5 ms·

Also we have to solve climate change without using any fancy-shmancy geoengineering, because as sinners we're obligated to suffer rather than have convenient so

Also we have to solve climate change without using any fancy-shmancy geoengineering, because as sinners we're obligated to suffer rather than have convenient solutions for our problems.

jabradoodle 3y ago
Or maybe the only kind of geo engineering that is feasible comes with unknowns that people are reasonably suspicous of; especially when it would likely be carried out by profit making entites. If you want to suck co2 out of the air, no one will have issue with it, you will just run out of money without making a dent.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  And trying to go 100% carbon free (or die trying) in the next decade or two doesn’t carry risks? Decarbonizing won’t be carbon neutral that’s for sure.
- yanderekko 3y ago
  Deindustrialization also comes with plenty of unknowns that people are reasonably suspicious of.
2devnull 3y ago
Others downvoted you but I think you’re right to link Puritanism to a specific sliver of climate change activist community. There are some zealots who think we must end modernity as we know it, now!, or all is lost. These people existed before climate change, they just used other arguments to back their agenda. It was over population or before that a fear of factories, industry, progress in pretty much any form. The steam engine was a great fear to many. These are the “return to nature and live off the land” types and authoritarian personalities who are bothered by freedom. Ted Kaczynski was one of these. It’s hard to sort through such peoples thoughts to extract much that’s valuable. It’s like they don’t understand that history moves forward.
- yanderekko 3y ago
  Yeah, I believe in climate change but I think that short-term climate doomerism is a pretty clear stalking horse for the sort of anti-capitalist/anti-industrial sliver that you mention. I guess if I were being charitable I'd say that I could be reversing the causality here and that climate change doomerism was simply causing anti-capitalist beliefs rather than the other way around, but I would bet that this isn't the case, and the reflexive attacks on "easy" solutions to climate change is reflective of this.
dariosalvi78 3y ago
we could go with untested, still inefficient fancy-shmancy geoengineering which may cause even greater disasters, or maybe we could go with re-engineering our energy systems, with solutions that have been used for decades, if not centuries, at the same time maybe also rethinking a bit the way we live and consume. But, no, where's the fun if we don't destroy an ecosystem or two?
- yanderekko 3y ago
  If a sober-minded cost-benefit analysis concludes that geo-engineering isn't viable, fine. But I don't think this is the modal way that geoengineering is being dismissed. Also these are similar arguments to what has been used to criticize nuclear energy for decades, which has obviously been a disaster on net.

Also we have to solve climate change without using any fancy-shmancy geoengineering, because as sinners we're obligated to suffer rather than have convenient solutions for our problems.

jabradoodle 3y ago

Or maybe the only kind of geo engineering that is feasible comes with unknowns that people are reasonably suspicous of; especially when it would likely be carried out by profit making entites. If you want to suck co2 out of the air, no one will have issue with it, you will just run out of money without making a dent.

2devnull 3y ago
And trying to go 100% carbon free (or die trying) in the next decade or two doesn’t carry risks? Decarbonizing won’t be carbon neutral that’s for sure.
yanderekko 3y ago
Deindustrialization also comes with plenty of unknowns that people are reasonably suspicious of.

2devnull 3y ago

Others downvoted you but I think you’re right to link Puritanism to a specific sliver of climate change activist community. There are some zealots who think we must end modernity as we know it, now!, or all is lost. These people existed before climate change, they just used other arguments to back their agenda. It was over population or before that a fear of factories, industry, progress in pretty much any form. The steam engine was a great fear to many. These are the “return to nature and live off the land” types and authoritarian personalities who are bothered by freedom. Ted Kaczynski was one of these. It’s hard to sort through such peoples thoughts to extract much that’s valuable. It’s like they don’t understand that history moves forward.

yanderekko 3y ago
Yeah, I believe in climate change but I think that short-term climate doomerism is a pretty clear stalking horse for the sort of anti-capitalist/anti-industrial sliver that you mention. I guess if I were being charitable I'd say that I could be reversing the causality here and that climate change doomerism was simply causing anti-capitalist beliefs rather than the other way around, but I would bet that this isn't the case, and the reflexive attacks on "easy" solutions to climate change is reflective of this.

dariosalvi78 3y ago

we could go with untested, still inefficient fancy-shmancy geoengineering which may cause even greater disasters, or maybe we could go with re-engineering our energy systems, with solutions that have been used for decades, if not centuries, at the same time maybe also rethinking a bit the way we live and consume. But, no, where's the fun if we don't destroy an ecosystem or two?

yanderekko 3y ago
If a sober-minded cost-benefit analysis concludes that geo-engineering isn't viable, fine. But I don't think this is the modal way that geoengineering is being dismissed. Also these are similar arguments to what has been used to criticize nuclear energy for decades, which has obviously been a disaster on net.