4 ms·
> Kinda hard to put a price on that for me. Maybe I'd prefer living with genuinely less comfort but blue skies. If all you have to trade off is comfort, maybe
by deanCommie 3y ago
> Kinda hard to put a price on that for me. Maybe I'd prefer living with genuinely less comfort but blue skies.
If all you have to trade off is comfort, maybe you can't.
If you were one of the literal HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people who are living in parts of the world that could become unsurvivable in the next few decades, or get flooded by rising sea levels, you'd have a different perspective.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that reckless geoengineering could easily cause more harm than good. But aesthetically desiring a blue sky is a bit silly when up to a billion human lives are on the line (and that's a low estimate)
- data_maan 3y agoI think there's also a balance here to make where we don't even know the effects on non-blue skies on animals, who perhaps depend on the sky being as it is for things like orientation? Would a billion+ animals deserve to die (that did not contribute to climate change), to save millions of other animals, called human (who actually contributed to this situation)? It's an impossible question, but still needs to be posed. Thr fact of the matter remains - we humans seem to try to be doing anything (geo-engineering, clever carbon offsetting schemes, etc) than the only reasonable thing: cutting down on consumption, de-growth. Somehow the human mind seems completely incapable of accepting this fact (let alone acting on it) that for once we need to be humble and self-limit ourselves. Seems to go against the grain of the credo of most societies on earth (in particular the western one). Let's see how many people prove me right by downvoting ...