5 ms·

The temperature is a reason why Venus would be a good place to test out the ideas for climate manipulation we have collected so far. A first step could be to l

by kaybe 12y ago

The temperature is a reason why Venus would be a good place to test out the ideas for climate manipulation we have collected so far. A first step could be to lower the CO2 content (my current favourite would be to release engineered bacteria into the atmosphere that can bind the Cs and after death collect it on the ground), and enhance the albedo (so more sunlight is reflected away). In the longterm we will need climate control anyway since Earth's climate is somewhat unstable (global warming is just as bad as a new ice age, which, extrapolating from the past, would be about due by now, if not for mankinds influence). Testing it on a planet we are not critically dependent on should be a better strategy. Geologically, Venus is very different from Earth due to the lack of water (which enables plate tectonics and all its implications). Some changes we can make would even influence the geology. (Hm, I wonder what would happen if we dumped enough water meteroids.. ) All of this of course premises a lack of preexisting life with planetary ownership rights and no natural reserve rules (which we kind of have at the moment - http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/about http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/about).

V-2 12y ago
Planetary ownership rights? Is that even a thing?
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  Ask the native Americans, Canadians and Australians.
  - 1971genocide 12y ago
    Didn't know there were natives in Venus, I must be living under a rock.
    - kaybe 12y ago
      Probably not, especially suitably advanced life, but we don't know. Our world is still very narrow. It's an ethical question that should be discussed before we destroy stuff. If the consensus was to go ahead anyway, that's fine too.
  - V-2 12y ago
    What about native Europeans, I mean the Neanderthals? They were the OG's before homo sapiens wiped them out... It bothers me why we didn't just sit down on the edge of the world, as it is the Neanderthals, by the virtue of being there first (we call dibs!) who must have had planetary ownership rights to Earth. Not our usurping "natives". You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag...
    - kaybe 12y ago
      You can probably use half the arguments for vegetarianism here [1], and a lot more if there is sufficiently intelligent life (probably not on Venus; the argument is the same for other planets). Of course, not everyone agrees to those. Other extendable arguments include those for the preservation of species on Earth [2]. Your last sentence refers to the anti-copying campaigns, right? Since their analogy is so flawed, I don't see what you mean by that.. (Most people wouldn't steal a car, but they would totally copy one (as soon as they can).) If we could copy planets without disturbing orbit mechanics, there wouldn't be a problem? [1] I'm talking about the ethics of using another species for one's own gain without dire need. [2] For it's own beauty, but more importantly as a collection of ideas and examples for what is possible, as an information ressource, so to say. Since our state of knowledge is low, we cannot collect all the information without preserving the found state. Of course [1] also applies.
      - V-2 12y ago
        I acknowledge the ethical dilemmas. What ticked me off was this pretentious pseudolegal neologism of "planetary ownership rights". (No offence) I would agree that humans should think twice - and some more - before damaging or contaminating an alien ecosystem, but that's even if it was only bacterial. Speaking about "ownership rights" in case of bacteria would be downright ridiculous. Putting the entire moral problem under the category of "ownership" feels imposed to me. Not unlike the narration behind "copyrights" - and that's the association I hinted at. Not the idea of copying planets, although I can think of reasons why that would be your first guess.
        12y ago
- userulluipeste 12y ago
  Well, as a principle, anybody may try to claim rights/ownership over anything. The question that follows is how could that (no mater how far-fetched) given claim be further supported. Also, one way of securing good relations with others is to just recognize their claims.
tomp 12y ago
Please excuse the possibly stupid question, but what does water have to do with plate tectonics? I always thought that was a consequence of earth being a "live" (i.e. hot inside) planet.
- Thrymr 12y ago
  The water in the interior is what matters. It's actually the fact that water is recycled into the Earth's deep interior that's thought to keep it "lubricated", so to speak, and allow the mantle to flow more readily. For the Earth, that's a feedback loop: water in the mantle allows plate tectonics to work, so water keeps getting recycled into the interior (via saturated crust and sediments) to keep it going.
  - Terr_ 12y ago
    Note, this "water as lubricant" should not be confused with a creationist theory that tries to explain Noah's flood, suggesting that a huge portion of our current surface-water escaped at once.
  - foobarbecue 12y ago
    What do you mean by "lubricated" exactly? The explanation I've had in classes for the "water is essential to plate tectonics" idea is that water causes dehydration melting, and that's thought to be critical to plate tectonics. Adding water to rock decreases the solidus temperature (temperature at which first liquid component is generated).
    - kaybe 12y ago
      Yes, this is the current consensus of the scientific community. During subduction of plates (mostly oceanic crust full of water under continental plates of lower density) the volatiles (mostly water) exits the subducting plate and lowers the viscosity and density of the overlying mantle material (viscosity describing the 'fluidness' of the material, higher viscosity = less fluid). The material will then rise up and there will be volcanism, recycling the material back to the surface. This is what you see in most major volcanic arcs, such as the Andes or Japan. The idea that plate tectonics and water are intrinsically linked (at given circumstances) is pretty solidified. The theory of why not such much; the idea above fits our current data best, but data from the planet's interiour is hard to come by and I expect some updates to the theory within a few decades. It's nice that this is currently not critical knowledge for humanity.
Padding 12y ago
> global warming is just as bad as a new ice age, which, extrapolating from the past, would be about due by now, if not for mankinds influence So global warming bought us all a huge chunk of (comfortable) time? Why is it a bad thing then?
- Omniusaspirer 12y ago
  Desertification, increased sea levels causing flooding, higher atmospheric CO2 causing ocean acidification that will kill nearly all life in coral reefs sans jellies, etc etc. Global warming probably isn't inherently bad if spread out over enough time, but large temperature fluctuations within a few centuries doesn't leave time for non-human species to adapt.
  - Padding 12y ago
    > Desertification, increased sea levels causing flooding, higher atmospheric CO2 causing ocean acidification that will kill nearly all life in coral reefs sans jellies, etc etc. Yes .. or Maybe .. but that all still sounds preferable to an ice age, if kaybe is right, right? > Global warming probably isn't inherently bad if spread out over enough time, but large temperature fluctuations within a few centuries doesn't leave time for non-human species to adapt. Eh, I don't know about that - you're not wrong but I don't think this is a relevant/useful consideration given that (1) given that reasoning "spread out over enough time" everything and anything will work out fine (2) in the long run (or rather the "even longer run", considering the first point) we're all dead anyways
    - Omniusaspirer 12y ago
      Is there actual clear evidence that global warming has truly prevented an ice age? It's certainly the first time I've seen that assertion put forth and I'd need some actual scientific evidence that's the case. I do agree though, an actual ice age would probably have a much more severe impact that global warming...but I'd definitely prefer that neither occur.
      - 12y ago

