Re: Solving Climate Change.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2021 3:29 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I thought I was being fairly clear myself, but sure I'll make the point again. You are just blithely expecting us to place our faith in a 'philosopher' to just intuitively know what is geologically feasible.Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:58 pmI think I'm being perfectly clear. I'm certainly trying to be. I'll say it again - for the fourth or fifth time, I'm a philosopher. I'm not a geophysical engineer. I'm not going to provide blueprints, but consider it entirely reasonable to note the existence of a potential source of limitless clean energy when precisely what the world needs is limitless clean energy. Of what do you remain unconvinced? Is there not a limitless amount of clean energy in the molten interior of the earth? Do we not need that energy to sequester carbon and desalinate and irrigate to survive climate change? Is it somehow - impossible to get to? You said it was impossible - but still haven't said why you think so. Please don't forget again.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:23 pm I'm just noting that you place a lot of emphasis on telling us that you personally are convinced of something and that should be good enough for anybody.
Kudos for acknowledging your error...once it was pointed out to you! A gracious acceptance usually involves thanking the person who pointed out your error, but kudos for not making an idiot of yourself by denying an undeniable fact!
I'm not appealing to faith, but to reason. I assure you that I've looked at drilling technologies, and at the geophysics of various volcanic features - and consider it feasible to harness magma energy. What is it that you don't believe? Is that not a reasonable opinion? Or are you saying humankind lacks the ingenuity to harness magma energy? If that's the leap of faith you speak of, I'd place my faith in human ingenuity.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 3:29 pmI thought I was being fairly clear myself, but sure I'll make the point again. You are just blithely expecting us to place our faith in a 'philosopher' to just intuitively know what is geologically feasible.
..i don't think i can go to bed let alone sleep until I read this response *: )

You keep using a sales patter about limitless energy in place of argument or explanation. When doubted you respond variously with accusations of malicious motives and little motivational speeches about some shining vision of a beautiful future that you can deliver via your blue sky thinking regimen, but never a description of a practical thing that fixes the issue you were asked about.Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 4:15 pmI'm not appealing to faith, but to reason. I assure you that I've looked at drilling technologies, and at the geophysics of various volcanic features - and consider it feasible to harness magma energy. What is it that you don't believe? Is that not a reasonable opinion? Or are you saying humankind lacks the ingenuity to harness magma energy? If that's the leap of faith you speak of, I'd place my faith in human ingenuity.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 3:29 pmI thought I was being fairly clear myself, but sure I'll make the point again. You are just blithely expecting us to place our faith in a 'philosopher' to just intuitively know what is geologically feasible.
I thought I was describing an approach to climate change that seems possible - and if technologically viable, is arguably the most effective, least disruptive and least expensive adequate solution. Your questions about the engineering are spoiler questions, deliberately impossible to answer - so get off your high horse. It's a straw horse for a straw man!FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:11 pm You keep using a sales patter about limitless energy in place of argument or explanation. When doubted you respond variously with accusations of malicious motives and little motivational speeches about some shining vision of a beautiful future that you can deliver via your blue sky thinking regimen, but never a description of a practical thing that fixes the issue you were asked about.
I was trying to respond without getting drawn into your endless, pointless discussion about the discussion! I forgot to delete the earlier version.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:11 pm Also I only just noticed that you replied twice to the same post and the second one looks a lot like you spent 2 hours stewing over some slight before deciding to shoot back with a bunch of silly stuff about me being stupid. You take things way too personally, but I don't care enough to get goaded into doing the same.
That's the sales patter answer again.Vitruvius wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 12:01 amI thought I was describing an approach to climate change that seems possible - and if technologically viable, is arguably the most effective, least disruptive and least expensive adequate solution.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:11 pm You keep using a sales patter about limitless energy in place of argument or explanation. When doubted you respond variously with accusations of malicious motives and little motivational speeches about some shining vision of a beautiful future that you can deliver via your blue sky thinking regimen, but never a description of a practical thing that fixes the issue you were asked about.
It's getting difficult to keep track of what excuses you are going to make up for not having much idea of how this thing can actually be done.
There's a lot can be forgiven but boring ain't one of them. If you're going to keep harping on the same point, we're done. Goodbye.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 1:00 am It's getting difficult to keep track of what excuses you are going to make up for not having much idea of how this thing can actually be done.
Come on, you know the answer to this!Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:33 am If COP 26 (in the UK in October/November) follows the same pattern as the previous 25 such meetings, the biggest achievement will be the group photo! 25 years they've been meeting to discuss climate change - and we are still doomed. Why?
This is not a rhetorical question. It needn't be so. Technologically speaking, we could solve climate change - and if we'd started 25 years ago with that aim in mind, we'd be on top of it by now. However, IMO - because the right have stuck their head in the sand on climate change, the narrative has been dominated by left wing thought, based in Malthusian pessimism and limits to resources, feeding into anti-capitalist politics, and as a consequence - it seems, the idea of solving climate change has never even been considered. Every measure assumes we must back down, tax this, stop that, have less and pay more. This is absolutely the wrong approach.
The Malthusian prophecy of mass starvation, resulting from the disparity between geometric population growth and arithmetic agricultural development, was overcome through the development of new technologies - tractors and fertilizers. Food production has outpaced population growth through the application of technology. Technology multiplies resources - so how can there be a limit to resources? Apply the right technologies, and there is no inherent limit.
The earth is a big ball of molten rock - containing a virtually limitless amount of energy. If we harnessed that energy, we could extract carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it, produce limitless amounts of clean electricity, hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle - it's not that complicated. Technologically, we could solve climate change. Why haven't we?
