5 ms·

Even better candidate: Earth. Geoengineering gets a bad rap, but we're much close to accomplishing it than terraforming a hostile planet.

mooreds 5y ago
Geoengineering doesn't solve the single planet problem.
- jqpabc123 5y ago
  Does the moon really solve that problem? Can it become truly autonomous? How many millennium would this take?
  - mooreds 5y ago
    I don't know how long it would take for the moon to become truly autonomous. But I do know it would take less time to build a multi-planet civilization starting with the moon than trying to build a multi-planet civilization using geoengineering because the latter is by definition impossible.
    - jqpabc123 5y ago
      Maybe the best approach is to forget about a multi-planet civilization at this point in time (we clearly lack the technology) and focus on preserving our one planet civilization for as long as possible.
      - derekjdanserl 5y ago
        Another comment above almost came out and said it, but stopped short. Rich people simply want their own planet. This has nothing to do with ‘the human species.’ They have trashed Earth and they will need to keep doing so in order to keep industry humming, so they want another planet where they can live a life decoupled from all the associated inconveniences of the logical conclusion of capitalism.
        chii 5y ago
        That's a very stretched argument. And what's wrong with wanting a planet, if it is possible and economically feasible?
      - chii 5y ago
        imagine you're stuck at a desert island, with limited fresh water. You can either make it last as long as possible, but know that it will eventually run out (or the island sinks), or you strike out on the ocean by building a raft.
        jqpabc123 5y ago
        Personally, I'm using the available resources to try and catch some rain water. A lot less risky than the open ocean --- which will still leave you with a water problem.
ryanmercer 5y ago
Geoengineering on our only home is extremely dangerous. YC proposed desert flooding for carbon sequestration http://carbon.ycombinator.com/desert-flooding/ http://carbon.ycombinator.com/desert-flooding/ Even if you assume the energy demands aren't an issue, and you could build these shallow pools, and find something to do with the captured carbon, you've probably just killed the Amazon by turning the Sahara into a series of ponds as the Sahara fertilizes the Amazon. You've probably also just caused insanely disruptive, and potentially catastrophic, changes to weather patterns by introducing obscene amounts of new moisture into the air over the Sahara which would almost certainly impact the entire planet's weather patterns. Oh, you say you want to make a new tree that sequesters carbon better or is more ideal for reforestation? Like, oh, Maddie Hall is trying to do with Living cabron? Alright, great. But have you thought about the massive mycorrhizal networks that support forests, or the thousands of species per cubic meter of soil, or the fact that things that grow faster tend to fall over much easier and that the massive trees of the world are extremely slow growth, have you thought about how fast minerals might be stripped from fast growing trees, changes to weather, impact on the water table, did you just make a horribly invasive species, are you creating a tree that's a candy-filled playground for invasive insect species, is the species now outcompeting native ones that are necessary for any number of other species? Etc., etc., so on and so forth.
- chii 5y ago
  In other words, humans aren't clever enough to engineer stable ecosystems that is slightly more complex than a fish tank. In fact, humans aren't capable of predicting a chaotic system's outcome at all! It's the same for an economy - humans want to set policies for economic sustainability and growth, but every plan, every intervention and policy decision seems to have some negative externality not considered.

mooreds 5y ago

Geoengineering doesn't solve the single planet problem.

jqpabc123 5y ago
Does the moon really solve that problem? Can it become truly autonomous? How many millennium would this take?
- mooreds 5y ago
  I don't know how long it would take for the moon to become truly autonomous. But I do know it would take less time to build a multi-planet civilization starting with the moon than trying to build a multi-planet civilization using geoengineering because the latter is by definition impossible.
  - jqpabc123 5y ago
    Maybe the best approach is to forget about a multi-planet civilization at this point in time (we clearly lack the technology) and focus on preserving our one planet civilization for as long as possible.
    - derekjdanserl 5y ago
      Another comment above almost came out and said it, but stopped short. Rich people simply want their own planet. This has nothing to do with ‘the human species.’ They have trashed Earth and they will need to keep doing so in order to keep industry humming, so they want another planet where they can live a life decoupled from all the associated inconveniences of the logical conclusion of capitalism.
      - chii 5y ago
        That's a very stretched argument. And what's wrong with wanting a planet, if it is possible and economically feasible?
    - chii 5y ago
      imagine you're stuck at a desert island, with limited fresh water. You can either make it last as long as possible, but know that it will eventually run out (or the island sinks), or you strike out on the ocean by building a raft.
      - jqpabc123 5y ago
        Personally, I'm using the available resources to try and catch some rain water. A lot less risky than the open ocean --- which will still leave you with a water problem.

ryanmercer 5y ago

Geoengineering on our only home is extremely dangerous. YC proposed desert flooding for carbon sequestration http://carbon.ycombinator.com/desert-flooding/ http://carbon.ycombinator.com/desert-flooding/ Even if you assume the energy demands aren't an issue, and you could build these shallow pools, and find something to do with the captured carbon, you've probably just killed the Amazon by turning the Sahara into a series of ponds as the Sahara fertilizes the Amazon. You've probably also just caused insanely disruptive, and potentially catastrophic, changes to weather patterns by introducing obscene amounts of new moisture into the air over the Sahara which would almost certainly impact the entire planet's weather patterns. Oh, you say you want to make a new tree that sequesters carbon better or is more ideal for reforestation? Like, oh, Maddie Hall is trying to do with Living cabron? Alright, great. But have you thought about the massive mycorrhizal networks that support forests, or the thousands of species per cubic meter of soil, or the fact that things that grow faster tend to fall over much easier and that the massive trees of the world are extremely slow growth, have you thought about how fast minerals might be stripped from fast growing trees, changes to weather, impact on the water table, did you just make a horribly invasive species, are you creating a tree that's a candy-filled playground for invasive insect species, is the species now outcompeting native ones that are necessary for any number of other species? Etc., etc., so on and so forth.

chii 5y ago
In other words, humans aren't clever enough to engineer stable ecosystems that is slightly more complex than a fish tank. In fact, humans aren't capable of predicting a chaotic system's outcome at all! It's the same for an economy - humans want to set policies for economic sustainability and growth, but every plan, every intervention and policy decision seems to have some negative externality not considered.