Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
You seem to have a lot of faith that society will deal with global in time to prevent irreversible affects then I do.
I put the chance at limiting to 1.5C of warming without geoengineering to give time to develop better tech at zero.
So with that mindset the question isn’t will geoengineering create a moral hazard that delays solving global warming it’s can we geo-engineer effectively enough to prevent permanent damage.
I read an interesting book recently called the wizard and the prophet. It’s a really neat book about how human scale problems are solved and follows two different views.
The prophets are warning of destruction and want to cut consumption in order to solve problems. The wizards believe that human ingenuity will solve all problems. So when wizards and prophets discuss solutions to things like climate change their is an underlying clash of values which prevents progress. Both groups are right and are key to solving human scale problems.
In climate change right now I think geo-engineering and nuclear power best exemplify this disconnect. Even though the wizard and the prophets fundamentally agree that humans can solve their problems aren’t just bacteria in a petry dish expanding until their environment is destroyed and starvation occurs.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/b...harles-c-mann/ |
Thanks for this - I will definitely grab that book. It articulates something I have always felt about human behavior. Put like that, it becomes very clear what the difference in the two strategies/behaviors are.
I am most definitely a wizard (or at least on the side of the wizards) in pretty much all things, and prophets frustrate me.