Will global warming be reversed by human's effort?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
I know I’m skipping a huge volume of discussion on the matter to reply to this topic, but it’s a definite no. Although humanity does have the technical capability to do it, it lacks the collective verve (I don’t know what to call it exactly) to preserve its own existence. I’m still trying to wrap my head around what’s behind it, but the closest anecdote I can think of are events like tsunamis or hurricanes. People in the affected areas are notified of disaster long before it hits them, but still remain stationary and die.
To me it's like this.
There's a lot of mythical thinking around climate change, almost as much as there is around economic growth.
What seems to be happening is we need to tame a new beast, which is untamed economic growth with a strictly capitalist goal.
Lest it end up causing more damage than the whole thing was worth.
What humans can expect in the next ten years is more damaging storms and other extreme events, more loss of ice into the sea and sealevel rise, and continued acceleration as the climate begins to tip towards the Cretaceous. So ok, lizards will be fine.
There's a lot of mythical thinking around climate change, almost as much as there is around economic growth.
What seems to be happening is we need to tame a new beast, which is untamed economic growth with a strictly capitalist goal.
Lest it end up causing more damage than the whole thing was worth.
What humans can expect in the next ten years is more damaging storms and other extreme events, more loss of ice into the sea and sealevel rise, and continued acceleration as the climate begins to tip towards the Cretaceous. So ok, lizards will be fine.
It's no different than dumping toxic waste near an important fresh water supply. Governments manage the land on behalf of the people and are therefore responsible for taxing and licensing appropriately based on the damage to the land and the society that depends on it, as compared to the expected profits from going ahead with development. CO2 just needs to be treated on the same basis. Carbon taxes are the most natural way to put a price on CO2 pollution and balance the costs to society vs. the benefits, the biggest problem with implementing them so far is that they've only been proposed for domestic goods and therefore punish the populations trying to cut pollution while increasing the market share of unapologetic polluters elsewhere.
Put a carbon tax on all goods regardless of source, with reasonable measures in place to estimate the pollution generated from various sources just like we have government monitors and inspectors checking food and other products from around the world. Encourage more manufacturing in countries with good labour and environment standards, put tariffs on those who pollute more to make the same goods, or let a universal carbon tax handle that automatically.
Another big issue is that if we were all to tax carbon pollution based on the future economic damage it causes from a degraded environment, then already the poorest people in the world wouldn't be able to afford their basic survival, so birth control measures need to be prioritized going forward.
Yes I've been trying to explain that the planet doesn't have enough resources to support the existing population, even if we all rush to build as many solar panels, wind turbines, tidal generators and every other kind of renewable energy source as we can, while banning all cars not made by Tesla Motors. Some people here think that makes me cruel and insensitive.
If a miracle breakthrough in fusion power comes out then it's a different ballgame, but currently that's looking like it'll be centuries off at best. Burning depleted uranium as nuclear fuel could be another possibility, but right now most people think nuclear power leads to Godzilla rampages.
Last edited:
Nope, it will help a bit but it's not a bottomless gold mine.
GM ( genetically modified food , modifield by being resistant to roundup ) therefore being able to spray more of the chemical , because the crop is not killed . Corn etc. What ever the crop is .
Roundup is for the killing of " weeds " . Yet they keep adapting , these weeds .
It has not shown to be true Saint . I have yet found any evidence outside those involved in GMO's research , and manufactures of this product , that they have gained any food production .
Last edited:
It takes a lot of money, energy, resources and materials to build and maintain the greenhouses, plus you need to provide them with a large supply of decent quality fresh water and fertilizers. In some places you need to supplement the available sunlight with electricity, especially if you want to have several separate floors to economize on space. It's still not an adequate solution any more than devoting all of our available resources to harnessing renewable energy.
A quick Google suggests that in the average lifetime we eat c.35 tonnes of food.
Assuming an astronaut is 1/2 way through life, they'd need c.20 tonnes of food each, assuming normal metabolic rate and energy expenditure of their work compared to the average. But most of this is relatively fresh food - not stuff we'd expect to keep for 30+ years.
However, the key question is what could be grown on Mars using Mars' natural resources. If they recycle bodily wastes, and use the right sorts of Martian soil, it might be possible to grow some crops. They'd need to create water, which might require its own resources to create - or somehow capture any moisture there is in atmosphere.
So if the question is what resources would someone need to live on Mars for 40 years or so, it might be 20 tonnes of long-shelf-life food, or it might be 20 tonnes of resources to be able to create a sustainable farm.
Or something else entirely.
Assuming an astronaut is 1/2 way through life, they'd need c.20 tonnes of food each, assuming normal metabolic rate and energy expenditure of their work compared to the average. But most of this is relatively fresh food - not stuff we'd expect to keep for 30+ years.
However, the key question is what could be grown on Mars using Mars' natural resources. If they recycle bodily wastes, and use the right sorts of Martian soil, it might be possible to grow some crops. They'd need to create water, which might require its own resources to create - or somehow capture any moisture there is in atmosphere.
So if the question is what resources would someone need to live on Mars for 40 years or so, it might be 20 tonnes of long-shelf-life food, or it might be 20 tonnes of resources to be able to create a sustainable farm.
Or something else entirely.
Maybe try McDonald’s food, it dries out and then self-preserves forever on all those YouTube vids.
Dennis Tate
Banned
In my opinion when we decide to deliberately turn deserts green we will be taking an important step toward stabilization of the climate as well as improving the world economy.
Bankrolling the 10 Breakthrough Technologies: Megascale Desalination
The world’s biggest desalination plant, named one of MIT Technology Review’s breakthroughs of 2015, is the result of government funding of both large-scale infrastructure and the underlying innovations.
Near death experiencer and former ATheist Mellen Benedict was shown that major improvements will soon be made toward stabilization of the climate.
https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a09