7 ms·

I'm not that familiar with this sort of thing, but my thinking has always been that: If we could theoretically terraform some other planet, why can't similar t

I'm not that familiar with this sort of thing, but my thinking has always been that: If we could theoretically terraform some other planet, why can't similar things be done on earth to improve our atmosphere? Especially now w/ renewable energy at historically low prices. My fear is that once this kind of technology is deployed at scale, it could make industry far too complacent again.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rosser 9y ago
It's not that we can't "terraform" our own planet. It's that the consequences of getting it wrong, in doing so deliberately, could easily be worse than those of the "accidental" ways we've been doing it for a couple centuries now...
ekianjo 9y ago
> theoretically terraform some other planet That's the problem, it's all just theory and even for Mars we don't think it would be easy. For planets like Venus, straight impossible at our current level of tech and the constraints of such worlds.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  >Mars, not easy; Venus, impossible Mars may very well be much easier, but the bias towards Mars may also be largely cultural: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag
eru 9y ago
Yes, we can 'terraform' earth. The problem is cost.
- nielsbjerg 9y ago
  One could even go as far as to say, that we're successful in doing just that. Only in the opposite direction of what we've discovered to be necessary.
throwaway5752 9y ago
The problem is that "terraforming another planet" is stuff that young men who are impressionable read in science fiction, it isn't reality. We can't terraform another planet. We haven't even successfully run a fully-enclosed self-sustaining ecosystem capable of supporting human life on earth. We have never sent anyone to another planet, and the rocket equation highly constrains interplanetary transportation, let along radiation shielded interplanetary transportation capable of sending humans. We will _never_ terraform Mars, I doubt a human will ever set foot there. I doubt we'll even survive as an advanced species for 200 more years. We actually _have_ every bit of necessary technology to sustainably run something very close to modern society, and we are too stupid collectively do fix terrestrial political problems. We don't even need to terraform our own planet, we just have to stop digging up coal and pumping up oil and burning it. No wasteful and inefficient "negative emission" stupidness is necessary. This is like "clean coal". It's something that very, very wealthy people that make money from oil and coal bring up to essentially troll the populace, and distract them from the problem until we're as close to the brink as possible. I'm sorry to be depressing, but this magical thinking about sending people to Mars and terraforming planets is counterproductive. edit: I take it back, we can terraform a planet. The sum total of human activity for 150 years has warmed the Earth few degrees (though they are a critical few degrees)
- Pfhreak 9y ago
  I can understand the "We'll never terraform Mars" argument. (It's certainly a looooong ways off if we ever even start. I suspect there's not much value in it.) But never landing a human on Mars seems like a bad bet to me. With Musk/SpaceX pushing for it, and our history of landing rovers there, it seems like putting some people on Mars, however briefly, is in our future. I'm curious why you feel this way.
  - throwaway5752 9y ago
    The energy for the trip, the return trip, the duration, and weight requirements associated with radiation shield are why I'm skeptical. It's technically possibly, certainly. So is switching to a 100% solar fueled grid. But I hate to be to pessimistic: I'm older than average here, and I would feel unbelievably privileged to witness humans landing on Mars. I hope it happens.
mikeash 9y ago
What's wrong with industry becoming complacent once their emissions are neutralized? The goal is to keep the planet intact, not punish emitters. It seems to me that stopping emissions will be a lot easier and cheaper than capturing them, but if it turns out that capture gets the job done, then that's great too.
- perpetualcrayon 9y ago
  One could argue that the reason things are getting as bad as they are is because no one is punishing emitters strongly enough. Who's to say that, as soon as emissions are neutralized, some won't again try to exploit the fact that it's "less dangerous to pollute more" as a competitive advantage? At least until there's another crisis down the road.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I would completely agree with that argument. But punishing emitters is one potential means to an end, not the actual goal. You'd obviously need to ensure that capture capacity kept up with emissions, but at least it would be really easy to come up with the correct price for a carbon tax.
- hydrogen18 9y ago
  This doesn't "capture" them. It just puts them in a place they think won't be a problem anytime soon.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    What's the difference?
    - hydrogen18 9y ago
      It is largely one of timescale. Carbon dioxide is not only present in our atmosphere but essential for our life. We've just got more of it than the atmosphere than we need without a doubt. So in comes this notion of capture. Capture to me means taking existing processes which produce carbon dioxide and somehow sequestered. So you've got a plant that burns natural gas to produce electrical power. If you capture the carbon dioxide and somehow incorporate it into something else that people need, they have an incentive to keep it capturing. The obvious example would be bricks. Use the bricks to build a structure, people preserve and use the structure. The carbon dioxide is captured. Obviously no one has figured out how to create room temperature bricks of carbon dioxide. My issue with this project is they basically are shoving some carbon dioxide containing material in the ground and saying it is somehow captured. It might stay down there for a million years or just a few months. It's like the fracking industry claiming it doesn't impact the environment.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rosser 9y ago

