3 ms·

Arguments like this are utterly hilarious to me. After decades of 'oh whoops, this new compound we created has enormous unknown consequences, how could we have

Arguments like this are utterly hilarious to me. After decades of 'oh whoops, this new compound we created has enormous unknown consequences, how could we have known' we should just accept that technology is going to get us out of this mess? Count me out, i will fight geo-engineering tooth and nail. It is not a viable choice, its just the choice that doesn't require any hard decisions or changes.

radu_floricica 5y ago
You know, this is why people keep saying climate change is a religion. A solution can't be just effective, it also has to be _right_. You can't even play with geoengineering because it's sacrilege. We have to abase ourselves and pay the sacrificial price in order to be clean and worthy again. Every practical solution is rejected out of hand. Carbon capture? Nah. Nuclear power? Dirty. Simply doing the math and trying to be efficient in what we cut? Racist. Suggesting it might not be all bad? Straight out sacrilege.
- arbitrary_name 5y ago
  I actually support nuclear, oddly enough. And I'm not arguing anything out of hand. I would posit that the only rational position to take, when the situation has relentlessly worsened over generations, is to be suspicious of large scale environmental interference. It genuinely requires religious faith to believe that geo-engineering would be successful without significant consequences. You position myself and others taking my position as religious zealots, but tell me: why is it so upsetting to you that i might question technology's ability to save us? And why would it upset you so much, that i might not consider humanity in its current state, to be worth saving if it meant risking the global ecosystem? Humanism is a sick cult, and technologism even more so. Both will destroy us and the planet we live on.
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    > Humanism is a sick cult, and technologism even more so. Both will destroy us and the planet we live on. QED :) Can't have a proper religion without an outgroup to hate on.
Dylan16807 5y ago
So test it? We don't need to use new compounds, and they fall out of the air and stop doing things after a while.

radu_floricica 5y ago

You know, this is why people keep saying climate change is a religion. A solution can't be just effective, it also has to be _right_. You can't even play with geoengineering because it's sacrilege. We have to abase ourselves and pay the sacrificial price in order to be clean and worthy again. Every practical solution is rejected out of hand. Carbon capture? Nah. Nuclear power? Dirty. Simply doing the math and trying to be efficient in what we cut? Racist. Suggesting it might not be all bad? Straight out sacrilege.

arbitrary_name 5y ago
I actually support nuclear, oddly enough. And I'm not arguing anything out of hand. I would posit that the only rational position to take, when the situation has relentlessly worsened over generations, is to be suspicious of large scale environmental interference. It genuinely requires religious faith to believe that geo-engineering would be successful without significant consequences. You position myself and others taking my position as religious zealots, but tell me: why is it so upsetting to you that i might question technology's ability to save us? And why would it upset you so much, that i might not consider humanity in its current state, to be worth saving if it meant risking the global ecosystem? Humanism is a sick cult, and technologism even more so. Both will destroy us and the planet we live on.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  > Humanism is a sick cult, and technologism even more so. Both will destroy us and the planet we live on. QED :) Can't have a proper religion without an outgroup to hate on.

Dylan16807 5y ago

So test it? We don't need to use new compounds, and they fall out of the air and stop doing things after a while.