4 ms·

I would caution a easy solution as frankly we are but cavemen in the understanding of a complex ecosystem like earths. Attempting what amounts to a terraforming

I would caution a easy solution as frankly we are but cavemen in the understanding of a complex ecosystem like earths. Attempting what amounts to a terraforming experiment would be a extremely high risk endevour with possibly catastrophic ends.

jfoster 7y ago
We're already messing with things in what we think is the opposite direction to what's proposed by kijin. Besides, how can we ever make progress on planetary improvement if we always just shrug and say that we're cave people? We have to try something.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  What we want to be is a feedback controller, which means we can try stuff, but we need to be good at monitoring the changes and reacting to them. I'm less worried about the monitoring parts, thanks to tireless work of scientist and technologists worldwide. We monitor things on the ground, in the sea, and increasingly also from space. I'm worried about reaction time, though. Our institutions, especially political ones, absolutely suck at doing the right thing in a timely manner.
  - jfoster 7y ago
    Good points. I would also just point out that our institutions suck regarding timing mainly because it's against their interests. If you have some way to improve the planet that isn't against special interests, it might not be fast, but will probably be a lot less slow.
kuu 7y ago
We're already terraforming Earth, and not only with pollution, but also with fire, cities, transportation, dams...
- christkv 7y ago
  One thing this article suggests is that this event caused mass extinction itself as the climate change probably wiped out those North Pole turtles. I think that is just the point of unexpected consequences I’m trying to raise. Previous attempts to reverse catastrophic changes to ecological environments have been unmitigated disasters. Just ask Australians about the cane toad or rabbits.
FeepingCreature 7y ago
Inaction is not a privileged choice.
BjoernKW 7y ago
What's the alternative to deliberately trying to change the environment in order to combat the effects of global warming or even reversing that process entirely? We've effectively, though inadvertently and not to our benefit, already been modifying our environment for quite some time now. Simply limiting CO2 output might just not be enough to avoid a catastrophic outcome in the future. Even if it were, that 'simply' in 'simply limiting' might not be so simple after all. Even if all relevant political bodies in the world agreed on this - which they currently and unfortunately sometimes emphatically don't - the exact means of how do so in any meaningful way isn't entirely clear. You can't just order industry and traffic to produce less CO2 overnight. It certainly won't be an easy solution but such approaches need to be discussed and not ruled out entirely beforehand.
- jimmytucson 7y ago
  > What’s the alternative How about just having our cake and not eating it too? Rewind the last 200 years and go back to a preindustrial society. Admit that this level of progress is a candidate for the Great Filter and turn around. Sounds crazy, but if facing imminent destruction, why rule anything out?
  - BjoernKW 7y ago
    Deliberately going back to a preindustrial society in the end means deciding who is going to live and who isn't (including both currently living human beings and those potentially born in the future). Who is to make that decision and on what grounds? By the way, intentionally rewinding to a preindustrial society technically is a candidate for the Great Filter, too. While a civilisation that does this will survive it won't be discoverable anymore in order to provide an answer to the question "Where's everyone?".
  - polotics 7y ago
    Back to preindustrial society? What to do with the 80% of humanity this can't feed?
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  > not to our benefit That remains to be seen, IMHO because it would be very lucky that the current global climate is the optimum for human activities. For example, with a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere plants grow bigger. Warming might also open more land to agriculture than is lost. Etc.

jfoster 7y ago

We're already messing with things in what we think is the opposite direction to what's proposed by kijin. Besides, how can we ever make progress on planetary improvement if we always just shrug and say that we're cave people? We have to try something.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
What we want to be is a feedback controller, which means we can try stuff, but we need to be good at monitoring the changes and reacting to them. I'm less worried about the monitoring parts, thanks to tireless work of scientist and technologists worldwide. We monitor things on the ground, in the sea, and increasingly also from space. I'm worried about reaction time, though. Our institutions, especially political ones, absolutely suck at doing the right thing in a timely manner.
- jfoster 7y ago
  Good points. I would also just point out that our institutions suck regarding timing mainly because it's against their interests. If you have some way to improve the planet that isn't against special interests, it might not be fast, but will probably be a lot less slow.

kuu 7y ago

We're already terraforming Earth, and not only with pollution, but also with fire, cities, transportation, dams...

christkv 7y ago
One thing this article suggests is that this event caused mass extinction itself as the climate change probably wiped out those North Pole turtles. I think that is just the point of unexpected consequences I’m trying to raise. Previous attempts to reverse catastrophic changes to ecological environments have been unmitigated disasters. Just ask Australians about the cane toad or rabbits.

FeepingCreature 7y ago

Inaction is not a privileged choice.

BjoernKW 7y ago

What's the alternative to deliberately trying to change the environment in order to combat the effects of global warming or even reversing that process entirely? We've effectively, though inadvertently and not to our benefit, already been modifying our environment for quite some time now. Simply limiting CO2 output might just not be enough to avoid a catastrophic outcome in the future. Even if it were, that 'simply' in 'simply limiting' might not be so simple after all. Even if all relevant political bodies in the world agreed on this - which they currently and unfortunately sometimes emphatically don't - the exact means of how do so in any meaningful way isn't entirely clear. You can't just order industry and traffic to produce less CO2 overnight. It certainly won't be an easy solution but such approaches need to be discussed and not ruled out entirely beforehand.

jimmytucson 7y ago
> What’s the alternative How about just having our cake and not eating it too? Rewind the last 200 years and go back to a preindustrial society. Admit that this level of progress is a candidate for the Great Filter and turn around. Sounds crazy, but if facing imminent destruction, why rule anything out?
- BjoernKW 7y ago
  Deliberately going back to a preindustrial society in the end means deciding who is going to live and who isn't (including both currently living human beings and those potentially born in the future). Who is to make that decision and on what grounds? By the way, intentionally rewinding to a preindustrial society technically is a candidate for the Great Filter, too. While a civilisation that does this will survive it won't be discoverable anymore in order to provide an answer to the question "Where's everyone?".
- polotics 7y ago
  Back to preindustrial society? What to do with the 80% of humanity this can't feed?
mytailorisrich 7y ago
> not to our benefit That remains to be seen, IMHO because it would be very lucky that the current global climate is the optimum for human activities. For example, with a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere plants grow bigger. Warming might also open more land to agriculture than is lost. Etc.