Geoengineering ...

[ib.me.ub]

You better go back and read what I have written. Because you dismiss my agrument towards species equality dosen't mean I haven't explained it earlier. It also dosen't mean it is wrong becuase you have asserted that you think it is wrong.

Comments like;

'fuck the animals'

'kill the animals'

'and we don't need them to survive'

are good examples of your own moral framework. A sense of morality that is obviously inadequate.

I can however assure that many species on this planet, being animal or plant, are neccesary to sustain human life. Maybe not cats, but others like plankton, have a significant impact on the ecosytem as a whole.

Many animal and plants rely upon one another to survive, including humans. Once you start to rule out certain specied at random, as we do today with random species extinction, you start to run the thin line of ecosystem breakdown. You only need one key species to dissapear, plankton for example, and this will have major affects on humans further down the food chain. Plankton is but one example, birds & bees are others. I think you will find that many key species that are essential tio sustain life on earth.

To have no respect for the ecosystem which sustains yourself and everything else is not only naive, but also immoral. It is immoral becuase, eventually, your type of careless thinking will cause the death and sufferenig of many species, including humans.

Lastly, in terms of my intuition, if we can kill and destroy other species at will, and we understand that we can, why would this give us a reason to want to do so?

What makes us so much better than them?

It seems to me that this type of selfish thinking and complete disregard for the environment had got us into the squeeze we are in, where we start to think about geoenigineering as a solution.

[Anomalocaris]

"species equality"?

[ib.me.ub]

Your so intelligent chuck.

Is that you well though through answer? Well done. A+ for effort.

[Anomalocaris]

Not every proposition deserves either thought or answer, ib, although certain other reactions do come involuntarily.

[theVOID]

You better go back and read what I have written. Because you dismiss my agrument towards species equality dosen't mean I haven't explained it earlier. It also dosen't mean it is wrong becuase you have asserted that you think it is wrong.

Equal in what sense?

Comments like;

'fuck the animals'

'kill the animals'

'and we don't need them to survive'

And now you're quote mining. Have you got a shred of intellectual honestly? Why don't you present these phrases in the contexts I used them and then address the concept? Or is that too hard for you?

are good examples of your own moral framework. A sense of morality that is obviously inadequate.

And quote mining speaks wonders about your moral framework does it? That moral framework that you still haven't presented.

I can however assure that many species on this planet, being animal or plant, are neccesary to sustain human life. Maybe not cats, but others like plankton, have a significant impact on the ecosytem as a whole.

Many sure, that's precisely what I said. Most of them? No. If by some accident of nature most animals could die tomorrow and we would survive just fine. Don't like that fact? Tough. What I did NOT say is we should kill them just because we can live without them, the only time I would ever advocate eliminating another species is if our survival was contingent upon it. Is that ever likely to happen? NO.

Many animal and plants rely upon one another to survive, including humans. Once you start to rule out certain specied at random, as we do today with random species extinction, you start to run the thin line of ecosystem breakdown. You only need one key species to dissapear, plankton for example, and this will have major affects on humans further down the food chain. Plankton is but one example, birds & bees are others. I think you will find that many key species that are essential tio sustain life on earth.

Now you're attacking a straw man. I never said that wasn't the case.

To have no respect for the ecosystem which sustains yourself and everything else is not only naive, but also immoral. It is immoral becuase, eventually, your type of careless thinking will cause the death and sufferenig of many species, including humans.

Again, that is complete bullshit. I have said multiple times on this thread that I am for taking active measures to ensure that we never reach that point, my comments regarding species extinction were in response to a dilemma, if the only way for us to survive at some point in the future is to launch s02 into the upper atmosphere and THAT has the effect of killing some species of birds then I am for doing it.

Lastly, in terms of my intuition, if we can kill and destroy other species at will, and we understand that we can, why would this give us a reason to want to do so?

It WOULDN'T, as I have already said more than once in this discussion. You haven't read half of what i've actually written have you? Because most of what you've been attacking isn't even my position.

And you finally admit you haven't got a moral framework?

What makes us so much better than them?

Nothing makes any species objectively better than any other, we are only more important to ourselves, as such we have reason for action to save humans at the expense of birds.

It seems to me that this type of selfish thinking and complete disregard for the environment had got us into the squeeze we are in, where we start to think about geoenigineering as a solution.

What got us into this situation was ignorance about our actions, especially as far as the consequences of c02 was concerned. I said in my VERY FIRST post in this thread regarding geoengineering:

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

And I also said:

"If we cannot manage to curb our habits we may be forced to take action to prevent ourselves and the mast majority of other species from dying."

AND

"We're better off not getting to that point (pragmatically by preventing it from getting any worse)"

If you'd bothered to actually read what I've written rather than attacking the straw man position you've got stuck in your mind we wouldn't even be having this argument.

[ib.me.ub]

You speak of a straw man & quote mining, but you are the master.

Basically, not worth my time, so I am going to aVOID you from now on. Have fun.

---

Not every proposition deserves either thought or answer, ib, although certain other reactions do come involuntarily.

Yup, thats exactly it.

[theVOID]

If you find a single example where I've straw manned or quote mined you present it and I'll publicly apologies.

[Sam]

I think an aspect slightly overlooked thus far here is the inherent uncertainity involved with any geoengineering project.

The fact is that mankind has never intentionally tried to alter this planet in such a way as is being proposed. The feedback in the climate system are poorly understood at is so assuming we have the knowledge to change them is dangerous.

Recent proposals for geoengineering projects have included lines in the them of;

"The large scale implementation of this project will affect global weather paterns, currents, temperature and precipitation in unknown ways. Further quantification of these effects is required"

It's hardly viable to even begin to think of these as workable options at this stage.

Cheers

Sam

[leo-rcc]

You speak of a straw man & quote mining, but you are the master.

Do you have any evidence to back up that accusation? So far the only one that has resorted to bad tactics is you.

[theVOID]

That seemed to shut him up. He's as intellectually bankrupt as any apologist.