More knowledge and options are always better. It's up to the people we've chosen to lead us to actually choose an option and follow through, and I don't think one more option there is really what's preventing that.

Preventing more options from being presented is just a way to attempt to control the populace by restricting information. Necessary action won't be taken unless there's strong leadership willing to make it a priority, and there's already enough options on the table that whether none or 100 new ones pop up, it makes no functional difference to getting started seriously, but it does possibly allow for a better option to be chosen when we do.

That's not even true in theory. Given a simple problem A, when adding more options, at some point, choosing among the options requires more effort than solving the simple problem, if only by brute force. There's a reason why RDBMS sometimes skip indexes.

And in practice, GP is right: with humans, too many options eventually only distract from the problem.

Hick's Law, more or less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hick%27s_law

Only if you require that every option must be assessed. You can always choose a random subset, or the first X entries, as use those as the solution space. Additional solutions provide for additional strategies in choosing a solution, but at any time you can ignore additional solutions and treat them as if they don't exist.

> And in practice, GP is right: with humans, too many options eventually only distract from the problem.

The whole point of government is to provide a structure such that decisions like this can be made be reducing the set of people that needs to reach consensus to a manageable about. Those people can choose to accept or ignore any solution presented, and call on whatever expertise they need to make that decision.

The whole idea of there being too many solutions only makes sense when you you apply it towards the general public and people whose job isn't to make such a decision or be domain experts. Since those people aren't the ones actually making the decision, providing too many solutions to the problem to them is a non-issue, and for the actual decision makers and domain experts they have on call, additional solutions are beneficial.

Whether you or I are getting overwhelmed with the possible solutions is irrelevant. We aren't ultimately the ones that will decide what action to take (at least directly), and we aren't the domain experts advising those that will decide the plans (or present the ultimately small set of options that are valid). At least I don't think so, unless you're a domain expert, but even then, your role would just be to provide advice (or if you're a politician in charge of making this decision, but that's even less likely).

This presumes that options are of equal value, or at the least that there are more than N actual viable solutions, where N is sufficient to ensure whatever sample size you’re using includes one of the viable ones. “Ignoring additional solutions” presupposes that you know which solutions you should ignore and still requires some form of assessment of the solution space.

As for the rest - while indeed it is the job of government to structure these decisions, recent history suggests that the opinions of the broader public still play a role in those decisions, that decisions are rarely made based purely off their technical merits, and that snake-oil salesmen can still do measurable harm to decision-making in representative governments.

That that presumes we're looking through ideas sequentially and thus are actually limited with the number of choices we're generally presented with, when really it's more akin to mapreduce when assessed at the level of leadership and domain experts. Between billions of people and thousands of domain experts, I don' think we're actually reaching any real limits, given the logarithmic nature of filtering good ideas in this way. What that means is that in effect there's a pool of solutions already filtered for viability and usefulness to choose from.

All we're doing by entertaining the idea that we should stop looking for and presenting solutions is giving people an excuse to prevent ideas they don't agree with from being spread to others. The whole idea of one person thinking that because they think an idea doesn't have merit that others shouldn't see it is itself harmful.

> while indeed it is the job of government to structure these decisions, recent history suggests that the opinions of the broader public still play a role in those decisions, that decisions are rarely made based purely off their technical merits, and that snake-oil salesmen can still do measurable harm to decision-making in representative governments.

There are many possible reasons why we don't see progress from our leaders on certain issues. I'm not convinced that there being 1000 possible solutions is any worse than there being 10. I suspect that the same forces that prevent progress work the same in both cases, and if we're talking about less than 10 possible solutions, then I think we haven't examined the problem well enough. In any case, I don't think the problem of there being too many solutions and too much information is as obviously the problem as others are presenting it, and would want to see a real argument presented and defended before I would accept it at face value. That's not because I'm trying to be overly argumentative, just that as I noted, I just don't think it's as obvious a conclusion as others seem to.

Choosing a random subset is a solution, but it clearly is not an always better solution as you claimed.

> Additional solutions provide for additional strategies in choosing a solution, but at any time you can ignore additional solutions and treat them as if they don't exist.

You're literally using "ignore additional solutions" as a counterargument to the assertion that more solutions create "yet another distraction".

Unhappy with solution X? Propose a couple other solutions {N}, until people get lost thinking about something in {N} and ignore X. Which is what the GP comment complained about.

The point is putting a given option into the public eye results in the assessment process being activated.

...but at any time you can ignore additional solutions and treat them as if they don't exist

Scientists in the lab can do this, should do this and not publish half-baked solutions. Randos reading these ideas can't do this given they don't have technical knowledge to sort them.

The whole idea of there being too many solutions only makes sense when you you apply it towards the general public and people whose job isn't to make such a decision or be domain experts.

We live in a democratic society. If you can bs to some number of average people, they may elect people who go with the bs and force bs decisions. Especially when doing nothing, despite disastrous consequences, serves the interests of powerful. This is happening, this is the mess we're in. It's frustrating people putting forward a delusional idea of the decision process around these event. That also doesn't help. IE, no, the decisions haven't been and won't be made by unbiased, non-partisan actors but rather they have been made by political forces in a highly partisan and self-interested fashion. That's why we're facing catastrophe (that there's a large fire burning a bit North West of me doesn't help my mood here).

For the same reason that the next option presented could be the worst possible option, it could also be the best possible option. I reject the attempt of others to tell me that we should stop entertaining any more options at all.

That said, I think you've simplified the options presented for discussion to the point of being not very useful for said discussion.

However that would request so much Earth resources to launch everybody and everything (and thus would definitively destroy the biosphere in the process), that it is just not feasible.

It is worth thinking whether it is a good thing or not that a very risky industry (for which an accident could be really disastrous) can take place on the Moon.

We can also launch a bare minimum, and then let automated builder robots unroll the industry from local resources (e.g. lunar silicates, other metals,...).

This can be how huge photovoltaic grids could be built on the Moon, for example.

If it is launched now we may be able to use it a few decades later.

So it is not at all exclusive with being on schedule with the other, more important, projects.

But I agree we must spend the most of our time and resources building solar (and wind) capacity, and storage.

Moreover, there is always the need to continue to explore and diversify research and development. It allows to spread the risks (even if modestly, given that most resources go to the priority projects) and discover the necessary paths to go ahead (which is required even for the critical paths for the priority projects).

So far this strategy has consistently lead to complete and resounding inaction. The stronger the leadership the more likely we are in actually going in the opposite direction (see e.g. Businaro in Brazil or Trump in the USA).

More options have also shown to be a major distraction at best and actively damaging at worst. Take carbon offsets as an example of an option which actively hinders climate action.

What climate justice activists have consistently been calling for since at least COP 15 in Copenhagen 2009 is International agreements, carbon tax, and green infrastructure. There has always been fierce resistance from polluters in any of these three items, and so far the political class has consistently cited with the polluters. Then they use distraction policies with questionable results (like cap-and-trade, carbon offsets or magic bubbles) as an excuse not to enact proven policies.

If the cause of climate change is heat gain from the sun being higher than cooling via radiation to space, then GHG reduction works by changing the second part, and partially blocking insolation works by changing the first.