| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 11:46 - Jul 28 with 2826 views | StokieBlue |
Morning.
It's a good question. I'm out for the day but I'll certainly give you my thoughts this evening. It's quite an interesting subject.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
|  |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 12:05 - Jul 28 with 2802 views | eireblue |
There is technology, that was originally developed for military, I.e. guided missiles, that are now in iPhones.
If climate change is real, and we don’t do anything, that will be bad.
If climate change is real, and we develop technologies that can be re-used and are generally an advancement or a replacement for what we do now, that also help with climate change, then that should be good.
If climate change is not real, and we develop technologies that can be re-used and are generally an advancement or a replacement for what we do now, then maybe that is okay.
Cheaper ways to generate energy from the Sun, and maybe do things like desalination with less energy or cheaper, would obviously have other uses.
People that sell oil and natural gas, would not like it as much, but as we see some companies that have sold oil and gas, are investing in such future technologies.
So not much downside.
So could there be things that are developed for space travel, have benefits for humans on earth.
It is a possibility.
If that is funded by private individuals taking trips to “Space” by Musk/Branson developed products, maybe not an ideal way to do things, but you would still take any technology that is re-used.
Ideally, if a consensus was reached, not only on climate change, but also the sort of timeframe that bad things will happen, then we could decide that X% of GDP is worth investing.
A bit like the US did to get a man on the moon.
That would be a much better approach. Countries could decide to invest 4% of GDP to solve a global issue. |  | | |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 12:56 - Jul 28 with 2764 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 12:05 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
There is technology, that was originally developed for military, I.e. guided missiles, that are now in iPhones.
If climate change is real, and we don’t do anything, that will be bad.
If climate change is real, and we develop technologies that can be re-used and are generally an advancement or a replacement for what we do now, that also help with climate change, then that should be good.
If climate change is not real, and we develop technologies that can be re-used and are generally an advancement or a replacement for what we do now, then maybe that is okay.
Cheaper ways to generate energy from the Sun, and maybe do things like desalination with less energy or cheaper, would obviously have other uses.
People that sell oil and natural gas, would not like it as much, but as we see some companies that have sold oil and gas, are investing in such future technologies.
So not much downside.
So could there be things that are developed for space travel, have benefits for humans on earth.
It is a possibility.
If that is funded by private individuals taking trips to “Space” by Musk/Branson developed products, maybe not an ideal way to do things, but you would still take any technology that is re-used.
Ideally, if a consensus was reached, not only on climate change, but also the sort of timeframe that bad things will happen, then we could decide that X% of GDP is worth investing.
A bit like the US did to get a man on the moon.
That would be a much better approach. Countries could decide to invest 4% of GDP to solve a global issue. |
For the sake of this discussion let's just go with human induced climate change is real! |  |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 13:02 - Jul 28 with 2751 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 12:56 - Jul 28 by BanksterDebtSlave |
For the sake of this discussion let's just go with human induced climate change is real! |
...from there this may well become a debate about technofix v other paradigms going forward.
This would imho be similar to the technofix v other (land reform etc) debate about food production from the 60/70's. In that instance leading to species decline, monocultures, soil erosion, polluted water courses, food miles etc... v well we will never know.
So there will be many unknowns in this debate too....so just for 'fun' ! | |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 10:35 - Jul 29 with 2637 views | StokieBlue |
Sorry for the delay, turned out to be a bit busier yesterday than I expected.
So to tackle the specific points in the order you listed them:
Asteroid Mining
This is actually a very interesting subject. As it stands we are running low on a number of vital materials which are required to run our lives (including generating renewable power). More sources are available on the Earth but it would involve things like mining the seabed which I don't believe is a particularly brilliant idea.
If we take a real example of asteroid 16 Psyche, it's believed to contain 1.7x10^19 kg of nickel-iron. That is enought to supply the world at current requirement levels for millions of years. So given that it's a pretty simple equation of which produces more greenhouse gases - the launch of the infrastructure needed to mine (this will be front-loaded as once it's up there they don't need to do it again) versus the ongoing greenhouse gases from all the iron ore mines globally. That also doesn't factor in the environmental impact of the open mines themselves or the need to expand into mining in harder locations such as the seabed.
