alt Hacker NewsLet me also invoke an analogy:
After a record year of traffic casualties, I suggest to remove regulation that commonly prevents installing seat belts in your car, mandate the presence of seat belts, and subsidize retrofitting older cars.
Instead, politicians talk at length about better education in primary school promoting safe driving later in life. Additionally they recommend to pay attention while driving, and they call this an "Action plan" to make driving safe. No word about seat belts.
You respond to my proposal, saying that seat belts are merely a band aid, that I pretend they are our only option, and that we better fix the root cause before an accident occurs.
When then someone talks about the thousands upon thousands needlessly dead while ignoring the existence of seat belts we could install today, it just drives me furious.
Great, you sucessfully showcased the idea that analogies can be bent around till they no longer reflect the scientifically measurable reality.
So again:
It is possible for humanity to create unsurvivable conditions in our earths athmosphere.
1. Should we create it if there is enough profit in it? Y/N
2. If not, where would you draw the line and how would you set/enforce the limits?
If your answer is Yes to (1) you are in a suicidal, planet killing cult. If your answer is No, you realize the simple fact there are limits to what can be done in a limited space. But then you have to draw a line and find a mechanism even if you don't like it from an ideological standpoint. And that is what I would be really, honestly be interested in.