I disagree with the recent recurrent assertion that climate change is not an engineering problem. It is indeed a problem DUE TO our choice to engineer our industrial basis on an assumption of hydrocarbons and other highly polluting, geoscape-ruining processes. INDEED, one can say that engineering IS the problem!
This both suggests it cannot be solved via more engineering alone, but also suggests it will be hard to solve it without reevaluating engineering itself as a process.
I realize this is basically what people mean? That they are only trying to refute the naive idea we can simply solve this with vague handwavey "technological progress". I am just so tired and so past that already.
"Technology" itself is already an almost-useless term if you think about it, since almost everything humans do in a structured and methodical way subject to refinement is, effectively, a technology. And yes, "technical problems" are those which are amenable to... yeah.
@jubilee@social.treehouse.systems Yeah I use “technology” to handwave, generally intentionally, when I don't want to stun someone with a term like “protocol” or “software” (which is, quote unquote stman, an opinionated abstraction in itself, but that's for another discussion).
⭐1
