The main message about the urgent need for responsible action in the Anthropocene is sometimes overshadowed by lengthy explanations. Condense the historical context of petroleum and focus more on the current crisis and solutions. The tone shifts between informative and sarcastic. Maintaining a consistent tone will help your message come across more clearly.
Thank you for your feedback. Your tone is rather demanding but I still appreciate it. Just one note, I primarily write as a way to express myself and am not so concerned about getting a message across.
Bedankt voor je reactie, Tycho. Ik begrijp dat je schrijft als een vorm van zelfexpressie en waardeer je openheid hierover. Echter, gezien het belang van het onderwerp en de dringende noodzaak voor actie in de context van de Anthropoceen, geloof ik dat een heldere en consistente boodschap essentieel is om effectief bewustzijn en verandering te stimuleren.
Hoewel persoonlijke expressie belangrijk is, kan het gebruik van een consistente toon en het vermijden van uitgebreide historische contexten de kernboodschap versterken en de lezers beter betrekken bij de huidige crisis en mogelijke oplossingen. Hierdoor kan je werk niet alleen informatief zijn, maar ook een krachtige aanzet geven tot actie.
Nogmaals dank voor het overwegen van mijn feedback en ik kijk uit naar je toekomstige publicaties met de hoop dat ze nog meer impact zullen hebben.
Dankjewel Mahdad. Je kan zeker meer posts verwachten over dit onderwerp. Ik heb nog maar weinig subscribers, dus verwacht geen mega impact. Maar je weet maar nooit waar een post terecht komt.
Re-reading the post I notice you are right about a significant change of tone somewhere halfway. All of a sudden I become more serious and technical. Next time I am going to try to be more consistent.
Marine Cloud Brightening has the drawback of not having a place in the marketplace. Who could possibly make money by pumping aerosols into the atmosphere? If the answer is "no one", then it's unlikely to happen. Time and again it has been shown that the prospect of lower losses for everyone in the future cannot compete with more profit for me today.
And if humans were capable of managing earth systems well enough to mitigate the damage of the Anthropocene, wouldn't they be capable of the much easier job of preventing the damage in the first place? It would have been so much easier to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere than deal with the consequences after it's already there.
So, if the sudden vanishing of human impact from civilizational collapse (our best near-term prospect) is not enough to cause an eventual return to something like the Holocene, then it's too late after all. Keeping civilization going just to manage its damage to the environment is a losing bet, throwing what's still good in the environment after bad.
Hi Joe, I just read your profile on Substack: "Doomer-prepper in Hawaii on a small farm (16 acres), waiting for the collapse of industrial civilization and hoping it comes soon." and am intrigued. You are hoping for the collapse of industrial civilization and betting on being prepared enough to survive while other will die by the hundreds of millions or perhaps billions?
Personally, I don't care too much about survival, as I will die anyway within a few decades.
You seem to care about alleviating nature from human pestering. I get your point, but I try to see things more holistically, in the sense that we are just as much part of nature as any other animal. I also try to be more compassionate, seeing that most harm we did and are still inflicting is unintentional.
If you are looking for rapid human population reduction, I would say MCB does not facilitate nor obstruct your goal, as MCB in my vision will initially be most useful to protect ecosystems and sensitive climate areas rather than human civilization.
PS As for funding MCB, I know for a fact there is funding available and observe that the current bottle neck for research in this area is rather lack of public support than financial resources. Don’t forget that the costs of inaction are likely much larger than the costs of action.
"You are hoping for the collapse of industrial civilization and betting on being prepared enough to survive while other will die by the hundreds of millions or perhaps billions"?
Yes and no. Definitely hoping for the collapse. If it does enough good for the environment and the human population collapses to fewer than the 200 million or so that the earth can support, then the trillions of future humans who could potentially live over the next 3-4 million years of our species' life will have much better lives, not to mention all other species that will benefit. There is more at stake than just the people alive now.
But no, I'm not betting on being prepared enough to survive while billions die. I'm 76 and don't have all that long to live anyway, but my small farm does give others, including friends and family perhaps, a better chance of survival than most. Individuals are less important than creating places that can help people thrive without industrial civilization. Except for the very young, prepping is about creating resilient and fruitful places for those that come after us. Everyone alive now is going to be dead within a century at the most anyway. That's not a long time, but properly managed fertile soil is forever.
Humans are always going to be part of nature, but bad luck (fossil fuels) and human nature have allowed our population and material impact to grow all out of proportion to the nature we are part of. The faster we can diminish our impact the better.
I'd be all for MCB and other geoengineering methods of cooling the earth if any of it could be done by a non-industrial civilization. I doubt that they can, so things like MCB presume a continuation of outsize human impact from industrialism and that's a pretty big cost of action. I do admit it's far less cost than most other aspects of modernity, like industrial agriculture, for example, which has extreme ecological costs.
PS I didn't realize I had a profile or even an account on Substack. Must be from several years ago. The profile is still accurate, though.
