You are reading content from Scuttlebutt
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
@Rabble %2jt17ZgZAM5vuRvBAqdi4YJY3AmBvWy7LM53RoFYC6A=.sha256
Voted I'm reading "The Ministry for the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson, about th
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
@luandro %SFmYADwiXQvaJct0jM1HEwUZy/hlnjVSU44XDbxzhaA=.sha256

We’re in the anthropocene, there’s nothing natural anymore

By "natural" you mean not being influenced by human action? Is there anything in the planed that hasn't been influenced by butterfly action? Or ant action?

How's humans doing geoengineering different from any other being doing it? As far as I understand every being in the planet plays a part in shaping it.

Personally I find action driven by religion, such as capitalism or science, to be dangerous for those who practice it. Meanwhile there are cultures geoengineering the planet without the influence of mass cults, and many have been able to maintain healthy balance for thousands of years while practicing it.

@ओषधिः %4R7NOkmwT0M/rKWmGaGMc4RUTp9rKCElXF1CKeEqrjE=.sha256

@andrestaltz_phone @Luandro Pàtwy

from my perspective, collapsing nature and humans into one category is

  • helpful in so far as it suggests humans aren't better than other beings (the colonizer mindset)
  • not helpful when it is used to justify further technocratic intervention without regard for our origins/ancestors/evolution

one could understand the word natural to mean "evolved-with"

humans are from nature, and in that sense so are cars and global warming and biomedicine

but we lived and evolved for billions of years without the products of the industrial revolution which are relatively new. even ecological changes since the invention of agriculture are relatively new, just less new than the industrial revolution

in those billions years some very complicated ecological relationships were developed which might not be good (or possible) to completely refactor

natural or unnatural then speaks to how many rings deep in the trunk (of time/evolution) you're talking about with no one threshold to draw the line

this wouldn't be an argument against stewardship of ecosystems, but maybe that there is still something the word "natural" is pointing to

@ओषधिः %kgOtkNrbuEaoW24VIO1C866b3iTF38v9KMFhIVivBEs=.sha256

"we" here referring to not just humans, otherwise the timing is off

@andrestaltz %zhGlK0HMJsvjXgNj4Lqva8uWMY1kF78Wwl4OaEOT4R0=.sha256

@Luandro Pàtwy I can understand that the definition of "natural" is probably contentious.

In the book, there are a couple "geoengineering" efforts (these are not explicitly mentioned as geoengineering so that's why I put quotes) that look more like permaculture, e.g. a district in India where they do a hybrid mix of agriculture, permaculture, wild land, sometimes intervening when there are pests of certain types. So that's not particularly the same type as hard engineering, such as putting mirrors into space. We all know that forests/jungles and ocean life are really good carbon sinks, and any human effort should first acknowledge that if it wants to look at solutions to draw down carbon.

Also, I'm fully convinced that land and biosphere can very well heal the planet. Actually the planet used to be 12ºC warmer in Eocene, where CO2 concentrations were much higher than today, and it went down in the Azolla event thanks to plants. But this is a process that takes millions of years.

Unless you're okay with humanity going extinct, or even western civilization going extinct (i'm not okay with that!), then sure, the biosphere knows how to heal itself and it doesn't need human geoengineering. But if we do want to preserve humanity, we need to look for quick methods of steering the climate away from hothouse scenario. Emphasis on the word quick. The biosphere can do it alone, but slowly.

So geoengineering in my perspective in this thread's first post was mostly meant as "quick methods to steer the climate, whether through machines or biosphere".

User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has chosen not to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
@mix %TVfFVfVmfuLVZFoq3eeyuDLA4uSJzJRiv+uk8D1ZTVA=.sha256
Voted I came back to this thread to say that the book is really worth reading! It
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
@andrestaltz %FawLHTQgGkHjCP2CUdD1bRIWs6oHpOzoqPV5Qvb/pN8=.sha256

I'm now almost finishing the book, and lost in my own thoughts sometimes, I think I figured out a really nice way of framing what we need for solving climate change: macropermaculture. Permaculture as applied to your backyard already employs human technology in a manner that harmonizes humans and plants. Why is it different to use a greenhouse to regulate climatic conditions compared to space mirrors to regulate the extent of polar ice sheets, and so forth? As long as the same permaculture principles apply, listening and regulating to how the biosphere reacts to our inputs, technology and geoengineering have their role.

User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
Join Scuttlebutt now