The above can be extrapolated for many minerals, I only just nickel-iron as an example. Platinum, gold (vital in electronics) and rare-earths can also be found in abundance in asteroids.
So in my opinion, if the the economics can work (ie. good ROI) then I think asteroid mining has a huge part to play in reducing climate change. You are essentially moving a huge chunk of emissions offworld. We aren't at the point to do any of this yet of course but it probably should happen eventually.
Mirrors in space
I've not seen this and althought he physics would technically work I am with you, it's a bit of a silly idea. If you wanted to place mirrors in space they shouldn't be for directing radiation outwards but to focus radiation onto a point for directed energy production. There are numerous studies showing how solar energy production in space is hugely more efficient and has the potential to produce more power than we would need.
As for mirrors in the context you've described them, there isn't a place for them in my view.
Mars/Musk
Whilst you may see it as a vanity project I see as something that is vital for humanity for a couple of reasons:
(1) We currently literally have all our eggs in one basket. If an asteroid comes out of the sun (they are harder to detect moving towards us from the sun) on course to hit us we could be done for. As the only currently known civilisation around we have a responsibility to try and stop that and having humans living on more than one astronominical body removes that scenario entirely.
(2) Robots are brilliant for exploring the solar system (much better than humans in many cases) but if we want to look for life on Mars then humans are probably the best bet. The abilities of humans can be replicated but it's likely a human performing the tasks is going to be quicker, more efficient and has the ability to use their reasoning to look at things in a different way. This is important because if we find a second genesis of life then it changes pretty much everything with regards to life in the universe.
(3) We could also move some polluting industries to Mars although that's a really long term idea.
Scale
I think an important thing to highlight here is the actual emissions produced by a rocket launch. The largest rocket in the world at the moment is the SpaceX Falcon Heavy and that produces 149 metric tonnes of carbon per launch which equates to 330 tonnes of CO2 when it reacts in the atmosphere. For comparison, globally, 895,000,000 tonnes of CO2 was produced by flying. Given this there doesn't seem to be a good emissions-based argument against rocket launches given the sheer scales we are talking about. There would need to be 2.7m Falcon Heavy launches a year to equal what aviation produced in 2018 (and that's only going to increase).
An interesting subject.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 12:04 - Jul 29 with 2605 views | CoachRob |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 10:35 - Jul 29 by StokieBlue |
Sorry for the delay, turned out to be a bit busier yesterday than I expected.
So to tackle the specific points in the order you listed them:
Asteroid Mining
This is actually a very interesting subject. As it stands we are running low on a number of vital materials which are required to run our lives (including generating renewable power). More sources are available on the Earth but it would involve things like mining the seabed which I don't believe is a particularly brilliant idea.
If we take a real example of asteroid 16 Psyche, it's believed to contain 1.7x10^19 kg of nickel-iron. That is enought to supply the world at current requirement levels for millions of years. So given that it's a pretty simple equation of which produces more greenhouse gases - the launch of the infrastructure needed to mine (this will be front-loaded as once it's up there they don't need to do it again) versus the ongoing greenhouse gases from all the iron ore mines globally. That also doesn't factor in the environmental impact of the open mines themselves or the need to expand into mining in harder locations such as the seabed.
The above can be extrapolated for many minerals, I only just nickel-iron as an example. Platinum, gold (vital in electronics) and rare-earths can also be found in abundance in asteroids.
So in my opinion, if the the economics can work (ie. good ROI) then I think asteroid mining has a huge part to play in reducing climate change. You are essentially moving a huge chunk of emissions offworld. We aren't at the point to do any of this yet of course but it probably should happen eventually.
Mirrors in space
I've not seen this and althought he physics would technically work I am with you, it's a bit of a silly idea. If you wanted to place mirrors in space they shouldn't be for directing radiation outwards but to focus radiation onto a point for directed energy production. There are numerous studies showing how solar energy production in space is hugely more efficient and has the potential to produce more power than we would need.
