'Global Warming' is Population Reduction, Not Science
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
So the question is, do we just allow it to happen unopposed or do we try to use our science to mitigate a threat to humankind?
How about denying the problem and just pretending that there is a cyclical increase in atmospheric and ocean warming.
That'll work! It can get you elected too! Then you can dismantle the EPA and your polluting buddies can pay you and your friends off from their reduced costs/increased profits.
I would have thought the Insurance companies , who have a lot of clout in USA (health care!!) would have gotten a hint that global warming is real.
So are floods, disease and fire real. Without them insurance companies would have far fewer opportunities to make large profits. Global warming is a good thing for insurers, at least until folks can't afford the higher premiums. But you gotta remember, this short recent period of throwaway cheap goods and energy when just about everyone could live as only the richest Romans, Normans, Dutch or English lords once did, is the only time when anyone but the rich worried about insurance at all. Lloyds of London still got rich when families were living two and three to a room not far away.
Humans, cows, machines...Look no further than that giant ball of fire we call the sun.
The power that is emitted from the sun controls our temperatures, nothing else. Any changes it experiences has an impact on the Earth and when our planet is blown to smithereens, it will be the sun that ended it all.
The power that is emitted from the sun controls our temperatures, nothing else. Any changes it experiences has an impact on the Earth and when our planet is blown to smithereens, it will be the sun that ended it all.
Not to get all science fictiony, but mankind is going to have to leave this planet eventually, no matter what humans do. The most effective and important environmental program is the space program. I think that mankind is likely to figure out how to colonize other planets long before it figures out how to have zero impact on the environment of Earth (if that could ever be accomplished). The amount of resources to commit to environmental programs should be directly tied to estimates on the timetable of colonization. In other words, we really only have to look after this place until it's time to move.
I like science fictiony! I agree with the above. IMO, the various technologies that will allow us to colonize other planets such as air and soil terraforming, closed-loop ecosystems and genetic manipulation (creating plants, insects and people that can live in differing environments) are the same technologies that can save planet Earth. Since they must be developed before actual colonization can start, there is a potential opportunity (depends on how bad the situation is) to fix the planet before the need arrives to leave it. I read a sci-fi book on this exact topic a couple of years ago, I'll look for it's name.
The first sentence I understand. The second .... maybe I misunderstand. We don't really control the end-date and I'm not sure that ego/ politics/ skeptics/ fear will allow us to admit that the date exists, potentially until it's too late. i.e. not enough time to develop the needed technologies, find money and make it happen. I guess it all depends on if you i) can get-by the human politics, ii) the time frame will be sufficient long and not a hockey-stick curve and iii) there are still resources available to make it happen.
I avoid the whole global warming conversation; I know very little about the science and believe most information can be manipulated to favour either side, BUT I absolutely believe man should look at colonization as a way to protect humanity through redundancy from whatever may threaten us in the future - plague, war, pollution, asteroid, etc.
You are right. What is the point of looking after the planet when we will all have to leave in a million years. And if in the meantime if our children and grandchildren etc are inhabiting and inhabitable and inhospitable planet well then fuck'em. We will all be dead and gone.
Still speaking science fictiony (because there's no way to prove what I'm going to say next) but there are many possible "planet enders" for the Earth (the sun, meteors, internal instability, other forms of radiation) as well as many ways the earth could cease to support humankind short of complete destruction of all life. After all, the resources here are, by definition, finite. The end of the earth (for humans) could be a lot nearer than you are assuming. It seems hopeless to expect that the cultures producing the ever expanding population (not the west) will be able to stop that growth or reduce it. Even if the earth's temperature remained completely constant, I don't believe we can expect the food supply to support even our current population indefinitely. While I have zero confidence in humankind's ability to conserve earth's resources (perhaps not even for thousands of years, never mind millions), I have considerable confidence that humans could be colonizing long before that. That's the timeline we should really be concerning ourselves with. In the meantime, we do what we must to keep the people alive that will have to find the colonization solution, and will have to be the colonists. And most of all, we have to exploit our technologies up to the point of developing more effective technologies, or we will doom ourselves to never develop what we will need to colonize.
Are you thinking of Red Mars (book 1 of the Mars Trilogy) by Kim Stanley Robinson: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77507.Red_Mars.? A lot of hard science on terraforming and creating ecosystems in that book.
I think it will either be overpopulation and lack of resources or plague/disease that eventually culls the human population, before pollution or global warming are a factor. What I wonder is: when the situation is no longer hideable, will the politicians coop-out and go with a Logan's Run solution instead (great movie in it's day). Build biospheres here on earth, lock-in the chosen few and let the rest of us fend for ourselves. The biospheres could simply be existing gov't bunkers modified for size and long term survivability until the planet heals itself. The core technology exists today. The gov't has been spending millions at upgrading existing bunkers (Mount Weather, Raven Rock, Olney, Trapp, rumoured Denver Airport, Little Rock and Michigan facilities and rumoured upgraded Mount Pony and corkscrew facilities). The bunkers have the second advantage of immediate protection from other crisis including nuclear and biological attacks, uncontrollable civil unrest, pandemics and less likely solar radiation, minor meteor strike, etc. I know, more science fictiony with a dab of conspiracy theory.
Global warming is to some extent within our control. I am more optimistic about the ability of man/womankind to control and influence those things which are within our control before we are forced to leave the planet and look for a new planet to kill. That is assuming that countries eventually get leaders that believe in science and not their "natural instinct".
It's the "some extent", the degree to which "some extent" can be changed, and the value of the tangible impact of such change that has to be assessed against the cost of investing resources in those initiatives. I think you need leaders that understand math and probability theory as well as eco-science.
Your "planet to kill" comment makes it sound like your view is that humankind are just natural born killers (of ecosystems), so maybe, in your view, it would be best for us to be stuck here, and to end here.
My view is the opposite. I believe resources exist to be exploited in the never ending pursuit of all that is possible by humankind. However, to get to the next planet, we've got to keep the population alive, and our technology developing, in order to find the technology needed to move forward. As Promo points out, that technology is probably the same technology needed to address ecological concerns here, but even if that were not so, at minimum mass colonization will relieve the burden on Earth's resources for those who stay behind.
I think it’s a problem on two dimensions, population size and wealth.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi.../each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.W9CfQ4opDmo
As China and to a lesser extent India get wealthier their share of emissions will explode. Another billion poor people will not move the needle but another 300m poor Chinese becoming middle class will be devastating. Joining pretend agreements no one adheres to or “believing” in climate change will have no impact.
With something like 80% of the world living on less than $10 a day I’m not thinking many will be making the trip to Mars.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi.../each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.W9CfQ4opDmo
As China and to a lesser extent India get wealthier their share of emissions will explode. Another billion poor people will not move the needle but another 300m poor Chinese becoming middle class will be devastating. Joining pretend agreements no one adheres to or “believing” in climate change will have no impact.
With something like 80% of the world living on less than $10 a day I’m not thinking many will be making the trip to Mars.
That is all the more reason to be taking steps now. Are you suggesting that the situation is hopeless and therefor there is no point in doing anything?
No the impact of change has to be measured aganst the impact and cost of NOT changing. The math is really quite simple and the cost of ignoring the problem or doing nothing is far greater.
In terms of your interplanetary aspirations from some of your posts i am wondering if you are from another planet.
Isn't that exactly what will persuade people to move to Mars - the opportunity for a better life?
