5 ms·

I'm not jealous of your risk tolerance, that you're willing to bet our world on the on the chance of some magic technical solution appearing. Imagination is af

I'm not jealous of your risk tolerance, that you're willing to bet our world on the on the chance of some magic technical solution appearing. Imagination is after all, all in your head.

iinnPP 3y ago
Has the magic social solution done anything? When do we stop pretending that the whole world will fall in lock step? Did the world all agree that child exploitation is wrong yet?(ask the millions of people still participating) All things intelligent exist in one's brain and imagination is how each piece of everyone's understanding of the world began. The social solution requires a removal of freedom. The removal of freedom will involve a war. I would say the risk tolerance isn't black and white.
- simmerup 3y ago
  Did the covid lockdown require a war? Did everyone say ‘fuck off Id rather have my freedom than help fight the pandemic’? No? Then clearly there’s a path to getting people onboard with fighting climate change, it just requires the right messaging and education
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    I live in Canada, where we invoked the Emergencies Act to handle the loosely coordinated group of people who disagreed with the measures the government was using. In other words, a group of truckers is enough threat to social order(in Canada) to call in a law that replaced the War Measures Act before it. This was over a little needle in the arm. The events are not reasonably comparable in the slightest. It is an incredibly difficult thing to become carbon neutral in today's society. What are you doing right now to fight climate change? I live my words and would consider myself carbon 'negative'. My actions reach outside of myself to positively influence the carbon impact of others. Also, everyone does precisely nothing. There is no single thing in the universe which enjoys unanimous agreement. The idea that the right messaging and communication is going to fix climate change is childish. It ignores reality. It is fantasy. I don't intend this in an aggressive or mean manner, it is my assessment of your proposal.
ThalesX 3y ago
> you're willing to bet our world on the on the chance of some magic technical solution appearing. I love how you just throw stuff in my bag. I'm not willing to bet our world, nor can I do that. What I am not willing to do is make my family suffer today so that the people of the world can, tomorrow, get together and sing kumbaya, magically deindustrializing while preserving standards of living. To me, the risky move seems to be to push away from the magic technical solution and towards the magic humans deciding to do worse for themselves solution.
- simmerup 3y ago
  We don’t need to deindustrialise. Hell, we don’t even need to make our lives that much worse. Did you know half of all human emissions since 1750% were released in the last 30 years? Even going back to 60s levels would do us well. Moving back to simple foods instead of ultra processing. Embracing nuclear power. Driving less and flying less. All better options than sticking our heads in the sand and hoping some country geo engineers the earth in the future. Because climate change is an existential human challenge, we all need to pitch in.
  - ThalesX 3y ago
    > We don’t need to deindustrialise. Hell, we don’t even need to make our lives that much worse. Did you know half of all human emissions since 1750% were released in the last 30 years? Even going back to 60s levels would do us well. There were 3 billion people in the world in 1960, now we are 8 billion. What about standards of living on the planet in the 60s? Not just the US and some parts of Europe. How will this be spread evenly on the planet? Do we ask China and India to get back to 60s levels? Do we ask Africa to not make any steps towards industrialization? Does US get back to lower levels than 60s so that emerging nations are on an equal step? > Moving back to simple foods instead of ultra processing. Why do I pay almost double for 'bio' foodstuff? Why do people today choose to buy ultra processed instead of simple foods? How do we feed 10 billion mouths in the future without processing? There's a reason we have an abundance of cheap nutrients. > Embracing nuclear power. This is innovation, which was my initial point. > Driving less and flying less. Who decides how much we can drive, and fly? Can I go visit my grand-dad in the countryside? Can Bill Gates go to the climate conference on the other side of the world to scold us? > Because climate change is an existential human challenge, we all need to pitch in. We all need to pitch in with innovative solutions or with votes for politicians that push for innovative solutions, not by closing our AC and voting for degrowth. > All better options than sticking our heads in the sand and hoping some country geo engineers the earth in the future. I'm pushing for actively trying to develop new technologies to mitigate the strategy and you are fighting against the viewpoint that we should put our heads in the sand and wait for a solution... I think this thread has run its course.
mpweiher 3y ago
It's not magic. We don't have to wait for it appearing. We just have to build it out. But we don't, because of irrational fears. Well, actually countries are starting to turn around and re-investing in nuclear, because governments know that this is the only viable solution.

