Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Yeah, of course, injecting sulfur in the athmosphere won't do jack shit to prevent ocean acidification. My favourite technology is carbon capture on a massive scale by either fracturing some specific rocks or by seeding the oceans to cause algal blooms.

As for the algae blooms, how do they make sure that they don't accidentially create 'red tides' which is the kind of algae bloom we don't want.

[SirQuiamus]

*blinks* Oh. Ah, no, if we're talking legitimately practical ways to turn back climate change a bit, we actually have the tech to cool the planet off some right here and right now, relatively easily. It's a little dirty -- would acidify rain a bit on pretty much a global scale -- but we could do it without much trouble and it would (probably) fuck things up significantly less than excessive warming would.

Sulfur, I think it was, injection into... some layer of the atmosphere, iirc? Locks up (or something along those lines) greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, at a pretty phenomenal ratio, and we have both the material access (sulfur is damn plentiful) and the means to get it where it needs to go readily available. Probably a few other methods beyond that. Doing it without some kind of tradeoff is currently impossible, but we've had a few engineering solutions/drastic measures available for something like a few decades now. Just, y'know, most organizations capable of enacting that sort of thing would rather try a bit harder to find a solution without the (same degree of) side effects.

The Gubmint is already doin' dat. Chemtrails are real, maaang.
...
But seriously: Here's an old article about the stratospheric sulphate plan, which, by the way, was invented over half a century ago by Edward Teller of H-bomb fame. And, yeah, you already understand the problems entailed by dumping gazillion fucktons of sulphur on people, plants, animals, and everything, but the worst part is that once you've had a taste of that climate-dope, you can never go back:

Could it keep up? GHGs (particularly CO2) are accumulating in the atmosphere and so even with constant present-day emissions, the problem will continue to get worse. Any sulphates put in the stratosphere will only last a couple of years or so and need to be constantly updated to maintain concentrations. Therefore the need for the stratospheric sulphates will continue to increase much faster than any growth of CO2 emissions. This ever-increasing demand, coupled with the impossibility of stopping once this path is embarked upon is possibly the biggest concern.

We're not talking about "several decades/centuries of acid rain," but a vicious circle where growing CO2 emissions would require more and more sulphates and cranking up the sulphate output would generate more and more CO2. No happy ending to this wild ride, aside from a genuine miracle.
 
Geoengineering is a bloody terrible idea in general, and this is definitely not the least terrible of plans in that dismal category.

[Frumple]

Not the least terrible, but also not the most! Also probably better than just letting things cook. We're not at the point where stuff like that as a stop-gap/emergency measure is feasible, but it's getting closer every day.

... also we're already geoengineering on a massive scale as we (among other things) dump centuries/millennium worth of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere on an annual basis. We've been downing the climate heroin for years -- sometimes you have to switch over to climate methadone for a while in order to detox, or at least not be hurting yourself as much.

[jaked122]

ITT better to build a soletta. A nice giant shade that we can tune to let in a certain amount of light. All we'd need to do is build an orbital industrial complex and shove a large piece of metal into the L-5 point. In principle it can actually open and close variably to allow for it to be adjusted for optimum temperature.


Again, ocean acidification isn't really something we can solve without decent biological tech. Self-replicators that don't eat your face, etc.

[smjjames]

Or self replicators that wont threaten to turn the planet into grey goo for that matter.

[Reelya]

I'm afraid I have to take the pro-2nd Amendment stance on this one, in no small part because it's been around for all of the USA's existence and yet the mass shooting phenomenon is modern. Something else is the root cause here, and I think the ban guns bandwagon is the result of us collectively not being smart enough about our problems.

That's not really true, mass shootings go way back. Gun violence was much worse before, you just didn't hear about it via the internet. Actually, gun deaths were escalating every year up to the mid 1990's and only started to fall after the passing of the Brady Bill which restricted handguns. And almost all of the drop was, you guessed it, related to handguns. There was basically no difference in the rate of rifle-based shootings after the Brady Bill came in.  So if you want to say the Brady Bill wasn't responsible, you have to explain why the only category of gun deaths that fell happened to be the same one targeted by the bill.

I'm not really sold on the idea that you multiply the murder rate by 5 times compared to comparable countries such as England, but this is a small price to pay for the right to shoot things.

[smjjames]

I'm afraid I have to take the pro-2nd Amendment stance on this one, in no small part because it's been around for all of the USA's existence and yet the mass shooting phenomenon is modern. Something else is the root cause here, and I think the ban guns bandwagon is the result of us collectively not being smart enough about our problems.

That's not really true, mass shootings go way back. Gun violence was worse before, you just didn't hear about it via the internet. Actually, gun deaths were escalating every year up to the mid 1990's and only started to fall after the passing of the Brady Bill which restricted handguns. And almost all of the drop was, you guess it, related to handguns.

