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)?
-
-
Replying to @Triquetrea @chagmed
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 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Triquetrea @chagmed
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 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Triquetrea
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
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chagmed @Triquetrea
that's probably the opposite of what will actually happen though
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @chagmed
Pretty sure "reduce population" will happen as a result of mass starvation if we don't get our act together. Probably regardless. Solar, too, will happen, I think. Other than that, yeah, pretty much. Feels like wanting to fight the tide.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Triquetrea @chagmed
solar is already seeing heavy investment but the earth still rotates and people still use power at night
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @chagmed
This implies that power output and storage capacity is only ever going to be 1-1 with demand in daytime, which seems technically wrong from what I can tell. Add wind and water power, and you're getting somewhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Triquetrea @chagmed
and the wind doesn't always blow. intermittent power generation can be smoothed out with good enough storage but we haven't invented good enough storage yet. practically speaking nuclear is the only thing we currently have that easily replaces fossil fuels.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
regardless of how you feel about the potential for reactor leaks and radioactive waste, it's going to be used as a stop-gap because we don't have any other options that match it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
it's also got problems but they are more like "sometimes your town is fucked" instead of "the whole planet is doomed". regrettable but manageable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.