Obviously I do not advocate doing something for which there is no evidence of benefit... We shouldn't do it because it is merely "something", we do it because we can demonstrate that it does more harm than good.
If there are demonstrable benefits, then "do the benefits outweigh the risks" is something that we must consider. To categorically strike out broad classes of solutions because something might go wrong, without even considering the severity of the possibility, is to advocate inaction.
Any solution to this particular problem is met with this nonsensical "something non-descript might go wrong, so we better sit on our asses instead" mentality. What we should be asking ourselves is "What solution has both the greatest good/bad ratio, and can be scaled enough to actually solve the problem". Things are going to go wrong; to stop exploring a possibility as soon as we learn that something could go wrong is naive and if universalized will lead to our downfall.
But that's just it: we have no way to answer that question. We can't say if it's a good idea because we don't even know if it's even going to yield good results, let alone what cost those good results come at.
I agree that we won't hit on some perfect solution which has no trade-off. But making a decision without even knowing what trade-off you're making could actually make things worse! Imagine if this does approximately nothing substantial for climate change, yet it kills off a ton of species. Now we're on a planet with an destabilizing climate and a substantially more destabilized ecosystem.
High stakes cut both ways. You can win big by doing something bold just as you can lose even bigger or sooner. And having people unilaterally try out their pet theories seems like a recipe for disaster. They'll likely be long dead before the effects of their actions are realized anyway.
Comments
Obviously I do not advocate doing something for which there is no evidence of benefit... We shouldn't do it because it is merely "something", we do it because we can demonstrate that it does more harm than good.
If there are demonstrable benefits, then "do the benefits outweigh the risks" is something that we must consider. To categorically strike out broad classes of solutions because something might go wrong, without even considering the severity of the possibility, is to advocate inaction.
Any solution to this particular problem is met with this nonsensical "something non-descript might go wrong, so we better sit on our asses instead" mentality. What we should be asking ourselves is "What solution has both the greatest good/bad ratio, and can be scaled enough to actually solve the problem". Things are going to go wrong; to stop exploring a possibility as soon as we learn that something could go wrong is naive and if universalized will lead to our downfall.
"do the benefits outweigh the risks'
But that's just it: we have no way to answer that question. We can't say if it's a good idea because we don't even know if it's even going to yield good results, let alone what cost those good results come at.
I agree that we won't hit on some perfect solution which has no trade-off. But making a decision without even knowing what trade-off you're making could actually make things worse! Imagine if this does approximately nothing substantial for climate change, yet it kills off a ton of species. Now we're on a planet with an destabilizing climate and a substantially more destabilized ecosystem.
High stakes cut both ways. You can win big by doing something bold just as you can lose even bigger or sooner. And having people unilaterally try out their pet theories seems like a recipe for disaster. They'll likely be long dead before the effects of their actions are realized anyway.