According to Huckabee, people have been mass killing each other since Cain and Able (outside of war) with knives, spears, you name it.

[Reelya]

But guns make it easier. 5 times the murder rate in USA vs England. And England is the home of skinheads and the like who'll glass you in the face for looking at them sideways, so I'd hardly say it can be attributed to English people being more genteel on the whole.

One thing I worked out, is why gun laws are different to drug laws. Reducing drug supply doesn't reduce the demand for drugs, so restrictions don't work. People want to get high no matter what, so they seek it out. Fixing that is another issue however.

But guns work differently. One of the main excuses for needing a gun is that criminals have guns, so you need a gun too. If criminals had less guns, therefore, then the civilian demand for guns would also drop. That's just plain supply and demand. Of course, most illegal guns start life by being stolen from an upstanding citizen who had the gun to protect themselves from criminals with guns in the first place. So more guns means more demand for guns, in a positive reinforcement loop. And with a positive reinforcement loop, reducing the inputs has a greater effect on the outcome than it would otherwise.

Basically, anything that reduces the flow of guns to criminals (background checks, waiting periods, gun training and licensing, regulations on gun storage) will also reduce the demand for purchasing guns somewhat, and will push up the price of illegal guns. A higher price for illegal guns will definitely mean some would-be criminal shooters will be priced out of the market. Again, this is just basic supply and demand logic, and not anything emotional about it. You'd have cases where the shooter couldn't afford or obtain the gun they wanted, and you definitely get edge cases where someone only makes a marginal profit from gun crime. In those cases, a rising black market price means they either wouldn't buy the gun or they'd onsell the gun instead of committing the crime.

[smjjames]

Except that the pro-gun people are all 'but background checks infringe on second amendment rights' and think there should be fewer restrictions on everything.

Also, Trump said that the teachers should have been armed. Only problem is that the guy was wearing steel plate body armor, anybody fighting back would either need armor piercing rounds or be so good of a shot that they can do a headshot in one shot and they aren't Elite Special Forces snipers.

[PTTG??]

ACCURATE PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE.

[Twi]

I'd weigh in on guns, but it'd probably not help.   :/

Spoiler: but if you care (click to show/hide)

mental health improvement would probably rid us of Sad Obama

IN more important news, apparently emailgate has taken a turn for the 'Clinton could actually end up in jail' or something? I'm much too tired to parse google for this.

[Strife26]

But guns make it easier. 5 times the murder rate in USA vs England. And England is the home of skinheads and the like who'll glass you in the face for looking at them sideways, so I'd hardly say it can be attributed to English people being more genteel on the whole.

One thing I worked out, is why gun laws are different to drug laws. Reducing drug supply doesn't reduce the demand for drugs, so restrictions don't work. People want to get high no matter what, so they seek it out. Fixing that is another issue however.

But guns work differently. One of the main excuses for needing a gun is that criminals have guns, so you need a gun too. If criminals had less guns, therefore, then the civilian demand for guns would also drop. That's just plain supply and demand. Of course, most illegal guns start life by being stolen from an upstanding citizen who had the gun to protect themselves from criminals with guns in the first place. So more guns means more demand for guns, in a positive reinforcement loop. And with a positive reinforcement loop, reducing the inputs has a greater effect on the outcome than it would otherwise.

Basically, anything that reduces the flow of guns to criminals (background checks, waiting periods, gun training and licensing, regulations on gun storage) will also reduce the demand for purchasing guns somewhat, and will push up the price of illegal guns. A higher price for illegal guns will definitely mean some would-be criminal shooters will be priced out of the market. Again, this is just basic supply and demand logic, and not anything emotional about it. You'd have cases where the shooter couldn't afford or obtain the gun they wanted, and you definitely get edge cases where someone only makes a marginal profit from gun crime. In those cases, a rising black market price means they either wouldn't buy the gun or they'd onsell the gun instead of committing the crime.

That assumes most guns are purchased for either crime or self defense. Most legally purchased guns in the united states are purchased as hobbyist things because guns are really cool and fun to have for a large segment of the population. You don't seriously buy an AR15 for self defense, you buy it because they're a blast to shoot and because you can.



And before someone says that therefore people don't need them so restrictions are cool, American society (traditionally and ideally) puts a premium on preserving rights, not taking them away.

[Willfor]

I feel like it should be easier to get on a plane than to buy a gun though.

[Egan_BW]

To be fair one of them is a much bigger projectile.

[mainiac]

IN more important news, apparently emailgate has taken a turn for the 'Clinton could actually end up in jail' or something? I'm much too tired to parse google for this.

Ooooh, just like all the other times.