The main message about the urgent need for responsible action in the Anthropocene is sometimes overshadowed by lengthy explanations. Condense the historical context of petroleum and focus more on the current crisis and solutions. The tone shifts between informative and sarcastic. Maintaining a consistent tone will help your message come across more clearly.
Thank you for your feedback. Your tone is rather demanding but I still appreciate it. Just one note, I primarily write as a way to express myself and am not so concerned about getting a message across.
Bedankt voor je reactie, Tycho. Ik begrijp dat je schrijft als een vorm van zelfexpressie en waardeer je openheid hierover. Echter, gezien het belang van het onderwerp en de dringende noodzaak voor actie in de context van de Anthropoceen, geloof ik dat een heldere en consistente boodschap essentieel is om effectief bewustzijn en verandering te stimuleren.
Hoewel persoonlijke expressie belangrijk is, kan het gebruik van een consistente toon en het vermijden van uitgebreide historische contexten de kernboodschap versterken en de lezers beter betrekken bij de huidige crisis en mogelijke oplossingen. Hierdoor kan je werk niet alleen informatief zijn, maar ook een krachtige aanzet geven tot actie.
Nogmaals dank voor het overwegen van mijn feedback en ik kijk uit naar je toekomstige publicaties met de hoop dat ze nog meer impact zullen hebben.
Dankjewel Mahdad. Je kan zeker meer posts verwachten over dit onderwerp. Ik heb nog maar weinig subscribers, dus verwacht geen mega impact. Maar je weet maar nooit waar een post terecht komt.
Re-reading the post I notice you are right about a significant change of tone somewhere halfway. All of a sudden I become more serious and technical. Next time I am going to try to be more consistent.
Marine Cloud Brightening has the drawback of not having a place in the marketplace. Who could possibly make money by pumping aerosols into the atmosphere? If the answer is "no one", then it's unlikely to happen. Time and again it has been shown that the prospect of lower losses for everyone in the future cannot compete with more profit for me today.
And if humans were capable of managing earth systems well enough to mitigate the damage of the Anthropocene, wouldn't they be capable of the much easier job of preventing the damage in the first place? It would have been so much easier to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere than deal with the consequences after it's already there.
So, if the sudden vanishing of human impact from civilizational collapse (our best near-term prospect) is not enough to cause an eventual return to something like the Holocene, then it's too late after all. Keeping civilization going just to manage its damage to the environment is a losing bet, throwing what's still good in the environment after bad.
Hi Joe, I just read your profile on Substack: "Doomer-prepper in Hawaii on a small farm (16 acres), waiting for the collapse of industrial civilization and hoping it comes soon." and am intrigued. You are hoping for the collapse of industrial civilization and betting on being prepared enough to survive while other will die by the hundreds of millions or perhaps billions?
Personally, I don't care too much about survival, as I will die anyway within a few decades.
You seem to care about alleviating nature from human pestering. I get your point, but I try to see things more holistically, in the sense that we are just as much part of nature as any other animal. I also try to be more compassionate, seeing that most harm we did and are still inflicting is unintentional.
If you are looking for rapid human population reduction, I would say MCB does not facilitate nor obstruct your goal, as MCB in my vision will initially be most useful to protect ecosystems and sensitive climate areas rather than human civilization.
PS As for funding MCB, I know for a fact there is funding available and observe that the current bottle neck for research in this area is rather lack of public support than financial resources. Don’t forget that the costs of inaction are likely much larger than the costs of action.
"You are hoping for the collapse of industrial civilization and betting on being prepared enough to survive while other will die by the hundreds of millions or perhaps billions"?
Yes and no. Definitely hoping for the collapse. If it does enough good for the environment and the human population collapses to fewer than the 200 million or so that the earth can support, then the trillions of future humans who could potentially live over the next 3-4 million years of our species' life will have much better lives, not to mention all other species that will benefit. There is more at stake than just the people alive now.
But no, I'm not betting on being prepared enough to survive while billions die. I'm 76 and don't have all that long to live anyway, but my small farm does give others, including friends and family perhaps, a better chance of survival than most. Individuals are less important than creating places that can help people thrive without industrial civilization. Except for the very young, prepping is about creating resilient and fruitful places for those that come after us. Everyone alive now is going to be dead within a century at the most anyway. That's not a long time, but properly managed fertile soil is forever.
Humans are always going to be part of nature, but bad luck (fossil fuels) and human nature have allowed our population and material impact to grow all out of proportion to the nature we are part of. The faster we can diminish our impact the better.
I'd be all for MCB and other geoengineering methods of cooling the earth if any of it could be done by a non-industrial civilization. I doubt that they can, so things like MCB presume a continuation of outsize human impact from industrialism and that's a pretty big cost of action. I do admit it's far less cost than most other aspects of modernity, like industrial agriculture, for example, which has extreme ecological costs.
PS I didn't realize I had a profile or even an account on Substack. Must be from several years ago. The profile is still accurate, though.