4 ms·

More options is too simple. I hope you agree there is a difference between "Humans cause climate change, we need to get rid of humans" and "Humans cause climate

More options is too simple. I hope you agree there is a difference between "Humans cause climate change, we need to get rid of humans" and "Humans cause climate change, we need to reduce human impact to the planet". Presenting the first one is an option that wastes everyone's time.

henearkr 4y ago
Just for the sake of contradicting you, we (all the Humans) could move outside of the biosphere, e.g. on the Moon or Mars. That would completely remove our influence on the biosphere, the atmosphere, the oceans... However that would request so much Earth resources to launch everybody and everything (and thus would definitively destroy the biosphere in the process), that it is just not feasible.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Exactly: a distraction, so strictly worse than not hearing it.
  - henearkr 4y ago
    Yes, but there may be a benefit to launch a part of the Human world outside of the biosphere, e.g. the most polluting industries. It is worth thinking whether it is a good thing or not that a very risky industry (for which an accident could be really disastrous) can take place on the Moon. We can also launch a bare minimum, and then let automated builder robots unroll the industry from local resources (e.g. lunar silicates, other metals,...). This can be how huge photovoltaic grids could be built on the Moon, for example.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Maybe do that after global catastrophe had been averted.
      - henearkr 4y ago
        Of course we cannot rely on that, because photovoltaic facilities built by builder robots would take too much time to be of any relevance for the current crisis. If it is launched now we may be able to use it a few decades later.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        If it is launched now instead of building out renewables as fast as we possibly can, civilization collapses, and then it never happens.
        henearkr 4y ago
        No the cost of launching seed robots would be small, nothing comparable with launching everything already ready to use. So it is not at all exclusive with being on schedule with the other, more important, projects. But I agree we must spend the most of our time and resources building solar (and wind) capacity, and storage.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        We have no capacity at all to make "seed robots". Imagining seed robots and orbital gigaprojects distracts from the only thing we know can work.
        henearkr 4y ago
        You are reasoning like if not 100% of engineers but "only" 99.999% work on the priority projects then those priority projects will fail. That's not the case. Moreover, there is always the need to continue to explore and diversify research and development. It allows to spread the risks (even if modestly, given that most resources go to the priority projects) and discover the necessary paths to go ahead (which is required even for the critical paths for the priority projects).
kbenson 4y ago
I don't think anyone will dispute that some options are not useful, but I don't accept that you, or anyone else, should be the arbiter of what is useful and decide that more options aren't, and therefore we should stop. For the same reason that the next option presented could be the worst possible option, it could also be the best possible option. I reject the attempt of others to tell me that we should stop entertaining any more options at all. That said, I think you've simplified the options presented for discussion to the point of being not very useful for said discussion.

henearkr 4y ago

Just for the sake of contradicting you, we (all the Humans) could move outside of the biosphere, e.g. on the Moon or Mars. That would completely remove our influence on the biosphere, the atmosphere, the oceans... However that would request so much Earth resources to launch everybody and everything (and thus would definitively destroy the biosphere in the process), that it is just not feasible.

ncmncm 4y ago
Exactly: a distraction, so strictly worse than not hearing it.
- henearkr 4y ago
  Yes, but there may be a benefit to launch a part of the Human world outside of the biosphere, e.g. the most polluting industries. It is worth thinking whether it is a good thing or not that a very risky industry (for which an accident could be really disastrous) can take place on the Moon. We can also launch a bare minimum, and then let automated builder robots unroll the industry from local resources (e.g. lunar silicates, other metals,...). This can be how huge photovoltaic grids could be built on the Moon, for example.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Maybe do that after global catastrophe had been averted.
    - henearkr 4y ago
      Of course we cannot rely on that, because photovoltaic facilities built by builder robots would take too much time to be of any relevance for the current crisis. If it is launched now we may be able to use it a few decades later.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        If it is launched now instead of building out renewables as fast as we possibly can, civilization collapses, and then it never happens.
        henearkr 4y ago
        No the cost of launching seed robots would be small, nothing comparable with launching everything already ready to use. So it is not at all exclusive with being on schedule with the other, more important, projects. But I agree we must spend the most of our time and resources building solar (and wind) capacity, and storage.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        We have no capacity at all to make "seed robots". Imagining seed robots and orbital gigaprojects distracts from the only thing we know can work.
        henearkr 4y ago
        You are reasoning like if not 100% of engineers but "only" 99.999% work on the priority projects then those priority projects will fail. That's not the case. Moreover, there is always the need to continue to explore and diversify research and development. It allows to spread the risks (even if modestly, given that most resources go to the priority projects) and discover the necessary paths to go ahead (which is required even for the critical paths for the priority projects).

kbenson 4y ago

I don't think anyone will dispute that some options are not useful, but I don't accept that you, or anyone else, should be the arbiter of what is useful and decide that more options aren't, and therefore we should stop. For the same reason that the next option presented could be the worst possible option, it could also be the best possible option. I reject the attempt of others to tell me that we should stop entertaining any more options at all. That said, I think you've simplified the options presented for discussion to the point of being not very useful for said discussion.