this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
2942 points (98.4% liked)

World News

39184 readers
2604 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Void_Reader 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The 'future' is not inevitable. There have been countless collapses in history. Our technology doesn't make us immune. The people of the major Bronze Age powers probably thought the same.

Also we do not have the means for weather engineering. If you're talking about SRM, we have no idea what its consequences will be or how to do it effectively. It's all theoretical. No aircraft we currently have can do this stuff. Sure, we could design it and build one, but then you need global governance to actually implement it properly. Not to mention the risk of 'termination shock' and countless others.

Have a look at the scientific literature: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stratospheric-aerosol-injection-tactics-and-costs-Smith-Wagner/e4e5a78335eda8c16557b32af915798b06091362#cited-papers

Would you seriously risk the future of life on Earth on something this experimental?

I fear this arrogance will kill a lot of people and cause a lot of suffering.

[–] Void_Reader 5 points 1 year ago

Also

This kind of futurist accelerationist thinking hasn't turned out well in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism?wprov=sfla1 It always ends up feeding into Fascism. I wonder why.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Somehow double posted. So this is now a blank comment.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/03/asia/china-weather-modification-cloud-seeding-intl-hnk/index.html

It is already done. And the consequences are relatively easy to estimate. Much easier actually than the complex mechanics of world climate change.

[–] Void_Reader 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Firstly, that isn't 'already done'. It's a PR statement from the Chinese government about plans. The stuff they have already done, like reducing hail etc., is nowhere near the same level to what is needed to stop climate change.

Secondly,

Radical solutions such as seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles could theoretically help reduce temperatures, but could also have major unforeseen consequences, and many experts fear what could happen were a country to experiment with such techniques.

This is from your source ^

So is this:

In a paper last year, researchers at National Taiwan University said that the "lack of proper coordination of weather modification activity (could) lead to charges of 'rain stealing' between neighboring regions," both within China and with other countries. They also pointed to the lack of a "system of checks and balances to facilitate the implementation of potentially controversial projects."

Think of the geopolitical mess this kind of thing would create. If it works that is.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, there is always the option to use sunsails in orbit. These could also be motorised and adapt to the needed parameters.

There are a ton of solutions. And the weather and climate engineering is just one of them.

[–] Void_Reader 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?

Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn't be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.

Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.

I agree there are many solutions. I don't think markets and capital are going to make them happen.

We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?

Well, a fee could theoretically be possible. Farmers with plants that need shadow could pay for shielding. In the end the end consumer pays the price.

Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn't be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.

👍

Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.

Let me rephrase it: it’s boring. Nada used old ass Russian rockets for years. So there is not much innovation there anyway.

I agree there are many solutions. I don't think markets and capital are going to make them happen.

I think that depends on demand. Some airlines already offer climate compensation packages. An additional payment to compensate your emissions. Such money could also be invested into sun shield projects.

We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.

I agree on the tech solutions. Let’s see them being implemented before chopping on the foundation of our economics.

[–] Void_Reader 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think that depends on demand. Some airlines already offer climate compensation packages. An additional payment to compensate your emissions.

A lot of those are scams or of questionable value unfortunately

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/carbon-offsets-used-by-major-airlines-based-on-flawed-system-warn-experts

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know that some people claim that. But in their mind they would rather stop airlines and flight overall.

And since this is unreasonable, compensation should be the second best step in your mind?

Because I don’t care. But from your standpoint it should be better than no compensation, right?

[–] Void_Reader 1 points 1 year ago

I'm actually in favour of replacing most jet airliners with rail and maybe electric airships. Most short-haul flights can be replaced by rail; it's much more pleasant than flying anyway. Jets can be reserved for long-distance journeys. Being able to hop on a blimp would be cool, even if it's slower. We can make them much better and safer with today's tech.

I don't like the 'green offset' thing because it makes it look like we're 'doing something' when it's actually not doing much at all. If you want to be a utilitarian, it would be much more effective to just donate to an effective charity every time you fly.