by kaybe 12y ago

V-2 12y ago

Planetary ownership rights? Is that even a thing?

pavel_lishin 12y ago
Ask the native Americans, Canadians and Australians.
- 1971genocide 12y ago
  Didn't know there were natives in Venus, I must be living under a rock.
  - kaybe 12y ago
    Probably not, especially suitably advanced life, but we don't know. Our world is still very narrow. It's an ethical question that should be discussed before we destroy stuff. If the consensus was to go ahead anyway, that's fine too.
- V-2 12y ago
  What about native Europeans, I mean the Neanderthals? They were the OG's before homo sapiens wiped them out... It bothers me why we didn't just sit down on the edge of the world, as it is the Neanderthals, by the virtue of being there first (we call dibs!) who must have had planetary ownership rights to Earth. Not our usurping "natives". You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag...
  - kaybe 12y ago
    You can probably use half the arguments for vegetarianism here [1], and a lot more if there is sufficiently intelligent life (probably not on Venus; the argument is the same for other planets). Of course, not everyone agrees to those. Other extendable arguments include those for the preservation of species on Earth [2]. Your last sentence refers to the anti-copying campaigns, right? Since their analogy is so flawed, I don't see what you mean by that.. (Most people wouldn't steal a car, but they would totally copy one (as soon as they can).) If we could copy planets without disturbing orbit mechanics, there wouldn't be a problem? [1] I'm talking about the ethics of using another species for one's own gain without dire need. [2] For it's own beauty, but more importantly as a collection of ideas and examples for what is possible, as an information ressource, so to say. Since our state of knowledge is low, we cannot collect all the information without preserving the found state. Of course [1] also applies.
    - V-2 12y ago
      I acknowledge the ethical dilemmas. What ticked me off was this pretentious pseudolegal neologism of "planetary ownership rights". (No offence) I would agree that humans should think twice - and some more - before damaging or contaminating an alien ecosystem, but that's even if it was only bacterial. Speaking about "ownership rights" in case of bacteria would be downright ridiculous. Putting the entire moral problem under the category of "ownership" feels imposed to me. Not unlike the narration behind "copyrights" - and that's the association I hinted at. Not the idea of copying planets, although I can think of reasons why that would be your first guess.
      - 12y ago
userulluipeste 12y ago
Well, as a principle, anybody may try to claim rights/ownership over anything. The question that follows is how could that (no mater how far-fetched) given claim be further supported. Also, one way of securing good relations with others is to just recognize their claims.

