Hello Chat GPT please tell me a good cupcake recipe.
I say that because you’re back to thinking my pipe dream is actually a “climate policy debate” I swear you’re illiterate.
you’re pushing a downshift fantasy
Yeah… we discussed this already. Of course the whole world coming together for a vote to downshift was always a fantasy. You’re proof that downshifting is impossible. Too many illiterate “smart people” like you who think it will involve an advanced rocketry program and massive amounts of technological “productivity”…
…you want the downshift that’s not a downshift.
The whole idea is completely insane
Still not getting it are you buddy. The world voting on a lower level of technology to adopt (aka a downshift) was always a fantasy. Yes… Not sure why you keep bringing that up. We’ve discussed and agreed that at length now.
I’ll bow out and you can celebrate your little victory
What fucking victory? The world coming together to decide only a lower tech was always a fantasy… It was never about holding a “climate policy debate” with you.
I guess I’ll celebrate being right about the impossibility of global cooperation that produces a downshift. It’s obviously an irrational dream.
while I go focus on changes that move the carbon math.
Haha, cool… Have fun with that. I’ll contact the world leaders when you’re done. We’ll print some voting forms together. Hahaha.
No, I Understand it’s a fantasy. The problem is it’s both inconsistent and counterproductive; preserving industry while kneecapping the sciences that generate mitigation tools won’t cut emissions, it just blinds us to them.
Someone’s fantasy is wrong on the Internet! You’re a meme dude.
Also, running certain industries at a minimum level of progress and output whilst completely killing off others would definitely cut emissions.
Anyways your ears are firmly blocked and you’re basically saying drastic cuts to Co2 won’t cut emissions unless we’re monitoring them from orbit.
It’s totally stupid “I need a number” to know sciencism. Truly the kind of person who thinks trees don’t make a sound when they fall unless there’s someone listening with a Db monitor.
Meanwhile your recommendation requires an incredibly high amount of a technological base to what - launch 300 tonnes of Co2 emissions into the air per launch, when weather balloons, ground radar and weather station will suffice.
Hello Chat GPT please tell me a good cupcake recipe.
I say that because you’re back to thinking my pipe dream is actually a “climate policy debate” I swear you’re illiterate.
Yeah… we discussed this already. Of course the whole world coming together for a vote to downshift was always a fantasy. You’re proof that downshifting is impossible. Too many illiterate “smart people” like you who think it will involve an advanced rocketry program and massive amounts of technological “productivity”…
…you want the downshift that’s not a downshift.
Still not getting it are you buddy. The world voting on a lower level of technology to adopt (aka a downshift) was always a fantasy. Yes… Not sure why you keep bringing that up. We’ve discussed and agreed that at length now.
What fucking victory? The world coming together to decide only a lower tech was always a fantasy… It was never about holding a “climate policy debate” with you.
I guess I’ll celebrate being right about the impossibility of global cooperation that produces a downshift. It’s obviously an irrational dream.
Haha, cool… Have fun with that. I’ll contact the world leaders when you’re done. We’ll print some voting forms together. Hahaha.
No, I Understand it’s a fantasy. The problem is it’s both inconsistent and counterproductive; preserving industry while kneecapping the sciences that generate mitigation tools won’t cut emissions, it just blinds us to them.
Someone’s fantasy is wrong on the Internet! You’re a meme dude.
Also, running certain industries at a minimum level of progress and output whilst completely killing off others would definitely cut emissions.
Anyways your ears are firmly blocked and you’re basically saying drastic cuts to Co2 won’t cut emissions unless we’re monitoring them from orbit.
It’s totally stupid “I need a number” to know sciencism. Truly the kind of person who thinks trees don’t make a sound when they fall unless there’s someone listening with a Db monitor.
Meanwhile your recommendation requires an incredibly high amount of a technological base to what - launch 300 tonnes of Co2 emissions into the air per launch, when weather balloons, ground radar and weather station will suffice.
You’re being ridiculous.