Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

Post by iinnPP » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:36 AM UTC

mrpopo wrote: post #86

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/

That's not a "debunking". That's just people having different priorities, some want to work towards sustaining humanity on Earth right now, and some don't want to solve problems on Earth and are just excited with the next new thing. Maybe the latter are firmly believing that they are doing something beneficial for humanity, and that's OK. I don't believe so, but I don't claim to be right, and so should you.

Post by ibz » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:44 AM UTC

HPsquared wrote: post #117

dubcanada wrote: post #79

I really don’t like the idea of solar geoengineering. If we start sending up sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and it fixes the problem. What do you think we’re going to do? Stop caring about global warming entirely, and pump way more green house gases… why wouldn’t we? We can just fix it with more sulfur dioxide. Then you send up more and more and more. And eventually something breaks. Now for some reason a countri…

You could make the same argument against medical care. "If we start healing the sick, people will stop taking care of their health". That's not even considering potential side effects of therapies, medicines, etc. Any action has a balance of good and bad, both directly and indirectly.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:46 AM UTC

marginalia_nu wrote: post #108

MrOwnPut wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:46 AM UTC

marginalia_nu wrote: post #108

MrOwnPut wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Post by MrOwnPut » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 10:50 AM UTC

schiffern wrote: post #114

MrOwnPut wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, my point is that the atmosphere doesn't care what we call it. It's just a semantics game. People care, but we do it in such a backwards way that the rule is apparently "you can hurt (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help!" Clearly, if anything, the move is to re-brand geoengineering as "normal pollution". It wouldn't even be hard: every 737 emits 500 grams of SO2 in less than 100 miles, and not a pee…