4 ms·

I'm curious your take about serious climate interventions, i.e. geoengeering. I hear some people with the viewpoint of "we don't need to do anything, the future

I'm curious your take about serious climate interventions, i.e. geoengeering. I hear some people with the viewpoint of "we don't need to do anything, the future will be fine" and others, similar to you, who hold more of a "we need to do as much as we can to prevent/correct climate change". I'm curious how these are balanced in your mind. For instance, if we could solve global warming by activating a load of fusion reactors to sequester atmospheric carbon and pollutants, would you then be okay with rural living, meat-eating, and lots of kids? What about greening the sea to absorb more CO2, or similar ecosystem modifications? Curious whether this viewpoint is more ideological or practical in its roots.

paulcole 5y ago
It's a bit more ideological than practical. But there's just not really going to be a pleasant way out of climate change. If people won't stop eating burgers, they're really not going to like what comes next. Although they'll be dead and their kids will probably be dead before the bill comes fully due, so it really doesn't matter anyway. Honestly, I believe that the effects of climate change are going to be way worse than anyone alive today can begin to imagine. The way climate change will "fix" itself is through a massive population reduction and adaptation to an (as of today) unimaginable way of life over the course of a few centuries. People alive today (and at pretty much any time in history) will do whatever they want and rationalize whatever actions they take in whatever way lets them sleep at night. If there was some magic way to fix climate change that allowed us to keep living the way we are, sure go ahead and do that. It's not like we're going to change anyway.