Unless you are advocating a return to hunter gatherer lifestyle then we will in fact need to design more efficient systems than what we have now, and we don't have millions of years to wait for changes. You have offered zero "solutions" other than "don't stop polluting now because the lack of pollution might cause...something"? Seems like vague nonsense.
I would like to wrap this up from my end with a few quotes.
Where is your evidence that "the probability of consequential negative consequences is >0 in any solution we engage in"? Do you really believe that no (net) good has ever come of human endeavor? Are you a professional nihilist?
Like I’ve said multiple times, the problem is the scale and speed. We engage in new ways of doing things at scale before we can validate them in the real world. Electrified economy, for example, is something that has not experienced even the predictable volatilities! See my comment on carrington events. Accepting the fragility of modernity is difficult.
I stand by my direct quote of what you said. If that's not what you meant, feel free to retract.
Time and real world volatility will be the judge. Not you, nor me. Like I said there is a 100% probability that there will be a disruptive solar event. We do not know what the effects on electric systems will be, as is stated by the top expert i quoted in an earlier post. What do you think will happen to the renewable economy if yhe grid is down for a few years. You are engaging in burying your head in the sand and wishful thinking.
JRP3, direct question to you. What do you think will be the consequence of the next Carrington event that could (or could not) cause the grid to be down for years? And this is a known risk. There are also plenty of risks we do not know about.
Oh now you are saying we shouldn't do anything about it! We literally have survived many such events, the proof is in us being alive right here right now. Its the current system that won't survive it. Why would you go full steam ahead with a system you know won't survive something that will very likely come in a few decades? What we should do is to make our systems for necessities local and robust. Instead of going faster and bigger with modernity, we should stop and maybe take a step back and rely on technologies and traditions we know have survived much more volatility. If you think its better to just double down and hope for the best, you have every right to do so. I will in the mean time try to make money with TSLA as long as its possible and help my community be more robust against all kinds of possible volatile events. Trying to predict the future is not a good strategy.
The irony of you predicting a Carrington event and basing your life on that prediction.
It is just an example. One can acknowledge that there are events that we know quite well will happen at some point, we just don't know exactly well, but we can also acknowledge that there events that we don't even know about could happen. Current trends are towards centralization of capital, and production. Do the opposite of that and we are already much more robust against many events. Rely less on modern technology. I'm advocating for a much more conservative approach to any new intervention. Communities should have control over their own food production, organic and not reliant on mehanization. This will mean much higher percentage of people working in agriculture, and other essentials. But to be fair, I do think a change like that is not going to happen until its forced on us. I'm barbelling my approach, I ride the TSLA wave and enjoy the fruits of that while I can, and at the same time I'm trying to make sure that me, my family, and my community have the tools and the skills to have a better chance in a world that might lack much of the modern technology.
www.astronomy.com
