3 ms·

Well there are risks of course, and it will most likely make things slightly worse for a while with less solar power and smaller crop yields with less sunlight,

Well there are risks of course, and it will most likely make things slightly worse for a while with less solar power and smaller crop yields with less sunlight, but there's really no other way to fix this mess. The simple fact is that removing all of our impact in terms of just stopping release of C02 and methane (as impossible that would be to achieve with our entire society built on energy dense fuels and entrenched interest in keeping it that way) would not be enough at this point. We are cumulatively increasing atmospheric energy retention while also reducing reflectivity and both of those are more or less permanent for a while. Safe or not we'll need to add more reflectivity to give the ecosystem time to recover. Carbon capture won't help in the short term either, the oceans have absorbed too much already and will start releasing it if atmospheric ppm falls below the absorbed density. To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs.

_heimdall 3y ago
It sounds like we likely agree that there is some level of reduction that would work, but that unrealistic that people will be willing to go that far. Where we may be talking past each other a bit (sorry if I am) is the risk and reward of untested, theoretical solution that impact the entire planet. > To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs. While I agree here in theory, we know the general side effects and efficacy of chemotherapy. We also know the scale of impact when it doesn't work. We aren't so lucky with global interventions like releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. We only have theories of what may happen, but we're talking about the entire planet and everything on it. We don't know what the real effects will be, or as they say - we don't know what we don't know. As for Steve Jobs, I never really understood the idea of him as a cautionary tale. He knew what his diagnosis was, what treatments were available, and what would likely be the outcome. He exercised the ability to decide what to do with his own life and body. I hope everyone is that lucky.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  I think this is a type of project where the results will never be fully possible to predict, but the same goes for what happens if we do nothing. It impacting the entire plant is kind of irrelevant imo, basically everything we do these days impacts the entire planet anyway and we don't lose much sleep over it. The way I see it, we can either act and run the risk of getting it wrong and making a bad situation worse, or doing nothing and guaranteeing a bad situation. On a very basic level any risk is worth it if we know that the alternative must be avoided at all costs (e.g. guaranteed death). I don't think the end result will be extinction if we do nothing but reduce emissions, but there it be a major enough calamity to justify the risk of doing some things we can't fully test. > He exercised the ability to decide what to do with his own life and body. And later regretted it before he died. I just hope we don't regret our inaction as well.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    This feels very similar to the arguments for pushing on with AI research. The argument usually ends that we must default to intervening because the risk of inaction is too high. > And later regretted it before he died. I just hope we don't regret our inaction as well. Yep that's very true, I also hope people don't regret their decisions (I wouldn't necessarily classify it as inaction, that sounds like the default should be to act).

_heimdall 3y ago

It sounds like we likely agree that there is some level of reduction that would work, but that unrealistic that people will be willing to go that far. Where we may be talking past each other a bit (sorry if I am) is the risk and reward of untested, theoretical solution that impact the entire planet. > To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs. While I agree here in theory, we know the general side effects and efficacy of chemotherapy. We also know the scale of impact when it doesn't work. We aren't so lucky with global interventions like releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. We only have theories of what may happen, but we're talking about the entire planet and everything on it. We don't know what the real effects will be, or as they say - we don't know what we don't know. As for Steve Jobs, I never really understood the idea of him as a cautionary tale. He knew what his diagnosis was, what treatments were available, and what would likely be the outcome. He exercised the ability to decide what to do with his own life and body. I hope everyone is that lucky.

moffkalast 3y ago
I think this is a type of project where the results will never be fully possible to predict, but the same goes for what happens if we do nothing. It impacting the entire plant is kind of irrelevant imo, basically everything we do these days impacts the entire planet anyway and we don't lose much sleep over it. The way I see it, we can either act and run the risk of getting it wrong and making a bad situation worse, or doing nothing and guaranteeing a bad situation. On a very basic level any risk is worth it if we know that the alternative must be avoided at all costs (e.g. guaranteed death). I don't think the end result will be extinction if we do nothing but reduce emissions, but there it be a major enough calamity to justify the risk of doing some things we can't fully test. > He exercised the ability to decide what to do with his own life and body. And later regretted it before he died. I just hope we don't regret our inaction as well.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  This feels very similar to the arguments for pushing on with AI research. The argument usually ends that we must default to intervening because the risk of inaction is too high. > And later regretted it before he died. I just hope we don't regret our inaction as well. Yep that's very true, I also hope people don't regret their decisions (I wouldn't necessarily classify it as inaction, that sounds like the default should be to act).