When Thomas states: "Which means, it gives our current elite — our rulers, if you will — permission to not change a thing. Not change energy use. Not change earth exploitation. Not stop harvesting wealth. Not stop the pathological few and from controlling our lives," he's exactly correct "permission to not change a thing..." They are Hunger Ghosts from 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' they cannot stop as their hunger will not subsist, it can't, it won't, never has, never will. Rome fell due to this very cancer of the soul: Unstoppable! Is there a solution? YES! REVOLT and overthrow these Hunger Ghosts who have had their souls eaten alive, forever no more!
The moral hazard angle here is what makes this so tough to evaluate. OIF might actually work as advertised, but the second billionaires know there's a technofix that lets them keep extracting, any political will for systemic change evaporates completely. I've seen this pattern play out before with carbon capture tech where the promise of future solutions becomes an excuse for present inaction. What's missing from Fiekowsky's framing is any acknowledgment that stablizing CO2 while maintaining extractive capitalism just sets us up for the next collapse vector, whether thats biodiversity loss or resource depletion or something else entirely.
Iron is necessary for oxidative metabolism, but too much iron causes metbolic stress. Writ large in humans, you have iron deficiency and you have hemochromatosis. Iron can stimulate microbial growth and that of other life forms, but you are fucking around with the ecology of the world with consequences that cannot be fully mapped out. The hutzpah of the technocrat, Icarus syndrome. There are other solutions that do not have the same readily apparent risk, eg, in Ministry for the Future working to prevent iceberg slippage into the antartic ocean.
Even more basic, how about working to create a will to prevent climate change, as we bckslide on world CO2 goals.
I don’t even remotely understand what your objection is to a remedy that you indicate is likely to work and could reduce suffering and harm and death to billions of people and help preserve ecosystems.
But because the problems of the world would continue whether we do this or not we shouldn’t do this ? Huh?
I have been involved with climate change as an author and activist as a cofounder of several Climate organizations and I don’t think I’ve ever read anything as irrational as what you have written if I understand you correctly.
I also know Peter and have great respect for him even as I remain agnostic about the likelihood of success for ocean iron fertilization
So you’re saying we shouldn’t make any attempt to fix or save the Climate even if it could reduce suffering and harm to billions of people and save Ecosystems if it doesn’t also address the other ills of inequality and so forth.
There’s really nothing I or I guess anyone else could say in response to that position except that I doubt whether the billions of people who might benefit from saving the climate and ecosystem collapse would agree with you
Also what makes you so sure that saving the Climate wouldn’t make it much more likely to then be able to correct these other problems and these other sources of inequality and injustice.
It seems fairly clear at least to me and to many observers that the increasing chaos that results from the acceleration of the climate crisis increases the level of inequality and increases support for right wing governments so if that trend continues and I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t then what you were proposing would worsen all three of the ills that you identify.
Whereas what Peter is suggesting if feasible would directly address the climate crisis and indirectly likely benefit the other crises the world is experiencing.
I'm not saying anything for myself. I'm saying that there are many others — others — who hate what the world's become, who suffer from what the world's become, and want an engine that takes it apart. Keeping the FF game going and the wealthy in charge is not their first desire.
To fix the world means fixing why Trump was elected. Otherwise, we're surrounded by arsonists. That's just a fact.
Thanks for the comment. I don't think fixing the climate fixes the world. There are three sources of current suffering and potential collapse, and climate is just one. The others are a) the rape of the world by a flailing U.S., and b) the rape of the country itself by our own elites. Fixing climate won't fix any of that.
So long as current elites are in charge, "the punishment will increase until moral improves" — or chaos/rebellion achieves critical mass. Climate aside, none of that will be pretty, easy, or clean.
So we're not saving our "modern life" by saving the climate — we're just delaying its death. And in the process, keeping the rich in charge to the bitter end.
Aand a lot depends on one's attitude toward "modern life." For we who enjoy its benefits — I'm certainly one of them — we want it to keep going as is. Why wouldn't we? But for the lower 80% of the U.S. wealth class, they're ready to burn the whole boat — just look at the support for Trump and Sanders combined. You're watching that fire.
And that's my point. What I want is immaterial. It's what the world wants. Most in the U.S., and indeed the world, are done with this "modern life." I don't think *they* would chose a solution that keeps their oppressors in charge.
And that's my main point.
Again, thanks for the comment, Herb. Appreciate the thoughts.
When Thomas states: "Which means, it gives our current elite — our rulers, if you will — permission to not change a thing. Not change energy use. Not change earth exploitation. Not stop harvesting wealth. Not stop the pathological few and from controlling our lives," he's exactly correct "permission to not change a thing..." They are Hunger Ghosts from 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' they cannot stop as their hunger will not subsist, it can't, it won't, never has, never will. Rome fell due to this very cancer of the soul: Unstoppable! Is there a solution? YES! REVOLT and overthrow these Hunger Ghosts who have had their souls eaten alive, forever no more!
