3 ms·
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 you
by Koffiepoeder 4y 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 4y agoAgree! 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 4y agoIf 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.