Geoengineering ...

[Anomalocaris]

Consider living in harmony with the Planet ensures the survival of the species, I see no other strategy. To think otherwise is significantly inept.

On the contrary, there is no such thing as "living" in harmony with the planet in the long run. This is why overwhelming majority of all complex species go extinct in geologically short time span. Evolution is life's attempt at somehow surviving with the impossibility of living in harmony with the planet. So your living in harmony ensures not our survival, but our extinction, possibly following a draw out period of civilization decline and increasingly abject poverty. It is no strategy, it is certain suicide. To think living in harmony has anything durable to recommend it in Luddite dilution.

---

.

.

Agreed we can't survive alone, we are contingent beings. That doesn't mean we can't survive without a great deal of it.

This is extremly arrogant and immoral.

There is nothing to recommend a system of morality that deems a fact immoral.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Not unless we're all going to die otherwise, the risks are too great.

Agreed.

On the face of it, the idea seems stupidly arrogant and naively optimistic..

Not to worry: Our government simply won't tell us about such a plan until after the event.By that time it will be too late to object regardless. Like when they built the A bomb in 1945. At the time there were some physicists who though it would set off a chain reaction and destroy the planet. Boy, I bet the Americans would have been REALLY embarrassed had that happened.I guess it would have been difficult to maintain plausible deniability.(they probably would have blamed Hitler)

[ib.me.ub]

@Chuck: I care to differ. You are obvioulsy confused.

There is something to deem a fact immoral. me.

[HeyItsZeus]

@Chuck: I care to differ. You are obvioulsy confused.

There is something to deem a fact immoral. me.

Hey, man... don't bother with it anymore. Their thoughts are void of reason.

---

See what I did there?

---

[Anomalocaris]

@Chuck: I care to differ. You are obvioulsy confused.

There is something to deem a fact immoral. me.

I am glad you exist in such a high plane of assertions and wishful thinking. You and your birds must be very happy together.

[theVOID]

@theVOID. Plainly you are wrong & deluded.

You'll have to do more than assert it.

That's also an ad hominem. If I'm so clearly wrong you should have no problem pointing it out, as opposed to engaging in fallacies.

Who are you to judge my moral framework, when obviously your own is questionable. Your points are so full of loop holes and monkey would have no trouble jumping trough them.

You still haven't presented a moral framework despite my requesting it numerous times, you're simply arguing from your intuitions and claiming that it's some sound moral framework so you don't feel like a hypocrite. Until you present this framework I'm going to continue to say you're lying about having one, which you are.

Although id like to indulge you in this mental masterbation, I have much better things to do with my time, obviously you don't. I still coclude that you are morally corrupt and intrisically seperated from your environment and reality.

Again, you have to do more than assert it.

You can use your well rehearsed and time consuming internet debating to try and debunk any argument put forward. All you do in reality is run around in circles, put forward paper thin arguments and persist in repeating yourself. This basically allows you to break people down through time consumption.

You're full of shit. If you see a problem with what I've said then point it out directly rather than hiding behind generalizations - If they're so paper thin it should be easy, no?

Kill all the cats. Kill all the mammals. Well lets kill all the humans while we are at it.

That wasn't what I said at all. You incorrectly said we couldn't survive without them, I corrected you. Unless you know of some reason why we couldn't live if all cats died then state your case, otherwise my point stands.

And if you'd read my post rather than talking out your ass you would see that I am against eliminating other species under any circumstance unless our survival is contingent upon it. There are currently no species that come close to that.

You seem to think that everything your little mind establishes is the gospel truth, well I have some news for you.

If you hadn't already noticed I'm willing to debate any point I raise. That qualifies as gospel truth now? How many ad hominems do you need to use to mask the fact that your argument has no substance?

[ib.me.ub]

Yeah, ok, Ill stick wih the birds, generalisations, assertions and my unsound moral framwork. I can live with that.

[leo-rcc]

Void never said your moral framework was unsound, you haven't presented it at all. There is a big difference.

[theVOID]

Yeah, ok, Ill stick wih the birds, generalisations, assertions and my unsound moral framwork. I can live with that.

So you wouldn't kill all the birds if it was the only way to save every human on the planet?

Generalizations and assertions are completely detrimental to proper discussions, more often than not they're fallacies, but we already know you have little interest in getting into the specifics of anything you believe.

You still haven't presented this moral framework, why don't you just admit you're using intuitions?

[Skipper]

I saw a documentary about this a while ago. The idea of putting more Iron into the sea to encourage plancton to grow to absorb Co2 seemed like a good idea. Not sure about the details though, as my knowledge on the subject ends at the one documentary I saw. So in principle I guess im in favour of it.