The cascades are gonna hit us for centuries either way, no?
No avoiding that.
Not big on the authority model, either, but I do see the merit of engineering practical solutions.
Personal characteristics, well... that's another story.
Conversation
Replying to
Obviate major sources of pollution, for one thing.
Pretty high percentage of this that is just down to embedded corruption, but I don't know that we have time for a revolution. That's issue nr. 1.
The important missing link is that we have a lot of issues of tech suppression.
1
If we're only getting the right tech when certain cartels feel like making money off it, that's going to kill us.
What's your model for what to do (or not do)?
1
1
There is also pretty clear second-order effects of any sort of ecological collapse:
Bunch of technical debt going to be paid for in full, and a lot of need for new solutions for all kinds of current tech.
Those are almost certainly engineering problems + (very) local politics.
1
While climate scientists are almost certainly right about a lot of the bigger picture stuff, a lot of models will be inadequate with this amount of cascades.
Another engineering problem.
(Again, I think the God-Emperor Musk stuff is garbage. But we'll have to face this.)
2
Replying to
My model what to do/not
- no geoengineering
- no tech (e.g. nuclear) that burdens future generations
- rapid carbon phase-out
- reduce population
- solar/wind
- simplify lifestyles
1
Alas, even if we did all of the above yesterday, we've baked in several °C of warming
1
Replying to
Unless you mean "cut population to a 10th," I think this model is missing some food and water.
1
Shelter is likely to be the easiest problem. Materials science is very advanced.
Our food production, water storage and attendant supply lines are already on their last legs.
Replying to
Yes. We survived multiple ice ages before. I don't think the heating alone will kill us.
But by "us" I mean all of us. This will certainly not be pretty.
1
Show replies