It's not that we can't "terraform" our own planet. It's that the consequences of getting it wrong, in doing so deliberately, could easily be worse than those of the "accidental" ways we've been doing it for a couple centuries now...

ekianjo 9y ago

> theoretically terraform some other planet That's the problem, it's all just theory and even for Mars we don't think it would be easy. For planets like Venus, straight impossible at our current level of tech and the constraints of such worlds.

wallace_f 9y ago
>Mars, not easy; Venus, impossible Mars may very well be much easier, but the bias towards Mars may also be largely cultural: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag

eru 9y ago

Yes, we can 'terraform' earth. The problem is cost.

nielsbjerg 9y ago
One could even go as far as to say, that we're successful in doing just that. Only in the opposite direction of what we've discovered to be necessary.

throwaway5752 9y ago

The problem is that "terraforming another planet" is stuff that young men who are impressionable read in science fiction, it isn't reality. We can't terraform another planet. We haven't even successfully run a fully-enclosed self-sustaining ecosystem capable of supporting human life on earth. We have never sent anyone to another planet, and the rocket equation highly constrains interplanetary transportation, let along radiation shielded interplanetary transportation capable of sending humans. We will _never_ terraform Mars, I doubt a human will ever set foot there. I doubt we'll even survive as an advanced species for 200 more years. We actually _have_ every bit of necessary technology to sustainably run something very close to modern society, and we are too stupid collectively do fix terrestrial political problems. We don't even need to terraform our own planet, we just have to stop digging up coal and pumping up oil and burning it. No wasteful and inefficient "negative emission" stupidness is necessary. This is like "clean coal". It's something that very, very wealthy people that make money from oil and coal bring up to essentially troll the populace, and distract them from the problem until we're as close to the brink as possible. I'm sorry to be depressing, but this magical thinking about sending people to Mars and terraforming planets is counterproductive. edit: I take it back, we can terraform a planet. The sum total of human activity for 150 years has warmed the Earth few degrees (though they are a critical few degrees)

Pfhreak 9y ago
I can understand the "We'll never terraform Mars" argument. (It's certainly a looooong ways off if we ever even start. I suspect there's not much value in it.) But never landing a human on Mars seems like a bad bet to me. With Musk/SpaceX pushing for it, and our history of landing rovers there, it seems like putting some people on Mars, however briefly, is in our future. I'm curious why you feel this way.
- throwaway5752 9y ago
  The energy for the trip, the return trip, the duration, and weight requirements associated with radiation shield are why I'm skeptical. It's technically possibly, certainly. So is switching to a 100% solar fueled grid. But I hate to be to pessimistic: I'm older than average here, and I would feel unbelievably privileged to witness humans landing on Mars. I hope it happens.

mikeash 9y ago

What's wrong with industry becoming complacent once their emissions are neutralized? The goal is to keep the planet intact, not punish emitters. It seems to me that stopping emissions will be a lot easier and cheaper than capturing them, but if it turns out that capture gets the job done, then that's great too.

perpetualcrayon 9y ago
One could argue that the reason things are getting as bad as they are is because no one is punishing emitters strongly enough. Who's to say that, as soon as emissions are neutralized, some won't again try to exploit the fact that it's "less dangerous to pollute more" as a competitive advantage? At least until there's another crisis down the road.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I would completely agree with that argument. But punishing emitters is one potential means to an end, not the actual goal. You'd obviously need to ensure that capture capacity kept up with emissions, but at least it would be really easy to come up with the correct price for a carbon tax.
hydrogen18 9y ago
This doesn't "capture" them. It just puts them in a place they think won't be a problem anytime soon.
- mikeash 9y ago
  What's the difference?
  - hydrogen18 9y ago
    It is largely one of timescale. Carbon dioxide is not only present in our atmosphere but essential for our life. We've just got more of it than the atmosphere than we need without a doubt. So in comes this notion of capture. Capture to me means taking existing processes which produce carbon dioxide and somehow sequestered. So you've got a plant that burns natural gas to produce electrical power. If you capture the carbon dioxide and somehow incorporate it into something else that people need, they have an incentive to keep it capturing. The obvious example would be bricks. Use the bricks to build a structure, people preserve and use the structure. The carbon dioxide is captured. Obviously no one has figured out how to create room temperature bricks of carbon dioxide. My issue with this project is they basically are shoving some carbon dioxide containing material in the ground and saying it is somehow captured. It might stay down there for a million years or just a few months. It's like the fracking industry claiming it doesn't impact the environment.