Forgive me if I see a less than rational approach in ami's musings about how to clean up the atmosphere, before or after some natural or man made catastrophe. On a similar note, ami's inability to see, much less comprehend that there are ideas other than his own, which do not involve a willingness to go tits up succumb, is but another ongoing expression of his own irrationality. I would suggest that his irrationality is the product of his assimilation into the Rand Collective, but that would be a presumption.
Putting aside a natural source, such as a volcanic eruption, if it's not human stupidity that has polluted the atmosphere and defaced the Earth, I'm waiting for ami to give us the actual cause of the pollution and defacing.
I would suggest that a ration approach to the problem would be to stop the pollution and defacing, rather than continue and have to come up with a solution in the future. As this would require the captains of industry, those freedom fighters of laissez-faire capitalism, to spend some bucks on cleaning up their act, thus depriving them of the right to put those bucks in their pockets, the Objectivist bystander will object. My guess is the objection will come couched in the code words of the Objectivist Front. "Socialist", "coward of the Intellectual Left" and "opaque thinking of Progressive Liberals" comes to mind.
But for the rest of mankind that has an interest in surviving is Randroid code for non-Randroids are mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those (Randroids) who deserve it..
seeding clouds at lower levels, then dispersing a chemical element that will bond with ash particles and make them heavy enough to fall to earth might be a solution. Randroid solutions are irrational. Adding megatonnes of chemicals into the atmosphere is a solution that only someone with friends in the chemical industry could imagine as being useful. But then, perhaps megatons of Freon or PCB's just might do the trick...of putting more bucks into the pockets of the captains of the chemical industry.
Also, at max payload of about one half of a tonne for the very biggest high altitude balloons, (which cost millions and need millions of cubic liters of helium)
you would need twenty million of the things to get ten megatonnes of chemicals into the upper atmosphere. Of course you could always use a few million rockets, but that would only be feasible if you are a captain of the rocket industry.
Ami, your ideas are unreasonable. Try again.
The truly dangerous complacency is the one that insists that what's going on now is just fine. It's the attitude of the deniers.
