Bezos Beyond

[LDAHL]

I'm not interested in the whole thing, but I feel we are forced to pretend be interested in a Tik Tok influencer's dance moves, or Bezo's space flight, same same. why. And actually the dance moves are probably more interesting if I was forced to be interested in them.

Forced by who? And for what purpose?

[LDAHL]

Just for the record, I'm not interested in technological solutions.

I think climate change is essentially a technical problem that can eventually be solved mainly through technology. I don’t see the sort of proposals for rationing and regimentation being made by the private jet class as all that viable in practical terms. Our best hope are the engineers, not the social engineers.

[catherine]

I think climate change is essentially a technical problem that can eventually be solved mainly through technology. I don’t see the sort of proposals for rationing and regimentation being made by the private jet class as all that viable in practical terms. Our best hope are the engineers, not the social engineers.

Climate change is a technological problem only insofar as humans have unleashed dangerous technologies that have caused climate change.

And IMHO, climate change is only the proverbial canary in the coal mine--a symptom of the root cause of at least a century or more of anthropocentric values and practices that "benefit" humans (and only some humans at that) at the expense of other living things on the planet.

My hope is that someday humans view the entire natural world with the same respect and awe for its wonder as they do for their own self-centered interests. Human activity has caused an imbalance in the web of life to the detriment of all of us. I don't think that's up for debate. What's up for debate is between those who think we can just paint over the damage with technology vs those who would like to see us all recognize the intrinsic value of all living things and behave accordingly.

I don't expect you to agree, LDAHL. You certainly don't stand alone in your opinion, but this is mine.

[LDAHL]

My hope is that someday humans view the entire natural world with the same respect and awe for its wonder as they do for their own self-centered interests.

I think you’ve got at least a billion years of evolution working against you there. Hoping that people will subordinate their children’s interests to switchgrass and jellyfish seems less realistic than hoping for carbon capture on an industrial scale.

[pinkytoe]

We humans believe we can control Ma Nature. I guess we'll see how that works out.

[jp1]

I think climate change is essentially a technical problem that can eventually be solved mainly through technology. I don’t see the sort of proposals for rationing and regimentation being made by the private jet class as all that viable in practical terms. Our best hope are the engineers, not the social engineers.

What are these proposals for rationing and regimentation?

[ApatheticNoMore]

I think billions of people will die from climate change related disasters before any technological solutions are implemented if they ever are. Solutions might be implemented on a narrow scale, China might try to steal India's rain or whatever. That's a form of geoengineering too, but seeding clouds and so on is not new, and I don't think that type of stuff is the global solution people might be fantasizing about, but it's the first we are likely to actually see implemented.

I don't think caring about the natural world is anti-evolution. I think that's absurd. Most people might even care a great deal, you think people want their children to grow up in a world without jellyfish, or strike that a world without fish at all, when they may remember all that from their own childhood, and they grieve the losses for themselves too. Until pretty soon one is arguing it's anti-evolution to care about the planet we evolved on and evolved to sense intimately, but not anti-evolution at all to expect to adapt to living in zero gravity where the outside air will kill one. It's not evolution, but we've got collective action problems and a society built on carbon use.

I might as well claim that CARBON CAPTURE IS ANTI-EVOLUTION because it is more likely to lead to grift than actual capture. Oh I absolutely think it is more likely to lead to financial grift in the present situation than much actual reduction of carbon, think collateralized debt obligations of carbon, as you see the financialization of capture without much underlying carbon reduction going on if any. But I don't make the point it's anti-evolution, because really, that's very broad. But we have collective action problems the same as with climate change to begin with, it's in the interest of the planet to capture carbon were that even possible, but is it in the interest of any single country. And in the u.s. we also have a society that has become increasingly corrupt (but many countries have always been corrupt - corruption being about the functioning of government and other institutions). And stuff like that is a potential grift bonanza. So yea, in the long term, I don't know ultimately, but in the short term expect grifting.

[catherine]

I think you’ve got at least a billion years of evolution working against you there. Hoping that people will subordinate their children’s interests to switchgrass and jellyfish seems less realistic than hoping for carbon capture on an industrial scale.

First of all, you don't have to really subordinate our children's interests to respect for nature at all. What is really in the children's best interest is health and happiness--and, truly, you can give children both without plundering the planet and raising carbon levels.

Second, your disparaging dismissal of jellyfish and switchgrass tells me that you are missing the point that the world fits together like a jigsaw puzzle or a house of cards, and eliminating too much of what fits neatly into the web of life will certainly compromise your children's hopes for health and happiness.

About jellyfish

Scientists at Queen's University, Belfast, have discovered that jellyfish are providing habitat and space for developing larval and juvenile fish. The fish use their jellyfish hosts as means of protection from predators and for feeding opportunities, helping to reduce fish mortality and increase recruitment.

About switchgrass

Wildlife: Switchgrass provides excellent nesting and fall and winter cover for pheasants, quail, and rabbits. It holds up well in heavy snow (particularly 'Shelter' and 'Kanlow' cultivars) and is useful on shooting preserves. The seeds provide food for pheasants, quail, turkeys, doves, and songbirds.

Energy: Switchgrass yields more than 540 percent more energy than the energy needed to produce and convert it to ethanol, making the grassy weed a far superior source for biofuels than corn ethanol, reports a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

[Jane v2.0]

Well said, Catherine. They don't call it "the web of life" for nothing.

[ApatheticNoMore]

There is a term for the idea that humans are innately drawn to nature (by dah dah dum evolution): biophilia. I read that book years ago (probably The Biophilia Hypothesis ).

https://www.britannica.com/science/biophilia-hypothesis

I don't think it's that much use to debate this stuff as I don't think it does anything but go down the rabbit hole, no it's innate, no it's learned, no it's innate, no it's learned, round and round. But the idea that our feelings and attachments and drives, which may be innate, must be limited to the ONLY thing you are allowed to care about is your children's survival is pretty extremely limiting. A strong emotional involvement with the natural world is mostly pretty rational as well.