/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14756506
>how do I cope with genetic determinism?

Just identify yourself as smarter!

>>9964134
Do you have any actual arguments against these statements, or do you have nothing but name calling? Various geoengineering methods that can plausibly reduce the the impact of global warming, at a cost that won't hurt people's quality of life and/or economic growth do exist. Reducing co2 emissions by the necessary amount do require stable government policy over the course of decades; if people don't like the fuel taxes, job losses in certain industries, and so on these policies require, they may very well elect new politicians to remove those policies. And worse, it requires other major countries have the same stability in policy as well.

If two politicians are running, and the first wants to raise fuel taxes by a dollar a gallon to fight a portion of global warming, while the second promises to stop all global warming* (and of course says nothing about ocean acidification or other issues) with a bunch of cloud boats, paid for by taking welfare away from immigrants, well who do you think the guy driving this truck is going to vote for? Remember his vote counts as much as yours.

>>9934207
Oh no, looks like we have a real tough guy right here.

More seriously though, telling people they have to make major changes to their lifestyle (have to drive a smaller car, if you get to drive one at all, have to have a smaller house or apartment, eat less meat, ect and so on) is why trying to deal with global warming by emissions reductions ends up so unpopular. Especially when it might not actually accomplish anything if other countries continue to increase emissions. That is another reason why I think geoengineering will end up being the solution; telling people that they don't have to make major changes, but just pay a bit more in taxes/make some minor spending cuts elsewhere will end up being a lot more popular politically.