The moral hazard angle here is what makes this so tough to evaluate. OIF might actually work as advertised, but the second billionaires know there's a technofix that lets them keep extracting, any political will for systemic change evaporates completely. I've seen this pattern play out before with carbon capture tech where the promise of future solutions becomes an excuse for present inaction. What's missing from Fiekowsky's framing is any acknowledgment that stablizing CO2 while maintaining extractive capitalism just sets us up for the next collapse vector, whether thats biodiversity loss or resource depletion or something else entirely.
Exactly.
Thomas
Iron is necessary for oxidative metabolism, but too much iron causes metbolic stress. Writ large in humans, you have iron deficiency and you have hemochromatosis. Iron can stimulate microbial growth and that of other life forms, but you are fucking around with the ecology of the world with consequences that cannot be fully mapped out. The hutzpah of the technocrat, Icarus syndrome. There are other solutions that do not have the same readily apparent risk, eg, in Ministry for the Future working to prevent iceberg slippage into the antartic ocean.
Even more basic, how about working to create a will to prevent climate change, as we bckslide on world CO2 goals.
>the big one, the jackpot — collapse — is merely pushed out
We will very much see about that, won't we? Warming is a very big component of it, but it's not called the Polycrisis for nothing.
How about scaling up regenerative agriculture? Decouple farming from fossil fuels. Promote a healthier diet to boot.
Mother Nature may see regenerative agriculture as a far less risky treatment plan.
But I am willing to concede that the billionaires are far less likely to throw wrenches into the implementation of ocean iron fertilization.
I don’t even remotely understand what your objection is to a remedy that you indicate is likely to work and could reduce suffering and harm and death to billions of people and help preserve ecosystems.
But because the problems of the world would continue whether we do this or not we shouldn’t do this ? Huh?
I have been involved with climate change as an author and activist as a cofounder of several Climate organizations and I don’t think I’ve ever read anything as irrational as what you have written if I understand you correctly.
I also know Peter and have great respect for him even as I remain agnostic about the likelihood of success for ocean iron fertilization
So you’re saying we shouldn’t make any attempt to fix or save the Climate even if it could reduce suffering and harm to billions of people and save Ecosystems if it doesn’t also address the other ills of inequality and so forth.
There’s really nothing I or I guess anyone else could say in response to that position except that I doubt whether the billions of people who might benefit from saving the climate and ecosystem collapse would agree with you
Also what makes you so sure that saving the Climate wouldn’t make it much more likely to then be able to correct these other problems and these other sources of inequality and injustice.
It seems fairly clear at least to me and to many observers that the increasing chaos that results from the acceleration of the climate crisis increases the level of inequality and increases support for right wing governments so if that trend continues and I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t then what you were proposing would worsen all three of the ills that you identify.
Whereas what Peter is suggesting if feasible would directly address the climate crisis and indirectly likely benefit the other crises the world is experiencing.
Herb,
I'm not saying anything for myself. I'm saying that there are many others — others — who hate what the world's become, who suffer from what the world's become, and want an engine that takes it apart. Keeping the FF game going and the wealthy in charge is not their first desire.
To fix the world means fixing why Trump was elected. Otherwise, we're surrounded by arsonists. That's just a fact.
Hope this helps,
Thomas
Herb,
Thanks for the comment. I don't think fixing the climate fixes the world. There are three sources of current suffering and potential collapse, and climate is just one. The others are a) the rape of the world by a flailing U.S., and b) the rape of the country itself by our own elites. Fixing climate won't fix any of that.
So long as current elites are in charge, "the punishment will increase until moral improves" — or chaos/rebellion achieves critical mass. Climate aside, none of that will be pretty, easy, or clean.
So we're not saving our "modern life" by saving the climate — we're just delaying its death. And in the process, keeping the rich in charge to the bitter end.
Aand a lot depends on one's attitude toward "modern life." For we who enjoy its benefits — I'm certainly one of them — we want it to keep going as is. Why wouldn't we? But for the lower 80% of the U.S. wealth class, they're ready to burn the whole boat — just look at the support for Trump and Sanders combined. You're watching that fire.
And that's my point. What I want is immaterial. It's what the world wants. Most in the U.S., and indeed the world, are done with this "modern life." I don't think *they* would chose a solution that keeps their oppressors in charge.
And that's my main point.
Again, thanks for the comment, Herb. Appreciate the thoughts.
Thomas
>the rape of the world
That began before the US existed and will continue, I am sure, after it is gone, and it has had many willing coconspirators along the way.