2 ms·

I feel like this is a logical fallacy. Do we know all the consequences of trying to solve other problems? Of course not. Imagine if we stopped trying to solve a

I feel like this is a logical fallacy. Do we know all the consequences of trying to solve other problems? Of course not. Imagine if we stopped trying to solve any problem due to a “precautionary principle.”

Koffiepoeder 5y ago
Very valid point. I think for me an important distinction here is the problem size and complexity. The larger your problem, the more certainty you need that your solution works. This is also why we write thousands of tests for large software projects, while just a couple might suffice for a hobby project. Does this mean that we should not explore new science and innovative solutions? Certainly not. But before you start engaging in macro-ecological interventions, you better be damn sure that what you are doing is safe, now and tomorrow, both in first, second and nth order effects.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Agree! If the only way to test these technologies was at a massive scale, I’d be worried. But they can all be tested at a small scale. That’s the other logical fallacy: e.g., just because the intention is large scale deployment doesn’t mean the testing requires large scale deployment. So, to your point, we really need to be investing in testing these different possibilities. Meanwhile, many scientists are trying to ban research in the area. I don’t get it. https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientists-ban-solar-geoengineering/ https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientis...
- DennisP 5y ago
  If only that sort of testing had been done before we added two and a half trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Sadly, now we don't have a choice between making a massive change or making no change. We just have a choice between leaving one change in place that we know is massively harmful, or using another method to reverse that change.
fnordpiglet 5y ago
I think this is actually the fallacious statement. Failing to list any consequences doesn’t require listing all consequences to rectify. I agree with the statement that saying risks are “very low” is insufficient, especially when considering pumping a ton of stuff into the atmosphere. Rather one would expect a thoughtful analysis of what “very low” risks have been identified and why they’re low risk.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Yeah, I mean, honesty this sounds like it is an innovation coming from a some guy (or girl) in a garage. But I’m pretty ok with that. Let’s see if they can take it forward. Am I wrong to think that it would be professionally toxic for a “real” climate scientist to work on a project like this?

Koffiepoeder 5y ago

Very valid point. I think for me an important distinction here is the problem size and complexity. The larger your problem, the more certainty you need that your solution works. This is also why we write thousands of tests for large software projects, while just a couple might suffice for a hobby project. Does this mean that we should not explore new science and innovative solutions? Certainly not. But before you start engaging in macro-ecological interventions, you better be damn sure that what you are doing is safe, now and tomorrow, both in first, second and nth order effects.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
Agree! If the only way to test these technologies was at a massive scale, I’d be worried. But they can all be tested at a small scale. That’s the other logical fallacy: e.g., just because the intention is large scale deployment doesn’t mean the testing requires large scale deployment. So, to your point, we really need to be investing in testing these different possibilities. Meanwhile, many scientists are trying to ban research in the area. I don’t get it. https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientists-ban-solar-geoengineering/ https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientis...
DennisP 5y ago
If only that sort of testing had been done before we added two and a half trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Sadly, now we don't have a choice between making a massive change or making no change. We just have a choice between leaving one change in place that we know is massively harmful, or using another method to reverse that change.

fnordpiglet 5y ago

I think this is actually the fallacious statement. Failing to list any consequences doesn’t require listing all consequences to rectify. I agree with the statement that saying risks are “very low” is insufficient, especially when considering pumping a ton of stuff into the atmosphere. Rather one would expect a thoughtful analysis of what “very low” risks have been identified and why they’re low risk.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
Yeah, I mean, honesty this sounds like it is an innovation coming from a some guy (or girl) in a garage. But I’m pretty ok with that. Let’s see if they can take it forward. Am I wrong to think that it would be professionally toxic for a “real” climate scientist to work on a project like this?