4 ms·
> [I]t is our contention in this commentary that both the HCN idea, and the calculations and projections that it has inspired, are analytically flawed as well
by gryfft 2y ago
> [I]t is our contention in this commentary that both the HCN idea, and the calculations and projections that it has inspired, are analytically flawed as well as politically troubling. There is, in our assessment, no universal, timeless, climatically determined envelope within which, and only within which, humans can live and thrive—and claims that there does exist such an envelope are dangerous.
I find this so difficult to take seriously that I barely skimmed the rest. We know that human beings can't survive in space or on the surface of the sun. But by saying that, apparently I have articulated a "politically troubling" and "dangerous" idea?! I am unable to trivially distinguish this from gibberish.
- patrakov 2y agoThe key here is technological adaptations that help humans thrive where they could not live previously. It's irrelevant that humans can't survive in space: they will, for example, build space stations in the future, just like they build homes with artificial heating in Arctic regions now.
- gryfft 2y agoThis just reads like denial to the point of magical thinking, to me. "Nuh uh, I can't die, I would think of a way to not die and then do that!"