I guess Robinson has a national effort because it avoids the question of capitalism trying to harness geo-engineering, but it seems to me the latter is much more likely than the former.
For capitalism to harness geo-engineering, there would need to be some way, probably some fairly obvious way, to profit from it. Profit directly, not just from having a better world to live in generally. I'm not really seeing one -- probably lack of imagination on my part.
The actual alternative to a national effort would be a billionaire with an obsession, and a willingness to spend vast ssums of his own in pursuit of it. The example we have before us is SpaceX. Musk is obsessed with going to Mars, and was willing to personally fund a company to develop the technology so he could do that. Sure, it turned out he could sell launch services to NASA etc. But that was really just a happy unintended consequence as the technology developed.
6 days ago
“Heritage Americans”
Sonehow, when I read that the first time I took it to mean "people who buy the idiocy that the Heritage Foundation is peddling." That it meant something like the DAR didn't occur to me. And if it had, I've always thought the DAR was a bit daft (but mostly harmless). The reality is appalling.
I'm with cleek that "this sounds like every other fascist movement that has ever popped up " Which, considering who is loudly embracing the idea, is unsurprising. Scum.
1 week ago
the only way to have a unified state is to refine it into a homogenous, elemental society that is not vulnerable to any sort of othering
There is one (and, I would argue, only one) way to achieve a "society" which is not vulnerable to othering: become a hermit on a desert island. Because as soon as you have multiple people involved (which is what a society involves), othering is not only possible but relatively simple.
Doesn't mean it has to happen. But the risk is unavoidable. The most one can do is make othering socially unacceptable.
For capitalism to harness geo-engineering, there would need to be some way, probably some fairly obvious way, to profit from it. Profit directly, not just from having a better world to live in generally. I'm not really seeing one -- probably lack of imagination on my part.
The actual alternative to a national effort would be a billionaire with an obsession, and a willingness to spend vast ssums of his own in pursuit of it. The example we have before us is SpaceX. Musk is obsessed with going to Mars, and was willing to personally fund a company to develop the technology so he could do that. Sure, it turned out he could sell launch services to NASA etc. But that was really just a happy unintended consequence as the technology developed.
“Heritage Americans”
Sonehow, when I read that the first time I took it to mean "people who buy the idiocy that the Heritage Foundation is peddling." That it meant something like the DAR didn't occur to me. And if it had, I've always thought the DAR was a bit daft (but mostly harmless). The reality is appalling.
I'm with cleek that "this sounds like every other fascist movement that has ever popped up " Which, considering who is loudly embracing the idea, is unsurprising. Scum.
the only way to have a unified state is to refine it into a homogenous, elemental society that is not vulnerable to any sort of othering
There is one (and, I would argue, only one) way to achieve a "society" which is not vulnerable to othering: become a hermit on a desert island. Because as soon as you have multiple people involved (which is what a society involves), othering is not only possible but relatively simple.
Doesn't mean it has to happen. But the risk is unavoidable. The most one can do is make othering socially unacceptable.