←back to thread

480 points riffraff | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dang ◴[] No.44463006[source]
[stub for offtopicness]
replies(15): >>44461279 #>>44461280 #>>44461309 #>>44461334 #>>44461385 #>>44461408 #>>44461448 #>>44461634 #>>44461664 #>>44461731 #>>44461790 #>>44462060 #>>44462362 #>>44462565 #>>44462687 #
integricho ◴[] No.44461280[source]
It does not sound like a subtle signal or warning about crossing a threshold, more like a we are already past the point of no return and now we can just sit back and watch as the apocalypse unfolds, first row seats for all recent generations.
replies(3): >>44461302 #>>44461515 #>>44461559 #
delusional ◴[] No.44461302[source]
Climate advocates in general try to avoid implying that we've already crossed a threshold, as that breeds hopelessness.

They want decisive and ambitious action, you can't get that if we all turn to doomerism.

replies(8): >>44461316 #>>44461344 #>>44461352 #>>44461382 #>>44461406 #>>44461444 #>>44461536 #>>44462945 #
jes5199 ◴[] No.44461406{3}[source]
okay then why is it taboo to suggest geoengineering interventions like injecting sulfer into the upper atmosphere? The climate advocates don’t have any decisive and ambitious actions that they actually are willing to try.
replies(2): >>44461455 #>>44462487 #
1. padjo ◴[] No.44462487{4}[source]
Because we consistently over estimate our ability to understand the impact of our interventions in complex systems. Look at Cane Toads in Australia or tumbleweed in the US.