As for mirrors in the context you've described them, there isn't a place for them in my view.
Mars/Musk
Whilst you may see it as a vanity project I see as something that is vital for humanity for a couple of reasons:
(1) We currently literally have all our eggs in one basket. If an asteroid comes out of the sun (they are harder to detect moving towards us from the sun) on course to hit us we could be done for. As the only currently known civilisation around we have a responsibility to try and stop that and having humans living on more than one astronominical body removes that scenario entirely.
(2) Robots are brilliant for exploring the solar system (much better than humans in many cases) but if we want to look for life on Mars then humans are probably the best bet. The abilities of humans can be replicated but it's likely a human performing the tasks is going to be quicker, more efficient and has the ability to use their reasoning to look at things in a different way. This is important because if we find a second genesis of life then it changes pretty much everything with regards to life in the universe.
(3) We could also move some polluting industries to Mars although that's a really long term idea.
Scale
I think an important thing to highlight here is the actual emissions produced by a rocket launch. The largest rocket in the world at the moment is the SpaceX Falcon Heavy and that produces 149 metric tonnes of carbon per launch which equates to 330 tonnes of CO2 when it reacts in the atmosphere. For comparison, globally, 895,000,000 tonnes of CO2 was produced by flying. Given this there doesn't seem to be a good emissions-based argument against rocket launches given the sheer scales we are talking about. There would need to be 2.7m Falcon Heavy launches a year to equal what aviation produced in 2018 (and that's only going to increase).
An interesting subject.
SB |
On the mirrors in space, the feasibility and effectiveness can be questioned but how do you deal with albedo reducing as a result of melting sea ice and glaciers. The amount of solar energy absorbed by earth increases as shown in this recent paper and the possible consequences are rather sobering.
http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2019.pdf |  | | |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 12:08 - Jul 29 with 2598 views | StokieBlue |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 12:04 - Jul 29 by CoachRob |
On the mirrors in space, the feasibility and effectiveness can be questioned but how do you deal with albedo reducing as a result of melting sea ice and glaciers. The amount of solar energy absorbed by earth increases as shown in this recent paper and the possible consequences are rather sobering.
http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2019.pdf |
I think the question is: Are giant geoengineering projects the way to deal with the problems of climate change.
If you think they are then there are many ways to increase the albedo, some effective, some less so. It's a problem that's been known about for quite some time. There are also many other geoengineering projects that could be undertaken.
I don't think that mirrors in space is one of the best though when the virtually the same technology can generate power and reduce the amount that needs to be generated on Earth.
SB [Post edited 29 Jul 2019 12:09]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 16:26 - Jul 29 with 2543 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Thanks for the time you have devoted to the input Stokie....I will chalk you up on the technofix side I think.
By chance I just stumbled upon this as a philosophical counter point maybe....
https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2019/07/the-price-we-pay-for-progress/
....I will chalk myself up on the 'something simpler' side. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 16:32 - Jul 29 with 2535 views | StokieBlue |
No worries, it's an interesting subject.
I don't think there are the two sides you are stating. There is no way that your simpler side is going to happen. You are essentially telling 3+ billion plus people they can never have things that the west has enjoyed over the last 100 years. That isn't going to work and I think deep down you know that.
I would love to hear your objections to something like asteroid mining if it proves feasible. No matter how much you scale things back to a simpler lifestyle we are going to need raw materials. Any mines will produce harmful emissions so moving those elsewhere is surely a better solution?
I just fundamentally don't understand the mindset that technological progress is bad. It can be problematic, nobody will deny that but it's also the solution to so many things.
Can you outline what your "something simpler" would be so we can be clear?
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 17:35 - Jul 29 with 2519 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 16:32 - Jul 29 by StokieBlue |
No worries, it's an interesting subject.
I don't think there are the two sides you are stating. There is no way that your simpler side is going to happen. You are essentially telling 3+ billion plus people they can never have things that the west has enjoyed over the last 100 years. That isn't going to work and I think deep down you know that.
