Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 272 posts

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#101

Post by MrOwnPut »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #100
MrOwnPut wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a question, I re-clarified. In other words, do you think it was right for Mexico to stop this, or do you disagree with their actions?

And my answer is that it doesn't matter. Right or wrong doesn't exist in international politics. Do I want this to be the state of affairs? No. Can I change it? No. So it doesn't matter.

If all voters felt that way democracy would fall because no-one would do anything.

So why comment in the first place if you think it doesn't matter?

What I think is... your thought was challenged so you backpedalled then just gave up and said the topic "didn't matter".

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#102

Post by stonogo »

callmetom wrote: post #19
stonogo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it's enough to validate the delivery mechanism.

Validate that the contents of a balloon are released at the altitude the balloon ruptures? That seems like a very weak cover for action, especially since they admit in earlier statements that they are trying to grab attention... and also sell "cooling credits". Mission accomplished - they got that attention they wanted.

The plan is for the balloon to partially vent at a target altitude, and a separate cloud chamber to release then. This test is of an off-the-shelf balloon kit, presumably to validate altitude targets and flight predictions. They've been pretty open about exactly what they're doing and when, and even had (still have, technically) a feedback form for you to submit your advice.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#103

Post by schiffern »

manholio wrote: post #43
wolverine876 wrote: post #29

This isn't a Mexican company; the person behind it is. > Luke Iseman, a serial inventor and the former director of hardware at Y Combinator ... he started tinkering with releasing sulfur dioxide particles into the atmosphere with balloons, raised venture capital to fund the startup, and brought on co-founder Andrew Song to manage sales. Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok…

Why yes, what could possibly go wrong by releasing the main constituent of acid rain in an haphazard attempt to cool down the Earth, a problem itself created by releasing uncontrolled quantities of other pollutants. Sounds like the setup for a dystopia.

We're long past dystopia, then.

500 grams of SO2 is released by a 737 flying less than 100 miles.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#104

Post by marginalia_nu »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #101
marginalia_nu wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my answer is that it doesn't matter. Right or wrong doesn't exist in international politics. Do I want this to be the state of affairs? No. Can I change it? No. So it doesn't matter.

If all voters felt that way democracy would fall because no-one would do anything. So why comment in the first place if you think it doesn't matter? What I think is... your thought was challenged so you backpedalled then just gave up and said the topic "didn't matter".

> So why comment in the first place if you think it doesn't matter?

To show how it doesn't matter.

> What I think is... your thought was challenged so you backpedalled then just gave up and said the topic "didn't matter".

You know, what you think also doesn't matter.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#105

Post by MrOwnPut »

schiffern wrote: post #74
wolverine876 wrote: post #29

This isn't a Mexican company; the person behind it is. > Luke Iseman, a serial inventor and the former director of hardware at Y Combinator ... he started tinkering with releasing sulfur dioxide particles into the atmosphere with balloons, raised venture capital to fund the startup, and brought on co-founder Andrew Song to manage sales. Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok…

> so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? So it's okay to do experiments with the atmosphere, as long as you re-brand them as "pollution" instead of as "experiments"? (and of course, organizationally separate the scientists performing the data collection/analysis steps)

You answered his question with another question.

I believe your question is insinuating that pollution is branded as such and is really an experiment? I don't follow.. can you expand on that or clarify?

But first please answer their question before shifting the conversation.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#106

Post by schiffern »

dubcanada wrote: post #93
schiffern wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don’t think we should be messing around with the earth until we can actually say that all parties are working towards the same thing. "Unattainable perfection of human nature must be achieved before we can even try fixing something." Xkcd already debunked this type of argument. https://xkcd.com/1232/

Funny enough I have zero problem with exploring other planets. My problem is when we start messing around with the only one we have without truly understanding every possible outcome. And having one country do it while it affects everyone.

Funny enough, me either. But that's missing the point.

How long until we "truly understand every possible outcome"? 10 years? 15?

When you speak in absolutes, you don't even need to move goalposts. Since we will (obviously) never understand everything, if we follow your criterion then nobody could ever start anything.

This weird double standard is only ever applied to geoengineering, but never regular pollution. Based on the relative conversational noise levels, apparently it's fine that we pollute as much as we want without "truly understanding every possible outcome." (cue the "I sleep/Real shit" meme image)

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#107

Post by MrOwnPut »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #104
MrOwnPut wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all voters felt that way democracy would fall because no-one would do anything. So why comment in the first place if you think it doesn't matter? What I think is... your thought was challenged so you backpedalled then just gave up and said the topic "didn't matter".

> So why comment in the first place if you think it doesn't matter? To show how it doesn't matter. > What I think is... your thought was challenged so you backpedalled then just gave up and said the topic "didn't matter". You know, what you think also doesn't matter.

> To show how it doesn't matter.

It's counterproductive to talk about something that doesn't matter to you.

> You know, what you think also doesn't matter.

That's subjective. And it mattered enough for you to reply, and for countless others to read, and for me to write.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#108

Post by marginalia_nu »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #107
marginalia_nu wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So why comment in the first place if you think it doesn't matter? To show how it doesn't matter. > What I think is... your thought was challenged so you backpedalled then just gave up and said the topic "didn't matter". You know, what you think also doesn't matter.

> To show how it doesn't matter. It's counterproductive to talk about something that doesn't matter to you. > You know, what you think also doesn't matter. That's subjective. And it mattered enough for you to reply, and for countless others to read, and for me to write.

The discussion about what matters matters, even if the subject itself doesn't matter. It is perhaps the most important category of discussion. If we don't know what matters, how can we put our time to good use?

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#109

Post by closewith »

tonnydourado wrote: post #97

Maybe I'm missing something, but besides reducing the Earth's temperature, vulcano eruptions have also caused famines, because reduced solar light impacts crop yield. We have much better agricultural technology now, but: 1. Is there even any research saying we can counteract the reduction in solar light by "planting smarter"? 2. Agricultural technology is very unevenly distributed. If solar light gets reduced globall…

> Agricultural technology is very unevenly distributed. If solar light gets reduced globally, Europe and US might be fine, but Africa, Asia, and South America could still face catastrophic reduction of crop yield.

It seems likely that any reduction in solar energy will impact those at higher latitudes where the available solar energy is already lower, so I'd expect the equatorial regions to fare best (including large parts of Africa, Asia, and South America).

Although obviously there would be lots of unintended consequences, large areas in those regions may far better with a more temperate climate and lower energy atmosphere.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#110

Post by jl6 »

schiffern wrote: post #85
marginalia_nu wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? Yeah I'm not sure that's how the atmosphere works. Surely this stuff would diffuse and affect the atmosphere globally.

If nations don't have national sovereignty over their slice of the atmosphere, then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime? [For clarity I don't particularly disagree with this stance, but my mostly-overlooked point is that:] If people really think this, why is it that (on HN in particular) we overwhelmingly hear this point made in the context of geoengineering, and not for regular old pollution? I…

Yes, the atmosphere is fundamentally a commons. Some pollution impacts mostly at the location of emission and can be regulated by local/national law, but a great deal of pollution (notably CO2) has a global impact.

Same goes for oceans.

There are many international treaties and conventions that recognize this, but they clearly don't go far enough, and we run into the "fear of a world government" issue here.

Post reply on HN