I love that we are doing this but I hate that we aren't fixing the root cause of most natural disasters we will be seeing in the coming centuries.
yieldcrv•3h ago
That’s valid, different people are working on that
imoverclocked•3h ago
Agreed. Though, at some point humanity would likely benefit from seeing itself as just humanity and not "us vs them" on this front.
vouaobrasil•2h ago
Are they, though? Last time I checked, CO2 is going up without any "flattening of the curve". And whenever mainstream environmentalists annonce X megawatts added to the grid, a tech company announces that they need Y > X megawatts for AI. Plastic production goes up steadily without cessation every year, and there's still immense amounts of deforestation.
No, people "working" on it are intellectually amusing themselves with technology that could be a workable solution if only everyone actually took action and reduced their consumption, which doesn't need that technology in the first place. Pretty much all mainstream solutions are just psychological salves to make us think we are doing something.
Working on it, yeah right. We simply need to make significant reductions in CO2 output and no one is doing that.
Furthermore, technologies like this will make people less likely to do something about the root problem because it ameliorates it.
t0lo•1h ago
There is and always will be sizeable work on it. Current work has been termed "greenhushing" by the economist due to the need to be discreet in America due to a pretty intellectually lacking voterbase. Over a billion will likely starve and that is a moral failure that we will all carry for the rest of our lives but 3 people dying in a car crash is better than 4 people dying in a car crash.
You’ve been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire.
> We simply need to make significant reductions in CO2 output
Gee, I wonder why no one's thought about that except you.
Maybe because it's actually incredibly difficult to do
pjmlp•1h ago
Like the current increase in wars and their impact on destroying what is left of the planet, after we all started using paper straws?
drcode•3h ago
great to learn from the headline that this tech only works for disaster response maps, and isn't usable for other types of maps, like mapping out the front lines of a war
pjmlp•1h ago
A matter of time, people in power will take care of that.
Then a flight plan will be uploaded to the Tet style drones to carry on their duties.
ta8903•26m ago
The tech will be useful both for wars as well as for the disaster recovery efforts after your federal funding is cut down for boycotting the wars.
imoverclocked•3h ago
yieldcrv•3h ago
imoverclocked•3h ago
vouaobrasil•2h ago
No, people "working" on it are intellectually amusing themselves with technology that could be a workable solution if only everyone actually took action and reduced their consumption, which doesn't need that technology in the first place. Pretty much all mainstream solutions are just psychological salves to make us think we are doing something.
Working on it, yeah right. We simply need to make significant reductions in CO2 output and no one is doing that.
Furthermore, technologies like this will make people less likely to do something about the root problem because it ameliorates it.
t0lo•1h ago
You’ve been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire.
The remarkable rise of “greenhushing” https://www.economist.com/business/2025/07/29/the-remarkable...
literalAardvark•42m ago
Gee, I wonder why no one's thought about that except you.
Maybe because it's actually incredibly difficult to do
pjmlp•1h ago