coasta

I would aggressively vote and promote a us presidential candidate who stated they would negotiate an arrangement to do this for financial compensation on coastal equator countries- and failing that, a hostile military invasion to force it upon them. Probably no need for the latter, but having it on the table makes the former easier to negotiate. This process could release deadly nickel into the water. It probably would harm the coral reefs more than help... but I really feel like much of the ocean is pretty f*ed longer term anyway. Also the countries most poised to do this are the ones most at risk from climate change both in terms of heat, tidal forces, and horrible storms. I feel it would be a powerful platform. It makes an optimistic message out of an otherwise negative concept- and it makes America the hero saving the world. Who wouldn’t vote for that?

pjc50 7y ago
> and failing that, a hostile military invasion to force it upon them. Eco-fascism! I mean, once you're willing to murder people to reduce carbon emissions, there are simpler ways to do it. But make sure you've got suitable carbon offsets for the invasion and the crematoriums. > optimistic message "Good news: America is going to improve the world at gunpoint again!"
- virmundi 7y ago
  I know people won’t like it, but the alternative is a Mad Max world. We’re told the whole planet will be either an ocean or a desert unless we return to the Stone Age. Therefore we need to follow the Georgia monument and reduce the global population to 500 million. Anything less than the total dissolution of human rights in the name of environmental protection is a death sentence anyways. At least we can use the benevolence of democracy to pick winners and losers.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
  > Eco-fascism! I mean, once you're willing to murder people to reduce carbon emissions, there are simpler ways to do it. But make sure you've got suitable carbon offsets for the invasion and the crematoriums. I think this disingenuous. I am fully aware this is not a virtuous path (noting again that I think it could be done easily and more preferably with economic solutions). From a utilitarian perspective it is massively moral. It would likely minimize suffering of the target populations too. Yes yes killing billions would reduce carbon emissions but that’s clearly not a good solution and not comparable. Using military might to force coastal equator nations to comply with what is plausibly our only chance at saving the planet is very low on the scale of shit countries have done for self betterment. Crematoriums imply killing is a first order goal. Killing is a bad thing in the eyes of this plan that is trying to be minimized.

pjc50 7y ago

> and failing that, a hostile military invasion to force it upon them. Eco-fascism! I mean, once you're willing to murder people to reduce carbon emissions, there are simpler ways to do it. But make sure you've got suitable carbon offsets for the invasion and the crematoriums. > optimistic message "Good news: America is going to improve the world at gunpoint again!"

virmundi 7y ago
I know people won’t like it, but the alternative is a Mad Max world. We’re told the whole planet will be either an ocean or a desert unless we return to the Stone Age. Therefore we need to follow the Georgia monument and reduce the global population to 500 million. Anything less than the total dissolution of human rights in the name of environmental protection is a death sentence anyways. At least we can use the benevolence of democracy to pick winners and losers.
throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
> Eco-fascism! I mean, once you're willing to murder people to reduce carbon emissions, there are simpler ways to do it. But make sure you've got suitable carbon offsets for the invasion and the crematoriums. I think this disingenuous. I am fully aware this is not a virtuous path (noting again that I think it could be done easily and more preferably with economic solutions). From a utilitarian perspective it is massively moral. It would likely minimize suffering of the target populations too. Yes yes killing billions would reduce carbon emissions but that’s clearly not a good solution and not comparable. Using military might to force coastal equator nations to comply with what is plausibly our only chance at saving the planet is very low on the scale of shit countries have done for self betterment. Crematoriums imply killing is a first order goal. Killing is a bad thing in the eyes of this plan that is trying to be minimized.