4 ms·

So we take the notion of national parks to the extreme, and carve out parts of the planet dedicated to preservation, and dedicate other parts to supporting huma

So we take the notion of national parks to the extreme, and carve out parts of the planet dedicated to preservation, and dedicate other parts to supporting humans and their needs, and we learn the science we need to artificially protect against ecological collapse. Maybe the solution to our expanding technology is technological.

mrguyorama 3y ago
So because the fix is mildly inconvenient, better to just do nothing, keep making the problem worse, keep letting people die, and just hope that magic fixes everything? Tech can't undo the physics of the greenhouse effect. You want a cooler earth, you have to reduce the radiation we receive or increase the radiation that leaves through the atmosphere. For hundreds of years we have been participating in a geoengineering experiment.
- generalizations 3y ago
  > mildly inconvenient Wildly disruptive.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    If your income directly depends on BAU, sure. But while there are those that would lose out initially to a rapid transition away from burning fossil fuels, including some that live at best a modest existence, I'm confident it'd be vastly cheaper to pay them to retrain etc. than to pay the costs of allowing the global temperature to keep climbing. Unfortunately there are also those whose personal fortunes are directly dependent on our addiction to fossil fuels, and they're not willing to risk jeopardising their wealth and status, so it's pretty much guaranteed we'll keep on burning them for a long while yet. At this stage the best we can hope for is that thousands of climate scientists have somehow got it wrong and we'll be fine in planet that's 3 or 4 degrees warmer.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    There are billions of people living in just such a "disrupted" state today. Says more about your attachment to convenience than about what humans can handle.

4 ms·

So we take the notion of national parks to the extreme, and carve out parts of the planet dedicated to preservation, and dedicate other parts to supporting huma

by generalizations 3y ago

mrguyorama 3y ago
So because the fix is mildly inconvenient, better to just do nothing, keep making the problem worse, keep letting people die, and just hope that magic fixes everything? Tech can't undo the physics of the greenhouse effect. You want a cooler earth, you have to reduce the radiation we receive or increase the radiation that leaves through the atmosphere. For hundreds of years we have been participating in a geoengineering experiment.
- generalizations 3y ago
  > mildly inconvenient Wildly disruptive.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    If your income directly depends on BAU, sure. But while there are those that would lose out initially to a rapid transition away from burning fossil fuels, including some that live at best a modest existence, I'm confident it'd be vastly cheaper to pay them to retrain etc. than to pay the costs of allowing the global temperature to keep climbing. Unfortunately there are also those whose personal fortunes are directly dependent on our addiction to fossil fuels, and they're not willing to risk jeopardising their wealth and status, so it's pretty much guaranteed we'll keep on burning them for a long while yet. At this stage the best we can hope for is that thousands of climate scientists have somehow got it wrong and we'll be fine in planet that's 3 or 4 degrees warmer.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    There are billions of people living in just such a "disrupted" state today. Says more about your attachment to convenience than about what humans can handle.