3 ms·

> Yes, unintended side effects. Yes, expensive. Yes, not guaranteed to work. That's what's on the table. I think I see your point, but you are missing the ele

by pif 4y ago

> Yes, unintended side effects. Yes, expensive. Yes, not guaranteed to work. That's what's on the table. I think I see your point, but you are missing the elephant in the room. And you are not alone in missing it, so don't panic about being blind. > Without some drastic step, global temperatures will rise by more than 2 degrees... This, we know it for sure. Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly? More and more land around the equator will become inhabitable, and people will be forced to emigrate en masse? Let's help them to start emigrate today! Those tiny islands in the Indian Ocean that will be submerged by the rising water? Stop building there, and teach the children that their future will be somewhere else. Widespread viruses? Learn from Covid 19, cooperate world-wide to have express vaccines and so on. Sure, I'm talking about very, very sad scenarios, but so are you. But my proposals: 1- are based on what we know today; 2- we know that they can work; 3- we can estimate the amount of pain they will cause. None of this point applies to any other proposal I've ever heard about concerning global warming.

feoren 4y ago
I'm all good with helping people prepare for the effects of global warming, as long as that does nothing to detract from our efforts to prevent/reverse it. You said: > Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly? And the problem I have is the word "just". No, we're not going to just accept it. We should fight like hell to prevent that from happening. We can still plan and prepare for if all our fighting fails, but taking drastic steps and trying some moonshots is absolutely not off the table.
- glyphosate 4y ago
  At best, the idea that we can "prevent/reverse" climate change, and control the global climate like a household thermostat is purely a hypothesis, at worst, its futile mythology that the priestly caste has been asserting as the path to salvation since the beginning of human history. Primitive hominids have learned to adapt thru massive climate change for millions of years. Makes sense that we should put more effort into what we know we can do (adapt), than unquestioningly following ideas that shamans, priests, and scientists claim can be done -- with zero proof.

by pif 4y ago

feoren 4y ago

I'm all good with helping people prepare for the effects of global warming, as long as that does nothing to detract from our efforts to prevent/reverse it. You said: > Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly? And the problem I have is the word "just". No, we're not going to just accept it. We should fight like hell to prevent that from happening. We can still plan and prepare for if all our fighting fails, but taking drastic steps and trying some moonshots is absolutely not off the table.

glyphosate 4y ago
At best, the idea that we can "prevent/reverse" climate change, and control the global climate like a household thermostat is purely a hypothesis, at worst, its futile mythology that the priestly caste has been asserting as the path to salvation since the beginning of human history. Primitive hominids have learned to adapt thru massive climate change for millions of years. Makes sense that we should put more effort into what we know we can do (adapt), than unquestioningly following ideas that shamans, priests, and scientists claim can be done -- with zero proof.