this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
44 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

57389 readers
5853 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hypx@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

People need to start accepting the necessity of geoengineering. Net zero by 2050 is a pure fantasy.

[–] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do you know how easy geoengineering is to fuck up? And how global and severe the consequences are if we do? Plus, geoengineering is the kind of thing one country, or a billionaire moron on a private island, could do, and kill us all. I’m not saying there’s no place for geoengineering, only that the only reasonable place for it is after pretty much everything else has failed. We really don’t need or want The Year Without A Summer on repeat for decades.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And what are the consequences of failing to deal with climate change? At some point, the option becomes unavoidable.

[–] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, if everything else fails. But continuing our current rate of consumption and assuming geoengineering will save us (which, let’s be real, is the intention of most geoengineering supporters) is insane. I don’t oppose developing the tech. I oppose using it until we’ve tried everything else.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then you are simply not aware of the situation. We have “tried everything else.” It has basically failed already. There is no chance we can stop emissions in the timeframe desired. Geoengineering is already the only possibility.

[–] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We haven’t tried shit. We’ve continued to operate as if there are no limits to the biosphere. I’m very aware of the situation, which is the only reason I don’t reject geoengineering out of hand. Mao thought ecoengineering by killing all the sparrows would increase crop yields. It did not end well. I simply don’t want that on a global scale.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You're missing the part about time. There is nothing that can be done in time to stop the problem. We've already tried everything that could actually work in a short amount of time. Geoengineering is the only thing left.

The rest of your argument is a strawman argument. There's nothing to defend there.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Net zero is a lie that is impossible to achieve with the stated methods, in the timescale necessary to avert disaster.

https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7

We're hitting 2-3c above the 20th average by 2050 —agriculture will collapse and billions will stave, hyperinflation, resource wars, wet-bulb heatwaves that kill millions — all are highly probable. Plan accordingly, don't have kids, etc.

[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Highly probable my arse

If your source is Medium, I suggest you look elsewhere

This tool spouting nonsense about 2050 is about as reliable as actual mediums