I would love to hear your objections to something like asteroid mining if it proves feasible. No matter how much you scale things back to a simpler lifestyle we are going to need raw materials. Any mines will produce harmful emissions so moving those elsewhere is surely a better solution?
I just fundamentally don't understand the mindset that technological progress is bad. It can be problematic, nobody will deny that but it's also the solution to so many things.
Can you outline what your "something simpler" would be so we can be clear?
SB |
I have no idea what the end point of 'something simpler' would be but a good starting point would be an honest appraisal of what percentage of all the stuff we consume and how we consume it has positively benefitted the human condition...this would save the rest of the planet from wasting their time and an awful lot of resources.
I would say that I am equally incredulous that you can countenance a future where 3 billion people are told that they can have that stuff.
If you applied the have you used it in the last 3 month rule to what you actually use in your household what percentage would be kept, what could be thrown and what could be owned communally? So 1....less stuff.
2..... necessary stuff to be designed to last and be reusable/recyclable.
3....keep the internet going as communication between communities and capacity for scientific learning is key however totally unnecessary data storage (largely to benefit advertisers and stuff mongers) to be massively reduced...sorry kids less, eventually no gaming too! ....so not anti technology Just restricted to societally beneficial technology.
4...this is likely framed in an entirely different economic model, above the pay grade of this lowly gardener but probably beginning with a move to public not private wealth with an end point of no money at all just production based on need for the mutual benefit of the technologically connected syndicates of @narchists living in mutual respect, peace and harmony!
5....can you tell I am making this up as I go along....but it's a start ! 
Ps 1a is trees, trees lots of trees and a move to as much local/home produced food(grown on permaculture principles) as possible.
Ps2...Also population is largely a result of economic drivers...if you have lots of children and one of them 'makes it' then that is your old age taken care of....so a different economic model should result in a reduced population.
Edit... brain and finger now needs a rest ! [Post edited 29 Jul 2019 20:12]
| |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 18:04 - Jul 29 with 2499 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
The cheapest and most feasible option would be to stop causing it.
We were able to do that with damage to the ozone layer and it has begun to repair itself.
We are possibly already too far into climate change for it to be reversible without technology so far unimagined.
Unfortunately, there is greater opposition to changing a fossil-fuel economy due to the power of those who are greatly enriched by it and they have buried their heads in the sand over the consequences. |  |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 18:06 - Jul 29 with 2498 views | NthQldITFC |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 10:35 - Jul 29 by StokieBlue |
Sorry for the delay, turned out to be a bit busier yesterday than I expected.
So to tackle the specific points in the order you listed them:
Asteroid Mining
This is actually a very interesting subject. As it stands we are running low on a number of vital materials which are required to run our lives (including generating renewable power). More sources are available on the Earth but it would involve things like mining the seabed which I don't believe is a particularly brilliant idea.
If we take a real example of asteroid 16 Psyche, it's believed to contain 1.7x10^19 kg of nickel-iron. That is enought to supply the world at current requirement levels for millions of years. So given that it's a pretty simple equation of which produces more greenhouse gases - the launch of the infrastructure needed to mine (this will be front-loaded as once it's up there they don't need to do it again) versus the ongoing greenhouse gases from all the iron ore mines globally. That also doesn't factor in the environmental impact of the open mines themselves or the need to expand into mining in harder locations such as the seabed.
The above can be extrapolated for many minerals, I only just nickel-iron as an example. Platinum, gold (vital in electronics) and rare-earths can also be found in abundance in asteroids.
So in my opinion, if the the economics can work (ie. good ROI) then I think asteroid mining has a huge part to play in reducing climate change. You are essentially moving a huge chunk of emissions offworld. We aren't at the point to do any of this yet of course but it probably should happen eventually.
Mirrors in space
I've not seen this and althought he physics would technically work I am with you, it's a bit of a silly idea. If you wanted to place mirrors in space they shouldn't be for directing radiation outwards but to focus radiation onto a point for directed energy production. There are numerous studies showing how solar energy production in space is hugely more efficient and has the potential to produce more power than we would need.
As for mirrors in the context you've described them, there isn't a place for them in my view.
