I agree with most of what you are saying, Except for one; Geo-Engineering (putting up a solar shield), to me this would be the biggest mistake we could ever make as a species, probably even worse than a nuclear war, imho.

If we understand that there is energy coming into the economy now from outer space, which is not being monetised, actually now more than 10% of our energy needs; tens of GigaJoules per second in every developed country, which effectively opens the box of our previously closed, zero-sum economy, then the last thing we want to do is reduce the flow of that valuable free energy.

I think it is useful to compare humanity with a baby, which has been too long on the nipple, now so much has been taken from our mother (Earth), she is becoming sick, the more we take now, the sicker she gets. But we only know how to suck, becausee our money is issued only on debt, which translates to promises to do the work of extracting (Energy), so we only see extracted energy as valuable, we do not currently (Officially) issue money on solar energy, which is donated, not extracted, and comes from not on our mother Earth, but from outer space, outside the conceptual closed box of our economy.

We might see our problem is like someone handing food to the baby on a plate from above, but still the baby searches around its mother looking for nipples to suck, not understanding that the food on the plate is even food, because (a) it isn't one the body of our mother, and (b) we only know how to suck, not accept what is offered.

To accept the solar energy, we have to issue money on it, to all people. As long as that is not done, money will continue to devalue, because it is increasingly becoming less representative of the real thing of value, the solar energy coming in, and being put to use, violating the principle of Austrian economics, that issue of money must be balanced with product created (Or donated).

Now the baby has to accept the food being offered, and even pass some on to its mother, finally starting to serve its purpose as an adult, or perish.

Another way to put it is, we are like in a cage, with a limited amount of food in the cage, fighting over the diminishing pile, killing one another for the bigget share of it, whilst above us, the cage has opened, and a tube coninuously feeding food into the cage has appeared, creating a new pile of food in another corner of the cage, a pile that keeps accumulating limitlessly, because the feed is continuous, but no-one has noticed yet, we are still busy killing one another for the first pile of food, which always was limited.

The free energy from solar is still only at 10% of capacity, enough to open the box, but not yet enough to feed humanity, but there is nothing really to stop us scaling it up completely, on a community basis, backed by hydrogen, no grid needed.

Then all communities will have excess hydrogen for all transportation. The more we scale up this system, the more we can scale up the free money, therefore the wealthier everyone gets.

Personally I believe this is where nature is trying to force us. The only way we might thwart nature, killing ourselves, like the baby refusing to eat donated food, would be by a nuclear war, or by Geo-Engineering, it seems to me. Geo-Engineering would remove our chances of learning to eat, as well as removing the energy source of all of nature, all plants, all living things, it would be the most awful thing we could do, not only starving ourselves of energy, but also all of nature.

Another red flag is in the orbital dynamics of Earth. Earth's orbit is a balance (Equilibrium) between gravity, and centrifugal force combined with solar pressure. If we increase either centrifugal force, or solar pressure, then the system is no longer balanced, the planet will begin to move, infinitessimally outwards. If we increase Earth's reflectivity, by reflecting more of the energy of the sun than normal, then we increase the solar pressure on Earth.

The movement is not linearly related to the change of the change of solar pressure, any movement at all will be rapidly amplified by gravity reducing as an inverse square of the distance moved. In other words the movement of the planet off of its normal orbit is an acceleration, not just a liner slide, the planet is literally being launched, like a stone out of a sling, and we have no propulsion on Earth that could somehow bring us back into orbit. By the time we noticed a measurable change of orbit, we would be way to late to do anything about it.

So there are some rules of nature, which we should set in stone. It goes something like this:

Nature is the grand authority, her currency is energy, the only issuer and enforcer of it is the sun. We either use her currency, or starve, or burn. To use it, and correctly value it, we must convert it to our own currency, and issue it to all poeple, because if we don't do that, our currency will devalue to nothing. And if we are stupid enough to even put a shield up, to stop it's energy getting to us, it will literally kick us out of the solar system.

We might say all plants already obey all of those rules, by way of flows of nutrients within the plants.

We could go even further, to make these rules more general, but then it starts sounding remarkably like religion:

Energy from under our feet isnt actualy energy, it is capital, from which energy can be extracted, but always at planetary cost. Even taking energy from wind, or wave, is still just taking more stored energy, we never know the butterfly effects until it is too late.

The only real energy source is above us, the sun.

So, the false god is beneath our feet, the real god is above.... see how it starts to look religious? I know this alone is enough to make many scientists try to argue this can't be true, because they can't accept there could ever be any truth in religion, but hey-ho, this is physics, not religion. The reason it might never have been covered, or even covered up, is it does not help energy companies, who have most of science in their pockets.

There you might also see the profit motive of Geo-Engineering, conceivably, removing our ability to finally have solar power, the only actual source of power, thus the only sustainable energy for the future, would consign us to using all remaining fossil fuels, whiich would obviously be very damaging to the planet, though there is a chance we might get to fusion, it would be on a dark planet, long removed from the sun, and our population would be only be a small fraction of what it was prior to losing the sun, obviously the cost to humanity would be huge, and only the most vicious of greedy humans would be left on the dark planet, all others would have been enslaved and even consumed. Personally I think that would be a living hell, a worse outcome even than a nuclear event that took out humanity, but left other life to recover, on the planet still orbiting the sun.

Sorry such a long reply, but all casual mentions of Geo-Engineering trigger me, I know how tempting it must look to potential investors, but it really would be the perfect demonstration of us finally going to hell for the sake of profit, I think.