walkinTas wrote: (I'll try to summarise) The argument put forward by geo-engineers is that the planet will become uninhabitable if we continue unchecked on our current course. They argue mankind can and should interfere with nature on a global scale to "correct" the damage already done. This would give us more time - i.e. allow mankind to go on polluting and capitalising on non-renewable resources, for at least another fifty years. Geo-engineering is appealing because, at a cost of a few billion, it is cheaper than any attempt to stop the pollution or exploitation of non-renewable fossil fuels. They argue, since the planet will become uninhabitable if we don't stop our current activity, any risk of destroying it through geo-engineering is comparatively small (smaller than the inevitable) - and therefore we should consider geo-engineering a 'viable' solution. Politicians like the idea because they believe getting agreement on geo-engineering will be much easier than getting agreement on stopping the current global-warming, and there is less economic burden. And besides, since they are talking international waters, upper atmosphere and space, there may be no need for world-wide agreement. If it is not prohibited by any national or international law, they can just go ahead and do it.
OK, if that's what they're really trying to do it's not just scary, it's plain downright *&%$#! stupid. And lazy. In other words, a typical human response.
So I hope they do it and wipe out our species but leave enough just barely inhabitable niches for something else to evolve and do a better job next time around.
And there are people who believe that humans are the highest possible pinnacle of "God's" creation . . .
If so, that's one seriously incompetent supreme being.
