this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
145 points (100.0% liked)
Science
13015 readers
36 users here now
Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or how about regulate the sugar and salt content in foods? No? More magic diet medications. Got it.
Given that it may be more likely for us to put up a Solar Shield than curb our fossil fuel usage, I think we are too stuck in a "fix things after the fact" culture than using preventative solutions.
I feel like their argument against it probably needs a little unpacking.
It seems a little disingenuous to me to only examine a model where carbon emissions don't decrease and then attribute the result to the shield. If the shield is used in addition to reducing our carbon output we'd presumably be cooling things off in both the short and long term.
The result of failing to reduce our carbon emissions is already projected to be essentially apocalyptic in scope. The rest of the planet might luck out if our own actions reduce us to a population that we're physically incapable of continuing to output enough carbon to keep warming it, but human civilization certainly doesn't seem like it can survive keeping it up at the very least.
If we do get it together push against the wishes of the greediest humans and act as responsible stewards of the planet, it would be smart to try to save as much as possible. If a solar shield can help protect our biodiversity and the stability of our civilization while we get our collective shit together, that's fantastic. It may even bring with it a sense of urgency and collective responsibility to fix the problem before anything happens to our buffer.
I get the arguments about the rapidity of change if the shield fails and the difficulty of animals migrating much more quickly, but if something doesn't give soon they're not going to have much of anywhere to migrate anyway.
At what point does the potential benefit of the shield outweigh the risk?
If I'm falling out of an airplane and my chute is kinda lopsided or whatever in a way that might strangle me if i don't get my head out of the way, am I just going to let myself hit the ground instead? Or am I going to take the shot I've got and make the most of it?
We're in freefall and the ground is down there somewhere, rapidly coming up to make friends. We need something now.
If this is it I say we take it. And we let it be the act that prompts us to be responsible with our planet.
The idea is to enjoy yourself without consequences.
The problem with regulating unhealthy food is that it is likely to jack up the price of the only affordable option for a lot of people. Maybe something like subsidizing and lowering cost of healthier foods to make them more affordable instead would be good.
We dispose of 30-40% of the global food supply every year simply because it's not profitable to sell it. It isn't a supply issue. Subsidies are unnecessary. We could easily live in a post scarcity world if we could discard the profit motive
Oh I agree! I wish we could move past the profit motive as well, especially when it comes to food and shelter. Criminal that there are no non-profit options in these areas in most western nations.)
I was just arguing there have been campaigns to raise the price of sugary or convenience foods to get people to eat healthy. But these campaigns just end up hurting low income people who can't afford the healthier options in the first place. I was suggesting an approach that might make healthy food more accessible - (but that's within a shitty capitalist system.
True that! A lot of legislation passed (if you're in a country that actually believes in passing legislation) is often incomplete. Even within a capitalist system there can be some degree of a solution achieved. Austerity has thrown a wrench in that but we've seen that with enough pressure the state can occasionally help.
Perhaps (I'm in the US so my ideas may not apply elsewhere) instead of additional subsidies to agriculture we could reallocate the ones were already giving out to more nutritious crops. Corn gets far too much money for example, that's why it's in literally everything here. It's so cheap it's more cost effective to process the hell out of it and turn it into something else entirely over just growing something else. Likewise, dairy gets a ton of money and we waste so much of it.
That money could be given to a broader variety of crops, alongside some sort of legislation to make the disposal of perfectly good food either outright illegal or with heavy fines involved to the point that it's more profitable/less costly to just sell the food. Hell, tax breaks for giving it away too. Because if there's one thing that will get rich dicks on board it's tax breaks. Maybe throw some additional incentive to move away from pesticides and monoculture as well
There's also a time component. Food can be quick, cheap, or healthy: but you can only choose two (at most). If people have to work for too many hours for shit pay, "unhealthy" becomes an undeniable option.
But that is only because of the current market landscape. Healthy food can also be packaged microwave ready and still be cheap. Most of the companies doing that just market it as healthy and charge a higher price for it (because people will still pay it).
Salt doesn't make you put on weight.
It's also all carbs, fat and protein.