tomp 12y ago

Please excuse the possibly stupid question, but what does water have to do with plate tectonics? I always thought that was a consequence of earth being a "live" (i.e. hot inside) planet.

Thrymr 12y ago
The water in the interior is what matters. It's actually the fact that water is recycled into the Earth's deep interior that's thought to keep it "lubricated", so to speak, and allow the mantle to flow more readily. For the Earth, that's a feedback loop: water in the mantle allows plate tectonics to work, so water keeps getting recycled into the interior (via saturated crust and sediments) to keep it going.
- Terr_ 12y ago
  Note, this "water as lubricant" should not be confused with a creationist theory that tries to explain Noah's flood, suggesting that a huge portion of our current surface-water escaped at once.
- foobarbecue 12y ago
  What do you mean by "lubricated" exactly? The explanation I've had in classes for the "water is essential to plate tectonics" idea is that water causes dehydration melting, and that's thought to be critical to plate tectonics. Adding water to rock decreases the solidus temperature (temperature at which first liquid component is generated).
  - kaybe 12y ago
    Yes, this is the current consensus of the scientific community. During subduction of plates (mostly oceanic crust full of water under continental plates of lower density) the volatiles (mostly water) exits the subducting plate and lowers the viscosity and density of the overlying mantle material (viscosity describing the 'fluidness' of the material, higher viscosity = less fluid). The material will then rise up and there will be volcanism, recycling the material back to the surface. This is what you see in most major volcanic arcs, such as the Andes or Japan. The idea that plate tectonics and water are intrinsically linked (at given circumstances) is pretty solidified. The theory of why not such much; the idea above fits our current data best, but data from the planet's interiour is hard to come by and I expect some updates to the theory within a few decades. It's nice that this is currently not critical knowledge for humanity.

Padding 12y ago

> global warming is just as bad as a new ice age, which, extrapolating from the past, would be about due by now, if not for mankinds influence So global warming bought us all a huge chunk of (comfortable) time? Why is it a bad thing then?

Omniusaspirer 12y ago
Desertification, increased sea levels causing flooding, higher atmospheric CO2 causing ocean acidification that will kill nearly all life in coral reefs sans jellies, etc etc. Global warming probably isn't inherently bad if spread out over enough time, but large temperature fluctuations within a few centuries doesn't leave time for non-human species to adapt.
- Padding 12y ago
  > Desertification, increased sea levels causing flooding, higher atmospheric CO2 causing ocean acidification that will kill nearly all life in coral reefs sans jellies, etc etc. Yes .. or Maybe .. but that all still sounds preferable to an ice age, if kaybe is right, right? > Global warming probably isn't inherently bad if spread out over enough time, but large temperature fluctuations within a few centuries doesn't leave time for non-human species to adapt. Eh, I don't know about that - you're not wrong but I don't think this is a relevant/useful consideration given that (1) given that reasoning "spread out over enough time" everything and anything will work out fine (2) in the long run (or rather the "even longer run", considering the first point) we're all dead anyways
  - Omniusaspirer 12y ago
    Is there actual clear evidence that global warming has truly prevented an ice age? It's certainly the first time I've seen that assertion put forth and I'd need some actual scientific evidence that's the case. I do agree though, an actual ice age would probably have a much more severe impact that global warming...but I'd definitely prefer that neither occur.
    - 12y ago