3 ms·

Funny enough I have zero problem with exploring other planets. My problem is when we start messing around with the only one we have without truly understanding

Funny enough I have zero problem with exploring other planets. My problem is when we start messing around with the only one we have without truly understanding every possible outcome. And having one country do it while it affects everyone.

schiffern 4y ago
Funny enough, me either. But that's missing the point. How long until we "truly understand every possible outcome"? 10 years? 15? When you speak in absolutes, you don't even need to move goalposts. Since we will (obviously) never understand everything, if we follow your criterion then nobody could ever start anything. This weird double standard is only ever applied to geoengineering, but never regular pollution. Based on the relative conversational noise levels, apparently it's fine that we pollute as much as we want without "truly understanding every possible outcome." (cue the "I sleep/Real shit" meme image)
- dubcanada 4y ago
  No need to be snarky. I’m just trying to have a discussion. I also never said I support pollution, but if I support going to mars I must because a rocket is a lot of pollution. My main premise is I tend to think we’ve messed up so much so fast (in regards to the earth), I don’t think trying brand new studies that are based off words like “presumably”, “promising makes sense. Wikipedia says > However, as of 2021, there has been little research and existing natural aerosols in the stratosphere are not well understood. And > It is uncertain how effective any solar geoengineering technique would be, due to the difficulties modeling their impacts and the complex nature of the global climate system. Do you think based on those words we should just be firing up balloons and see what happens? I’m not saying at some point in time with studies done, and people agree we cannot proceed. But this doesn’t seem like sound science just yet. And I prefer sound science before messing with the environment.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    No snark. I thought we were having a nice conversation. > Do you think based on those words we should just be firing up balloons and see what happens? > I’m not saying at some point in time with studies done... How can we possibly gain enough scientific confidence is nobody is allowed to perform a single experiment (aka do X "and see what happens")? This all sounds rational on the surface, but underneath it's a paralysis-inducing catch-22. Asking endlessly for "more studies" is a classic delay tactic, with a long history of use (you surely don't intend that, but the effect is the same). Unfortunately we've run out of time for further delay. Unpopular as it is to say, "move fast and break things" will lead to the least overall damage and death. But we'll never be able to show it, because of paralysis by these curious Reverse Good Samaritan / Reverse Hippocratic Oath attitudes. We comfort ourselves that it's about stopping harm, but with the pervasive geoengineering-vs-pollution double standard the de facto rule is "first, attempt no good."

schiffern 4y ago

Funny enough, me either. But that's missing the point. How long until we "truly understand every possible outcome"? 10 years? 15? When you speak in absolutes, you don't even need to move goalposts. Since we will (obviously) never understand everything, if we follow your criterion then nobody could ever start anything. This weird double standard is only ever applied to geoengineering, but never regular pollution. Based on the relative conversational noise levels, apparently it's fine that we pollute as much as we want without "truly understanding every possible outcome." (cue the "I sleep/Real shit" meme image)

dubcanada 4y ago
No need to be snarky. I’m just trying to have a discussion. I also never said I support pollution, but if I support going to mars I must because a rocket is a lot of pollution. My main premise is I tend to think we’ve messed up so much so fast (in regards to the earth), I don’t think trying brand new studies that are based off words like “presumably”, “promising makes sense. Wikipedia says > However, as of 2021, there has been little research and existing natural aerosols in the stratosphere are not well understood. And > It is uncertain how effective any solar geoengineering technique would be, due to the difficulties modeling their impacts and the complex nature of the global climate system. Do you think based on those words we should just be firing up balloons and see what happens? I’m not saying at some point in time with studies done, and people agree we cannot proceed. But this doesn’t seem like sound science just yet. And I prefer sound science before messing with the environment.
- schiffern 4y ago
  No snark. I thought we were having a nice conversation. > Do you think based on those words we should just be firing up balloons and see what happens? > I’m not saying at some point in time with studies done... How can we possibly gain enough scientific confidence is nobody is allowed to perform a single experiment (aka do X "and see what happens")? This all sounds rational on the surface, but underneath it's a paralysis-inducing catch-22. Asking endlessly for "more studies" is a classic delay tactic, with a long history of use (you surely don't intend that, but the effect is the same). Unfortunately we've run out of time for further delay. Unpopular as it is to say, "move fast and break things" will lead to the least overall damage and death. But we'll never be able to show it, because of paralysis by these curious Reverse Good Samaritan / Reverse Hippocratic Oath attitudes. We comfort ourselves that it's about stopping harm, but with the pervasive geoengineering-vs-pollution double standard the de facto rule is "first, attempt no good."