3 ms·

> so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? So it's okay to do experiments with the atmosphere, as long as you re-brand them a

> so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? So it's okay to do experiments with the atmosphere, as long as you re-brand them as "pollution" instead of as "experiments"? (and of course, organizationally separate the scientists performing the data collection/analysis steps)

MrOwnPut 4y ago
You answered his question with another question. I believe your question is insinuating that pollution is branded as such and is really an experiment? I don't follow.. can you expand on that or clarify? But first please answer their question before shifting the conversation.
- schiffern 4y ago
  No, my point is that the atmosphere doesn't care what we call it. It's just a semantics game. People care, but we do it in such a backwards way that the rule is apparently "you can hurt (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help!" Clearly, if anything, the move is to re-brand geoengineering as "normal pollution". It wouldn't even be hard: every 737 emits 500 grams of SO2 in less than 100 miles, and not a peep!
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    You still didn't answer the original question posed to you by the GP, so I don't know your stance or line of reasoning. And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps. These experiments / solar geo-engineering / terraforming may hurt. There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?
    - schiffern 4y ago
      My stance is that GP is asking misleading questions that distract from the main issue (all-source emissions). > And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps. The critical word is "try." Apparently, the rule is that your intent is all that matters. If you're trying to profit, it's pollution and it's fine. If you intend to help, all hell breaks loose. Exxon can burn down the world, but utter the words "geoengineering" and you can't so much as swat a fly. I'm not saying this is logical or correct. I'm just saying that these appear to be the rules as constrained by (not always rational) public opinion. > There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree? There are justifications both "for" and "against" (like any complex real-world issue), but the public debate has been extremely skewed.
xwolfi 4y ago
Well it s not an experiment if it's pollution: it's a compromise. We know we degrade it, we dont know an alternative, or dont want to try. An experiment is limited in time, serves no purpose but knowledge acquisition, and can fail. When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail, and people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise. A foreign startup trying something before saying "sorry lol didnt work, good luck" is not gonna convince many to try.
- schiffern 4y ago
  Sure, I know the definitions. > A foreign startup trying something before saying "sorry lol didnt work, good luck" is not gonna convince many to try. It won't seriously deter them either. The public outcry over even the attempt is a more concerning deterrent. > When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail Tell that to Texas. > people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise. Yes, people tend to overvalue immediate visible benefits and undervalue long-term costs (like the climate 100 years hence) or invisible benefits (like gaining scientific knowledge by performing insignificant-scale geoengineering tests). People are irrational. This is known. We should strive to be less irrational.
ttyprintk 4y ago
I suspect choosing Mexico was deliberate. Mexico won’t mandate low-sulphur diesel for a few years. If the SO2 in the balloon happens to be sourced from diesel, then legally this is moving pollution using latex.

MrOwnPut 4y ago

You answered his question with another question. I believe your question is insinuating that pollution is branded as such and is really an experiment? I don't follow.. can you expand on that or clarify? But first please answer their question before shifting the conversation.

schiffern 4y ago
No, my point is that the atmosphere doesn't care what we call it. It's just a semantics game. People care, but we do it in such a backwards way that the rule is apparently "you can hurt (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help!" Clearly, if anything, the move is to re-brand geoengineering as "normal pollution". It wouldn't even be hard: every 737 emits 500 grams of SO2 in less than 100 miles, and not a peep!
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  You still didn't answer the original question posed to you by the GP, so I don't know your stance or line of reasoning. And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps. These experiments / solar geo-engineering / terraforming may hurt. There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?
  - schiffern 4y ago
    My stance is that GP is asking misleading questions that distract from the main issue (all-source emissions). > And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps. The critical word is "try." Apparently, the rule is that your intent is all that matters. If you're trying to profit, it's pollution and it's fine. If you intend to help, all hell breaks loose. Exxon can burn down the world, but utter the words "geoengineering" and you can't so much as swat a fly. I'm not saying this is logical or correct. I'm just saying that these appear to be the rules as constrained by (not always rational) public opinion. > There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree? There are justifications both "for" and "against" (like any complex real-world issue), but the public debate has been extremely skewed.

xwolfi 4y ago

Well it s not an experiment if it's pollution: it's a compromise. We know we degrade it, we dont know an alternative, or dont want to try. An experiment is limited in time, serves no purpose but knowledge acquisition, and can fail. When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail, and people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise. A foreign startup trying something before saying "sorry lol didnt work, good luck" is not gonna convince many to try.

schiffern 4y ago
Sure, I know the definitions. > A foreign startup trying something before saying "sorry lol didnt work, good luck" is not gonna convince many to try. It won't seriously deter them either. The public outcry over even the attempt is a more concerning deterrent. > When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail Tell that to Texas. > people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise. Yes, people tend to overvalue immediate visible benefits and undervalue long-term costs (like the climate 100 years hence) or invisible benefits (like gaining scientific knowledge by performing insignificant-scale geoengineering tests). People are irrational. This is known. We should strive to be less irrational.

ttyprintk 4y ago

I suspect choosing Mexico was deliberate. Mexico won’t mandate low-sulphur diesel for a few years. If the SO2 in the balloon happens to be sourced from diesel, then legally this is moving pollution using latex.