Mars/Musk
Whilst you may see it as a vanity project I see as something that is vital for humanity for a couple of reasons:
(1) We currently literally have all our eggs in one basket. If an asteroid comes out of the sun (they are harder to detect moving towards us from the sun) on course to hit us we could be done for. As the only currently known civilisation around we have a responsibility to try and stop that and having humans living on more than one astronominical body removes that scenario entirely.
(2) Robots are brilliant for exploring the solar system (much better than humans in many cases) but if we want to look for life on Mars then humans are probably the best bet. The abilities of humans can be replicated but it's likely a human performing the tasks is going to be quicker, more efficient and has the ability to use their reasoning to look at things in a different way. This is important because if we find a second genesis of life then it changes pretty much everything with regards to life in the universe.
(3) We could also move some polluting industries to Mars although that's a really long term idea.
Scale
I think an important thing to highlight here is the actual emissions produced by a rocket launch. The largest rocket in the world at the moment is the SpaceX Falcon Heavy and that produces 149 metric tonnes of carbon per launch which equates to 330 tonnes of CO2 when it reacts in the atmosphere. For comparison, globally, 895,000,000 tonnes of CO2 was produced by flying. Given this there doesn't seem to be a good emissions-based argument against rocket launches given the sheer scales we are talking about. There would need to be 2.7m Falcon Heavy launches a year to equal what aviation produced in 2018 (and that's only going to increase).
An interesting subject.
SB |
Thanks for a very informative read. I'd been idly wondering about the last point (emissions per launch) for a while without bothering to look into it. |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 18:12 - Jul 29 with 2493 views | NthQldITFC |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 16:32 - Jul 29 by StokieBlue |
No worries, it's an interesting subject.
I don't think there are the two sides you are stating. There is no way that your simpler side is going to happen. You are essentially telling 3+ billion plus people they can never have things that the west has enjoyed over the last 100 years. That isn't going to work and I think deep down you know that.
I would love to hear your objections to something like asteroid mining if it proves feasible. No matter how much you scale things back to a simpler lifestyle we are going to need raw materials. Any mines will produce harmful emissions so moving those elsewhere is surely a better solution?
I just fundamentally don't understand the mindset that technological progress is bad. It can be problematic, nobody will deny that but it's also the solution to so many things.
Can you outline what your "something simpler" would be so we can be clear?
SB |
I must admit to feeling more of a Luddite as the years go by, whilst realising that there is no way to stop 'progress' - it is inevitable that the human psyche wants to discover things - in some people for the sake of knowledge and in most for the sake profit.
Unfortunately the more we learn the more damage we do, irrespective of the good intentions of most, on our finite planet. | |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 21:53 - Jul 29 with 2457 views | StokieBlue |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 18:12 - Jul 29 by NthQldITFC |
I must admit to feeling more of a Luddite as the years go by, whilst realising that there is no way to stop 'progress' - it is inevitable that the human psyche wants to discover things - in some people for the sake of knowledge and in most for the sake profit.
Unfortunately the more we learn the more damage we do, irrespective of the good intentions of most, on our finite planet. |
That may be true although it's a pessimistic view. Luckily my post was describing how technological progress can stop that damage rather than increase it.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 23:13 - Jul 29 with 2436 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 10:35 - Jul 29 by StokieBlue |
Sorry for the delay, turned out to be a bit busier yesterday than I expected.
So to tackle the specific points in the order you listed them:
Asteroid Mining
This is actually a very interesting subject. As it stands we are running low on a number of vital materials which are required to run our lives (including generating renewable power). More sources are available on the Earth but it would involve things like mining the seabed which I don't believe is a particularly brilliant idea.
If we take a real example of asteroid 16 Psyche, it's believed to contain 1.7x10^19 kg of nickel-iron. That is enought to supply the world at current requirement levels for millions of years. So given that it's a pretty simple equation of which produces more greenhouse gases - the launch of the infrastructure needed to mine (this will be front-loaded as once it's up there they don't need to do it again) versus the ongoing greenhouse gases from all the iron ore mines globally. That also doesn't factor in the environmental impact of the open mines themselves or the need to expand into mining in harder locations such as the seabed.
