Man Made Global Warming

[Pippy]

Hey,
Please, allow me to continue.

in the mean time we have the ability to cool the earth down 1-2 degrees by dumping sulfur over the earths atmosphere, not ideal, but effective if needed.

I think "not ideal" is quite an understatement. And it stills comes across as doing the same thing and expecting different results. Don't make me define that further, I think it is clear enough... It is digging to get out of a hole, and seems almost unjustifiable.

Our relationship with tech is definitely not harmful, it has done more good for our species than any other single ideal, it has made life easy to live, giving more time for the sort of progress we need for the future

That's also not really accurate, I fear. Technology, as it is, is just the applied sciences. It could be considered the other arm of science relating to the scientific method. Applied sciences, by their nature are not necessarily good or bad. They are just tools, and have no moral value. And for the most part any tool of the applied sciences can be used about as well for bad as it can for good. So our relationship with tech (like any other thing that we are involved in, with our human contradictory complexity) has pro's and con's. All we are arguing about is the level of overall good, and the level of bad. the level of function and dysfunction... All that "easier to live stuff", and especially "sort of progress we need for the future" is just pure undefined, unsubstantiated fluff. This isn't a political rally. Save it.

Yes pollution and global warming was an oversight, we simply didn't know enough when we started.

Okay, going with that. Then we certainly do know enough now. And we are not making any necessary changes. It would almost seem that knowing better is not actually what makes the difference. Since we know all of the harms of all of the pollution issues, and still can't convince the polluters to change priorities. May be all along it wasn't that we didn't know better, but that the same bad ideas, dysfunctional systems we see now...

seems that direct action may be the most viable way to go short term.

I don't know what you mean by direct action. It reminds me of protests and breaking shit, and I doubt that is what you mean. May be you mean being rash, under-researched, dissociated from reality, exponentially dangerous; modifying our environment to deal with modification of our environment...

The earth has recovered from volcanoes that have injected far more sulfur into the atmosphere than any imaginable human intervention.

And animals have eaten more other animals than Stalin killed in Russia, so that makes a perfect moral equivalent? Absolute, certifiable craziness. Because it is less sulfur than the volcanoes, it is no big deal? That is just the silliest rationalization for accepting the endangering of every human and animal on this planet I can imagine, beside the will of some god.

It's about now it's clear you have completely missed the tone of my post: I am not against the change to green technology, i just don't think it's happening fast enough - technology is going to have a role in this.

I just think it is shortsighted of you to be waiting (in time of apparent crisis) for a tech based solution to a tech problem. We can make as many small cars as we want, but as long as some fellow north americans think that A/C and a huge house is some god given right... We need to change the lifestyles (and it would be a change for the better in so many ways), because it doesn't matter how fancy the tech is, if people still demand to be wasteful, or at least don't understand the full cost of the things they want and need.

As for your views on dominion of the earth, i don't agree.
This earth IS ours, it wasn't made for us, wasn't made for any purpose, fuck - it wasn't even planned to be made, but it did happen. Life grew on it and fought for it's life on this hostile planet for 4.5 billion years, humanity eventually conquered other life, we stuck our claim in and took the world for our own, and we have every right to do that, because there isn't a single other entity in the cosmos staking claim on our little rock. We rule this planet, we do what we want with it

The fact that the earth wasn't made for us, or whether it was planned is not only speculative, but only a mere possibility and not some cardinal truth. I mean, how can you prove that the world wasn't made for us (or may be us for it). It is as speculative as a believer saying he knows without a doubt there is intent and design. And I am sure you wouldn't stand for that. The earth is not ours in the sense you are furthering. It is not below us, we are not separate from it. We are animals on this earth, we need certain resources to maintain our lives. Not just food and water, but trace minerals and sunlight. For us to think we are allowed to do anything we want with the planet is arrogant to the most extreme, because the possibility for (and unfortunate reality of) doing much more damage than good for humans, yourself and myself included.

If you decide to defend some sickness you have about being wholly disconnected from the planet that made you, please don't maintain that I have some obligation to see it that way.

It is in our best interest to make the planet livable, make it clean and green,

It is in our best interest to not mess with the planet. It already was fucking livable! We evolved for a long, long time to be able to live on this exact planet, why would we tell ourselves we need to modify it to make it livable? In fact making it "clean and green" is kind of the antithesis of this natural interventionism. And if the real problem is that human pollution may be hampering our ability to live on the planet, than it has nothing to do with the planet. And to suggest that we should add tons of sulfur, in essence pollute a lot more, to solve the pollution issue never ceases to amaze me.

we will still survive, we will adapt, the primary goal is all that really matters.

Again, speculative. I disagree with the fact the our "primary goal" that "really matters" is survivability at all costs. That is actually a fear based weakness I commonly call cowardice, and it as a motivator to do things to our shared ecosystem represents the aforementioned mental confusion (bordering on disability) you seem to be exhibiting.

I think your dreaming a bit pippy, there is so much more going on here than Human nature or choice, there is the thick weave of political influence to cut through,

I would agree that there is much more than human nature and choice, and that I too see the very thick weave of political influence. I was trying to make a point about that before, about how lobbyists, and just conflicted interests play a big role in the drudgery of decision making on the large scale. I am just saying not to identify with and defend that flaw. If the government of your country dosn't allow change in this ever changing world, it seems better to try to demand change, to be open to new ideas, than to say "Well, that's how it's always been, so what if it's obviously flawed, I owe it my life"(from some strange reasoning)...

the same political weave that has kept us alive, kept us safe in numbers

Whoa, there is the "We owe it our lives, don't question the systems, it's rude, it hurts its feelings". Be very careful with what you identify with, because there is a solid argument for the said "political weave" promoting poor health, bad life choices, bad personal beliefs... Tools, and pro's and con's, my friend. At least two sides to every story.

Will the removal of fossil fuels not bring the amount of pollution below the acceptable threshold?

Here you have hit the nail right on the head, and I commend you for it. This is the bottom line of that entire side argument we are having. What are the differences between your personal definition of "acceptable pollution threshold" and my own? That is the crux of it, I think. I would hazard to guess that my "acceptable levels" may be a lot lower than yours, and it is a simple disagreement...

but that issue is more about waste management than anything.

And is the issue of waste management an issue from some problem with applied sciences, or it is an issue of human decisions? Should we make better robots for cleaning garbage, make slightly smaller plastic bottles, or simply try to make less garbage?

develop technology that has less impact on the environment while maintaining the standard of life we have.

Depending on where you live, and what standard of life you enjoy, I think those two may be oxymoronic. Unless the "less impact on the environment" is negligible, than you can at least make it legitimate.

I just personally think it is about our standards of lives, and I don't know how healthy they really are. Are we polluting the planet, in essence helping to end the human race, so we can have toaster waffles, Kraft Dinner, XBox's and liposuction? Are we willing to choose one or two generations of so much affluence that it is killing a majority of westerners, and disregard all the grand-children and great-grand-children? That seems callous, and somehow inhuman, and why I so strongly disagree.

I again don't mean to be so scathing, and apologize for calling you names. It is just something that is very important to me, and seems very clear to me. Even in this case though, I maintain my ability to agree to disagree, and welcome your input. Thank you for listening, this was a long one...

-Pip