[FeepingCreature]

I mean, I'm not even sure which way I'd vote for climate. Here's one take: "Things are clearly out of control. We need climate mitigations that can be done unilaterally. One promising and surprisingly-feasible approach is a sun-synchronous solar-shade swarm.[1] That needs very cheap and frequent launches to be feasible. The only option is SpaceX/Starship. Politically, to get that going as soon as possible, it may be beneficial to have a weaker FAA. Hence probably Trump."

If you think the "business-as-usual" climate mitigations will be insufficient, it may be worthwhile to go for high-variance approaches that leave humanity better able to react relatively quickly to unexpectedly large warming.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#Lightweight_sol...

[grecy]

SpaceX doesn’t need a weaker FAA to keep launching very frequently, they’re already doing that.

A bit faster approvals for Starship, sure. They’re getting it done.

[worstspotgain]

That's a good one, vote for the guy who's against EVs and thinks climate change is a hoax. Why not just steer an asteroid onto Earth. The sooner it gets obliterated, the sooner life can reemerge. /s

[FeepingCreature]

> That's a good one, vote for the guy who's against EVs and thinks climate change is a hoax.

The thing is, I agree with you, but I don't think that's actually that convincing an argument. Trump isn't going to personally reverse the ongoing exit from fossil fuels. Green energy might go faster or slower, but that doesn't necessarily matter in terms of preventing very bad outcomes. I think the high-concept paths to mitigation are a lot easier to delay than the "business as usual" eco trend.

[worstspotgain]

> Trump isn't going to personally reverse the ongoing exit from fossil fuels.

No, he actually would [1][2][3][4]. And that's without even counting Putin. When they tell you who they are, believe them.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/trump-paris-climate...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/uaw-chief-slams-trump-over-...

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-07-19/trump-pledg...

[4] https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-r...

[FeepingCreature]

I think the primary trend isn't based on the agreement but on the economic reality that solar panels are cheap and still getting cheaper. You can speed it up or slow it down, but it's not reversible at this point. You might have four years of slowboating, but that only matters if we're on the edge of disaster. If we're already committed to disaster, to the extent that we need radical interventions to plausibly achieve success, whether you slowboat the trend doesn't matter.

[worstspotgain]

You continue to claim that not voting or that voting for Hannibal Lecter is OK in that it's really some sort of a moonshot. After all you agree with me, right?

You do realize of course that if someone just wanted to get Hannibal Lecter elected, they would be making claims like these to suppress his opponent's vote?

[FeepingCreature]

I think there's a positive argument for voting for Hannibal Lecter. I don't think there's ever a non-lazy argument for not voting.

Either one candidate is better or the other. Make up your mind and do your duty.

And yeah, sure. I'm not sure why that's relevant though. The argument either holds or it doesn't.