The above can be extrapolated for many minerals, I only just nickel-iron as an example. Platinum, gold (vital in electronics) and rare-earths can also be found in abundance in asteroids.
So in my opinion, if the the economics can work (ie. good ROI) then I think asteroid mining has a huge part to play in reducing climate change. You are essentially moving a huge chunk of emissions offworld. We aren't at the point to do any of this yet of course but it probably should happen eventually.
Mirrors in space
I've not seen this and althought he physics would technically work I am with you, it's a bit of a silly idea. If you wanted to place mirrors in space they shouldn't be for directing radiation outwards but to focus radiation onto a point for directed energy production. There are numerous studies showing how solar energy production in space is hugely more efficient and has the potential to produce more power than we would need.
As for mirrors in the context you've described them, there isn't a place for them in my view.
Mars/Musk
Whilst you may see it as a vanity project I see as something that is vital for humanity for a couple of reasons:
(1) We currently literally have all our eggs in one basket. If an asteroid comes out of the sun (they are harder to detect moving towards us from the sun) on course to hit us we could be done for. As the only currently known civilisation around we have a responsibility to try and stop that and having humans living on more than one astronominical body removes that scenario entirely.
(2) Robots are brilliant for exploring the solar system (much better than humans in many cases) but if we want to look for life on Mars then humans are probably the best bet. The abilities of humans can be replicated but it's likely a human performing the tasks is going to be quicker, more efficient and has the ability to use their reasoning to look at things in a different way. This is important because if we find a second genesis of life then it changes pretty much everything with regards to life in the universe.
(3) We could also move some polluting industries to Mars although that's a really long term idea.
Scale
I think an important thing to highlight here is the actual emissions produced by a rocket launch. The largest rocket in the world at the moment is the SpaceX Falcon Heavy and that produces 149 metric tonnes of carbon per launch which equates to 330 tonnes of CO2 when it reacts in the atmosphere. For comparison, globally, 895,000,000 tonnes of CO2 was produced by flying. Given this there doesn't seem to be a good emissions-based argument against rocket launches given the sheer scales we are talking about. There would need to be 2.7m Falcon Heavy launches a year to equal what aviation produced in 2018 (and that's only going to increase).
An interesting subject.
SB |
"We currently literally have all our eggs in one basket. If an asteroid comes out of the sun (they are harder to detect moving towards us from the sun) on course to hit us we could be done for. As the only currently known civilisation around we have a responsibility to try and stop that and having humans living on more than one astronominical body removes that scenario entirely. "
I have to take issue with your eggs in one basket comment as I have 12 currently in my fridge. Literally.
On a more serious note, do you really think we have a responsibility to try and prevent an asteroid wiping us out? I mean, who are we to mess with celestial bodies?
If the dinosaurs had had the same attitude of self-importance, and advanced space engineering abilities to boot, we might not even be here now! |  |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 00:51 - Jul 30 with 2410 views | Sarge |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 23:13 - Jul 29 by caught-in-limbo |
"We currently literally have all our eggs in one basket. If an asteroid comes out of the sun (they are harder to detect moving towards us from the sun) on course to hit us we could be done for. As the only currently known civilisation around we have a responsibility to try and stop that and having humans living on more than one astronominical body removes that scenario entirely. "
I have to take issue with your eggs in one basket comment as I have 12 currently in my fridge. Literally.
On a more serious note, do you really think we have a responsibility to try and prevent an asteroid wiping us out? I mean, who are we to mess with celestial bodies?
If the dinosaurs had had the same attitude of self-importance, and advanced space engineering abilities to boot, we might not even be here now! |
“On a more serious note, do you really think we have a responsibility to try and prevent an asteroid wiping us out? I mean, who are we to mess with celestial bodies? ”
Personally I don’t think we have to respect the rule of nature and let it take its course in this instance. I think the instinctive attitude adopted by all living things is the preservation and continuation of that life. If we had the ability to predict and stop tsunamis from occurring, morally we should, shouldn’t we? Ultimately an asteroid is just a flying rock, it has no greater purpose. |  | | |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 07:18 - Jul 30 with 2371 views | gordon |
While I don't know much about these technologies, I'm not sure that the timescales are consistent with them being playing a significant part in adaptation or mitigation.
