4 ms·
Our arrogance in assuming we can some how control the climate of the entire planet is the most worrying thing about this to me. We can barely predict the weathe
by Guthur 12y ago
Our arrogance in assuming we can some how control the climate of the entire planet is the most worrying thing about this to me. We can barely predict the weather beyond a few days let alone make measured predictable changes to the climate.
If a solution like this were to get out of control or go too far we could find ourselves in a far worse place than we are now.
- ScottBurson 12y agoCare is certainly warranted, but we don't have a choice of whether or not our activities will affect the climate; they already do. It's fine to point out the risks of action so they can be addressed, but don't forget the risks of inaction.
- jeremyjh 12y agoPredicting climate and predicting weather are two totally different games. I can't predict who is going to win and lose in a given night at the roulette table, but I can tell you with absolute certainty who wins in the long run.
- jjoonathan 12y agoWhich is more arrogant: 1. Forming hypotheses on admittedly half-assed reasoning, performing small verification experiments, gradually scaling them up in order to see if predictions match observations, and iterating upon failure 2. Declaring that nothing we ever think of will ever work well enough to be worth trying in the first place http://joyreactor.com/post/578357 http://joyreactor.com/post/578357 You see #2 all the time in the media, especially in science fiction. To me it comes across as a desperate attempt by scientifically ignorant authors to extend the purpose of their story beyond that of mere entertainment. It's a noble goal to strive for, but actual safety analysis is boring, difficult, and far beyond the scope of your typical techno-thriller, so it inevitably gets half-assed into the predictable form of a bunch of chase/destruction scenes followed by the inescapable conclusion that goal X is simply too dangerous to be worth investigating -- in fact, it's so dangerous that the scientists were arrogant for investigating it in the first place. Retch. I actually wouldn't be particularly bothered by this plot device (I like dinosaur chases and zombie hunts, too) if people didn't go and project the same vapid thought process onto real-life scientists solving real-life problems. But they do. Parent post is a case-in-point. Either do the bookwork/coursework/reviews/calculations necessary to leave constructive criticism or leave the floor to people who have. Don't stand up and claim that your ignorance is better than someone else's knowledge. That's arrogance.
- Houshalter 12y agoWe have a culture where taking action and causing a problem is worse than letting a problem continue through inaction. Things that could affect the environment are a big one. Another good example is overly conservative drug approval.
- Guthur 12y agoReally, so if he proves that it can remove CO2 from the atmosphere, which I'm confident he is right about, has he proofed it is safe to do so on the scale required, simply no. Our models of real world are woefully general, I doubt we even have the computing power available to crunch all the variables. It seemed a good idea to bring cane toads to Australia to combat the damage done be cane beetles, foxes were brought to combat rabbits. Hint, none of these attempts at environment management went well, even though they are relatively simple problems; foxes eat rabbits right?
- danieltillett 12y agoCan we stop the stupid cane toad meme. The scientists at the item told the cane farmers not to bring in the cane toads and they ignored the scientists and brought them in anyway.
- neolefty 12y agoYes, it's something new that we've never done before, but circumstances are forcing us to learn how to.