[yor_on]

And the same goes for most of our current industries.

[yor_on]

That doesn't mean we can't do something. It just mean that our current system isn't capable of coping with it, it was built on premises of unlimited growth and wealth accumulation, 'trickling down'    to you...


It doesn't, it never have.

[yor_on]

You had to fight for it, every time.

[yor_on]

And only a few country's in the world today are wealthy. The rest live in poverty still.

[yor_on]

Doesn't mean you can find a different behavior in those country's. Which is why I also consider it core beliefs and 'instincts'.

[yor_on]

So, in essence you're fighting yourself here.

[yor_on]

And how would you expect this 'system' to change without you changing?
Without you it will be a pipe dream, no matter what you do, revolution or not.

A classical revolution is in my eyes counter productive. We can't afford it and it will end up like it always do, in futility.
You changing on the other tentacle, that is a revolution.

[yor_on]

You can apply the 'trickling down' theory to industrialized country's relative developing too.
The same will hold true there , it doesn't 'trickle down', except to a few.

they will have to to do as China did, instigate laws controlling foreign investments if they want to get something out from it.
They will have to fight for it.

[yor_on]

So the trickling down theory is a pipe dream.

[yor_on]

Comparable to geoengineering, created from failed premises.

[yor_on]

although they do fit into the system we have.

[yor_on]

By that I mean that both ideas support the system we created. Geoengineering will f.ex create jobs raising the GDP. And the trickle down theory is also a support for the current system, why should be self-explanatory if you think about it.

then there are other types of 'geoengineering' as in each one of us painting our rooftops white. That's a different approach to it in my eyes and possible under whatever system we may have or get.

[yor_on]

One reason for it being different is that it is easily reversible if we would be wrong.

Just paint it black :)

you have to apply the same sort of constraints to geoengineering as you should do to gene modifications. Both are new territory for us and should be considered inherently unsafe, until tested over a extended period. And applying it to a whole earth?

[yor_on]

If one like one could call classical geoengineering aka 'Jules Verne'  a active response to global warming.  You could also consider it us fighting the planet, which one you choose matters. Because we have each one of us access to passive countermeasures. As in stop consuming so much, be satisfied with one kid per person, stop letting greed and profits lead you.

Those are all what I would call passive measures, and they will work.

[yor_on]

The passive ones is not about 'fighting the planet, forcing it to comply to our wishes'. But they will change it, without us introducing geoengineering.

[yor_on]

And what stops you from seeing this as a solution is your core beliefs and instincts, your greed and profits.

[yor_on]

Religion is a belief, a core belief for some.

[yor_on]

Politics, of whatever kind, is also a belief, a core belief for some.

[yor_on]

And yes, greed and profits too.

[yor_on]

Another way of looking at it is to state that what I propose is all reversible approaches. The only thing needed for them is you agreeing. Population growth is a reversible process, so is greed and profits, and ones consumption