5 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoIf 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.