Moral hazard

MIT suggest mitigating solar radiation via L1. They're talking Earth; it's a more-specific L1 shield notion. But I already poasted the basics around the physics. Their poast handled the ethics; so, so must my poast.

The naysayers are calling out the Moral Hazard. A cooler Earth will prefer more carbon. Same goes - in automobiles - for the plasma spark-plug, and the rotary engine. Or, if you're Michael Hudson, for debt-forgiveness.

Moral hazard is a thing. Someone who is insured might go for a long drive into the mountains for a hike, or for a ski. When I was uninsured I didn't do that so much. I mean, accidents happen even when stuck at home; but - as Machiavelli said - we are sometimes less concerned with our lives than with our finances.

Michael Hudson has called out that the "moral hazard" argument is often a mere excuse. I too part ways with the Right, on whether to forgive (here) student loans. Yes it is a giveaway to the upper middle class, who hate us. But they hate us in large part because we're threatening to make them peons.

Hudson's argument is applicable to the Right against the uppermiddleclass Left, in the case of energy policy.

Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab would rather we starve. No seriously, their aim is to drive around in a $263k solar-powered car whilst the rest of us make do with mass-transit, or no-transit.

Plus, it would seem to be a no-brainer, if we're fine with watching the uppermiddleclass lose wealth, at least with making their new lives more comfortable on the cheap. It would seem to be a win-win for those of us not in the uppermiddleclass also.