Luddites really need to fuck off in general. They are just worthless cowards that don’t want to see humanity succeed.
Comment on Researchers quietly planned a test to dim sunlight. They wanted to ‘avoid scaring’ the public.
WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Honestly, we need to get over ourselves when it comes to sunlight modification. The fact that people are hand wringing about small trial projects that are just meant to investigate the concept is peak luddite thinking.
Do we need to be careful with the secondary effects? Yes. That’s why we start with pilot projects, see how they go, and work our way up. Is a termination shock a possibility? Yes, but who cares? The alternative is we just stew in the high temps all day every day.
I get the opposition to the technology, but ultimately it comes from a place of hubris and pride. People just don’t want to admit we’ve fucked things up so badly that now we need to resort to something as desperate as solar modification.
Well I’m sorry, but we’re out of time. We’re sitting here whining about possible side effects of this, when the consequences of not doing it are potentially biosphere-collapsing. Yes, I wish we had gone all in on renewables starting in 1980, but we don’t live on that timeline. It takes a long time to change the course of a ship the size of an industrial civilization, and there has been immense political headwinds. Hang all the oil execs if you want, that won’t change the fact that at this point, we have no reasonable path to avoiding the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and the collapse of entire biomes if we don’t do solar modification. We’re sitting here congratulating ourselves on not playing God as we watch as the Amazon rain forest burns down as a consequence of our own actions.
We need this technology. Yes, it sucks that we have to resort to it. But we are out of time. Right now, we are realistically looking at losing between 2-10% of the total human population by 2050 due to climate induced heat stroke and famine. Right now, the permafrost at the polls and the Greenland ice sheet are rapidly collapsing. Positive feedback loops are kicking in that mean that even if we cut off all emissions tomorrow, the temperature will still continue to snowball. This is a runaway train at this point. And the only hope we have of slowing it down is solar modification.
But people would rather keep their hands clean, refuse to “play God,” and do nothing as the world burns.
shani66@ani.social 3 weeks ago
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The left in general is experiencing an absurd Luddite phase that started exactly around the last election when all the techbros revelation themselves as supporting Trump.
Now everything test that is conducted needs to be meticulously planned and calibrated as to not even lift a speck of dust or else it’s causing irreparable damage to the environment, taking everyone’s jobs, and destroying everything.
It’s ridiculous. I don’t like to say that TDS is real but sometimes it really looks real.
Photuris@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
I’m ok with using novel techniques to work on climate change, but right now in the immediate moment the only technology I’m really interested in testing and perfecting is guillotines.
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Ooooh we got a badass over here
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s literally our only option to buy us time to sequester carbon. I don’t agree with aerosol or particle based shields that aren’t easily removed, but a metal or solid shield in space locked between the sun and earth to deflect a % of the rays is totally doable and needed
WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I would think the aerosol or particle based shields would be even easier to remove than something up in orbit. The stuff in orbit will need to be pretty high up if you don’t want it to immediately decay and reenter, so anything in orbit will remain that way for some time. Plus there’s Kessler to worry about. But sulfurs and other aerosols wash out of the atmosphere pretty quickly. That’s the whole reason people talk about termination shocks, and fret that we’ll have to keep the aerosol effort continuously going. To me this seems like a virtue. If at any time we decide we don’t like the effects, we can simply stop. There’s no long term commitment.
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
What I’m proposing is something like the start of a dyson sphere tbh, it would be further out into space and ideally only maintained by machine, no humans.
I think the impact of spreading a bunch of sulfur or other particulates in the air is just a bad idea in terms of health for everyone, and having a large blanket or shield in space would be less risky in that aspect but yes, more technically challenging.
Objection@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
We’re talking about a project that would require long-term, generational buy in or it’ll blow up in our faces, and apparently the only way to do it, even now, is apparently to lie about it and go behind everyone’s backs. That’s not how science is done, it’s highly unethical and erodes public trust in science, and there will be backlash. Every time there’s been a news article about a state “banning chemtrails,” the headline is lying and what they’re actually banning are these sorts of experiments, with that political will already present at the state level, I don’t see a program like this lasting even a decade, let alone a century. And that’s assuming there are no unexpected side effects, imagine running on, “Chemtrails are real and giving you cancer but we have to keep doing them, for the environment,” and that platform has to win every election forever. And you’re lecturing the skeptics about “hubris?”
Even if you ignore the political problems, it’s a temporary, stopgap solution. You’ve got this all backwards, if we do this without addressing the root problem of emissions, things will keep getting worse until we’re in the exact same boat down the road but also we have to keep doing cloud seeding forever. And if your plan is to just increase the intensity of cloud seeding indefinitely to address that, then congrats on finding the closest real thing to the Futurama solution of “dropping ever larger ice cubes into the ocean.”
WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The point is we don’t have time anymore to address the root causes. If we had started decades ago, maybe we wouldn’t have needed solar modification. But now we’re just still playing pretend that we can solve this via CO2 cuts alone.
Here’s the problem. It takes decades to ramp up the industry and infrastructure necessary to move everything away from fossil fuels. There are hard requirements on material extraction that just can’t be popped up overnight. This isn’t software engineering; this is real physical industry and production. We are currently in the middle of an energy transition. But it’s going to take decades. If we just shut off that tap for fossil fuels tomorrow, billions of people would die from the fallout. We’re talking about completely rebuilding an infrastructure that we’ve spent the last two centuries constructing. We need to do all of this, while also having our production and construction sectors strained from all the adaptation we need to do to deal with the fallout of the warming climate!
It’s just magical thinking. It’s letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Yes, I wish we could waive a magic wand and make oil go away overnight. But this is a 50 year project ahead of us, and we are already completely out of time. We’ve already passed +1.5C, and things are rapidly spiraling out of control.
I don’t give a shit if this is the perfect solution. I don’t care if it has downside risks. And I know full well the types of risks you’re talking about. But frankly, we just don’t have the luxury of worrying about those right now. Again, we are out of time. You’ll be smuggly patting yourself on the back, congratulating that you avoided the Futurama scenario, thankful that we never played God…as the last coral reef dies and the Amazon is a distant memory. The biosphere will be wrecked beyond repair, but at least we never got caught in that cloud seeding trap!
Objection@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
None of this addresses any of my arguments. As I said, if cloud seeding is implemented in such a way that depends on public support, then it will fail, and if it fails, it’ll do more harm than good. It’s like saying, “What we’re doing now isn’t working and we need to do something, so I’m going to burn down a forest.” If it’s not going to work, then we shouldn’t do it, no matter how desperate we are.
One of the big problems with environmental issues is the delay between cause and effect. Even in the best case scenario, all you’d be doing is increasing that disconnect. People are going to have to see and the consequences if we’re ever going to change. You’re just buying time for us to keep fucking around, but the more time we have to fuck around without finding out, the worse the problem will get.
I’m not inherently opposed to cloud seeding - but only once we’re on the right track. If we have a solid plan towards recovery and just need a bit more time to make it through a tight spot, then sure. But if we’re just spiraling, then it’s just enabling us the make the problem worse. Even in the worst-case scenario you describe, it’s still more of a problem of having the willpower to direct effort and resources at the problem than it being physically impossible to address.
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yes, and our demise is axtually polycausal, meaning it isn’t strictly carbon related. We not only need to handle the carbon thing, but alsp pollution and other issues, asap: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458