I'm not jealous of your risk tolerance, that you're willing to bet our world on the on the chance of some magic technical solution appearing. Imagination is after all, all in your head.

iinnPP 3y ago

Has the magic social solution done anything? When do we stop pretending that the whole world will fall in lock step? Did the world all agree that child exploitation is wrong yet?(ask the millions of people still participating) All things intelligent exist in one's brain and imagination is how each piece of everyone's understanding of the world began. The social solution requires a removal of freedom. The removal of freedom will involve a war. I would say the risk tolerance isn't black and white.

simmerup 3y ago
Did the covid lockdown require a war? Did everyone say ‘fuck off Id rather have my freedom than help fight the pandemic’? No? Then clearly there’s a path to getting people onboard with fighting climate change, it just requires the right messaging and education
- iinnPP 3y ago
  I live in Canada, where we invoked the Emergencies Act to handle the loosely coordinated group of people who disagreed with the measures the government was using. In other words, a group of truckers is enough threat to social order(in Canada) to call in a law that replaced the War Measures Act before it. This was over a little needle in the arm. The events are not reasonably comparable in the slightest. It is an incredibly difficult thing to become carbon neutral in today's society. What are you doing right now to fight climate change? I live my words and would consider myself carbon 'negative'. My actions reach outside of myself to positively influence the carbon impact of others. Also, everyone does precisely nothing. There is no single thing in the universe which enjoys unanimous agreement. The idea that the right messaging and communication is going to fix climate change is childish. It ignores reality. It is fantasy. I don't intend this in an aggressive or mean manner, it is my assessment of your proposal.

ThalesX 3y ago

> you're willing to bet our world on the on the chance of some magic technical solution appearing. I love how you just throw stuff in my bag. I'm not willing to bet our world, nor can I do that. What I am not willing to do is make my family suffer today so that the people of the world can, tomorrow, get together and sing kumbaya, magically deindustrializing while preserving standards of living. To me, the risky move seems to be to push away from the magic technical solution and towards the magic humans deciding to do worse for themselves solution.

simmerup 3y ago
We don’t need to deindustrialise. Hell, we don’t even need to make our lives that much worse. Did you know half of all human emissions since 1750% were released in the last 30 years? Even going back to 60s levels would do us well. Moving back to simple foods instead of ultra processing. Embracing nuclear power. Driving less and flying less. All better options than sticking our heads in the sand and hoping some country geo engineers the earth in the future. Because climate change is an existential human challenge, we all need to pitch in.
- ThalesX 3y ago
  > We don’t need to deindustrialise. Hell, we don’t even need to make our lives that much worse. Did you know half of all human emissions since 1750% were released in the last 30 years? Even going back to 60s levels would do us well. There were 3 billion people in the world in 1960, now we are 8 billion. What about standards of living on the planet in the 60s? Not just the US and some parts of Europe. How will this be spread evenly on the planet? Do we ask China and India to get back to 60s levels? Do we ask Africa to not make any steps towards industrialization? Does US get back to lower levels than 60s so that emerging nations are on an equal step? > Moving back to simple foods instead of ultra processing. Why do I pay almost double for 'bio' foodstuff? Why do people today choose to buy ultra processed instead of simple foods? How do we feed 10 billion mouths in the future without processing? There's a reason we have an abundance of cheap nutrients. > Embracing nuclear power. This is innovation, which was my initial point. > Driving less and flying less. Who decides how much we can drive, and fly? Can I go visit my grand-dad in the countryside? Can Bill Gates go to the climate conference on the other side of the world to scold us? > Because climate change is an existential human challenge, we all need to pitch in. We all need to pitch in with innovative solutions or with votes for politicians that push for innovative solutions, not by closing our AC and voting for degrowth. > All better options than sticking our heads in the sand and hoping some country geo engineers the earth in the future. I'm pushing for actively trying to develop new technologies to mitigate the strategy and you are fighting against the viewpoint that we should put our heads in the sand and wait for a solution... I think this thread has run its course.

mpweiher 3y ago

It's not magic. We don't have to wait for it appearing. We just have to build it out. But we don't, because of irrational fears. Well, actually countries are starting to turn around and re-investing in nuclear, because governments know that this is the only viable solution.