4 ms·
We're on the path for stratospheric sulfide injection to be the utilitarian choice, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Effective Altruism groups discussing it a
by gtop3 3y ago
We're on the path for stratospheric sulfide injection to be the utilitarian choice, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Effective Altruism groups discussing it as a very cost effective way to save lives in 30 years. The primary effects are relatively short lived (a few decades) and fast-acting (months). It will reduce global temperatures. Sulfide is cheap, the cost is mostly in fighting gravity. It probably won't happen until there is a stronger narrative around human life lost due to climate change. A bad summer with lots of catastrophes hitting the front page. The global political environment is setup so a non-superpower might act alone or with few allies.
While it sounds great on paper, the secondary order effects will last longer than primary and are very hard to quantify. It's clearly 10x-1000x cheaper to cut CO2 emissions now than to try to block out the sun with geoclimate engineering in a few decades.
- nibbleshifter 3y agoI'll be honest, any time I see EA groups latch onto an idea, its a good heuristic that the idea is fucking terrible.
- gtop3 3y agoYou should be skeptical of all ideas, not just ones that comes from groups you are skeptical about. EA's point that charities that provide malaria medication and vitamin A supplementation for pour children are very cost effective ways to save lives are very good. That might make other good points too. They are often very good at convincing people that certain charities are worthy of donation. I think it's possible that we'll see similar arguments form members of that group for extreme climate change measures.
- PoignardAzur 3y agoThat seems less like a principled heuristic and more like "eww, these people are icky, screw them". As a general rule, EA groups have a tendency to latch onto ideas that are radical, ideas outside the overton window. You shouldn't assume that automatically means they're bad unless your heuristic is "we should never stray outside the overton window, ever".
- nibbleshifter 3y agoI have had a good amount of interactions with EA folks, a good number of well meaning people in my social circles are into it. I have no issue with radical ideas "outside the window" personally, but often find that EA groups tend to go right for barely workable "grand plans" and often don't listen to the people with boots on the ground, actually doing the work. I'd give specific examples, but it would be doxing myself as many of them are extremely specific.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago>the secondary order effects will last longer than primary and are very hard to quantify. Yep, scientists already suggest it would disrupt rainfall in the 3rd world. Ironically the same nations that will be the worst hit from global warming regardless. What will India's reaction be when their monsoon rains fail because of the unilateral actions of another country? It's not a good idea to destabilize a nuclear armed nation.