3 ms·

Dismissing the causes means that they won't be addressed. Something else will be tried to be done instead of the most obvious course of action if you know the c

Dismissing the causes means that they won't be addressed. Something else will be tried to be done instead of the most obvious course of action if you know the cause. And that something else could go horribly wrong, as we are dealing with a very complex system that we don't properly understand, and taking drastic/massive measures because of the urgency it will take. Yes, positive reinforcement is adding more factors to the game than just CO2 or GHG emissions, so the problem is not just CO2 anymore. But doing nothing about the source, and in fact keep worsening it won't do any good.

rbanffy 5y ago
What we need to stop doing is one thing, but what else can we do (paint the planet white?) is also important. If we can, with artificial structures, increase the amount of energy we radiate, then it should be easier to control than industrial production chains, which have long feedback loops that make their behaviour harder to predict
- gmuslera 5y ago
  You can die from fever, so taking or doing something for controlling your temperature seems a good approach for avoiding that. But if you only care about that symptom, and forget that it comes from a disease, infection or something like that, it won't be a solution, just a short-lived (as you) mitigation. If the message is to not mind about the source, it won't be addressed, and the mitigations may or not work, or turn the original problem into something much more complex or harder to solve. I'm not talking about the future, but about the past. The problem was known, and put under the rug, dismissed, ignored, and delayed, even if there was something that could had been done about. Then nothing or too little was done already, and while a lot of effort will be diverted to short term mitigations, nothing will be done in the future neither.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    We are talking about two problems. One is technical. This one is relatively easy to solve. The other is organisational: humans aren’t rational and societies don’t behave in their best long term interest. The latter is infinitely more complicated to address.

rbanffy 5y ago

What we need to stop doing is one thing, but what else can we do (paint the planet white?) is also important. If we can, with artificial structures, increase the amount of energy we radiate, then it should be easier to control than industrial production chains, which have long feedback loops that make their behaviour harder to predict

gmuslera 5y ago
You can die from fever, so taking or doing something for controlling your temperature seems a good approach for avoiding that. But if you only care about that symptom, and forget that it comes from a disease, infection or something like that, it won't be a solution, just a short-lived (as you) mitigation. If the message is to not mind about the source, it won't be addressed, and the mitigations may or not work, or turn the original problem into something much more complex or harder to solve. I'm not talking about the future, but about the past. The problem was known, and put under the rug, dismissed, ignored, and delayed, even if there was something that could had been done about. Then nothing or too little was done already, and while a lot of effort will be diverted to short term mitigations, nothing will be done in the future neither.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  We are talking about two problems. One is technical. This one is relatively easy to solve. The other is organisational: humans aren’t rational and societies don’t behave in their best long term interest. The latter is infinitely more complicated to address.