The retreat of glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau could be a humanitarian disaster on a scale which we've never really see before - the challenge will be compounded by various other impending humanitarian disasters looming, desertification / drought in the Sahel, floods in the great river deltas of SE Asia etc, billions of people displaced.
As these crises begin to spread and compound through the middle and later part of this century, a response from a technocratic elite of well look, we'd like to help, but we'd really better concentrate on getting our spaceship for Mars packed, wouldn't be great way to found a new civilisation.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/04/big-melt-tibetan-plateau/
(that's an old article, but a pretty good one) |  | | |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 07:54 - Jul 30 with 2360 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 07:18 - Jul 30 by gordon |
While I don't know much about these technologies, I'm not sure that the timescales are consistent with them being playing a significant part in adaptation or mitigation.
The retreat of glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau could be a humanitarian disaster on a scale which we've never really see before - the challenge will be compounded by various other impending humanitarian disasters looming, desertification / drought in the Sahel, floods in the great river deltas of SE Asia etc, billions of people displaced.
As these crises begin to spread and compound through the middle and later part of this century, a response from a technocratic elite of well look, we'd like to help, but we'd really better concentrate on getting our spaceship for Mars packed, wouldn't be great way to found a new civilisation.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/04/big-melt-tibetan-plateau/
(that's an old article, but a pretty good one) |
A good point well put. | |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 08:05 - Jul 30 with 2348 views | StokieBlue |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 07:18 - Jul 30 by gordon |
While I don't know much about these technologies, I'm not sure that the timescales are consistent with them being playing a significant part in adaptation or mitigation.
The retreat of glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau could be a humanitarian disaster on a scale which we've never really see before - the challenge will be compounded by various other impending humanitarian disasters looming, desertification / drought in the Sahel, floods in the great river deltas of SE Asia etc, billions of people displaced.
As these crises begin to spread and compound through the middle and later part of this century, a response from a technocratic elite of well look, we'd like to help, but we'd really better concentrate on getting our spaceship for Mars packed, wouldn't be great way to found a new civilisation.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/04/big-melt-tibetan-plateau/
(that's an old article, but a pretty good one) |
I don't think anyone is saying we should carry on regardless and technology will save us. There needs to be immediate action but if we can utilise technology over the medium term as part of the solution then we should.
There is no downside in closing every iron ore mine on the planet if an alternative source becomes feasible. I don't agree with any position which days things like offworld mining shouldn't be researched and attempted (I know that's not your position).
Mars is more for research, finding a second biogenesis would be the biggest discovery in human history, possibly the biggest discovery we could ever make as a species.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 08:10 - Jul 30 with 2346 views | gordon |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 08:05 - Jul 30 by StokieBlue |
I don't think anyone is saying we should carry on regardless and technology will save us. There needs to be immediate action but if we can utilise technology over the medium term as part of the solution then we should.
There is no downside in closing every iron ore mine on the planet if an alternative source becomes feasible. I don't agree with any position which days things like offworld mining shouldn't be researched and attempted (I know that's not your position).
Mars is more for research, finding a second biogenesis would be the biggest discovery in human history, possibly the biggest discovery we could ever make as a species.
SB |
Sure, I agree with all that, but I don't really think these possibilities should be framed around climate change, because the timescales are so different. | | | |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 09:08 - Jul 30 with 2312 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 00:51 - Jul 30 by Sarge |
“On a more serious note, do you really think we have a responsibility to try and prevent an asteroid wiping us out? I mean, who are we to mess with celestial bodies? ”
Personally I don’t think we have to respect the rule of nature and let it take its course in this instance. I think the instinctive attitude adopted by all living things is the preservation and continuation of that life. If we had the ability to predict and stop tsunamis from occurring, morally we should, shouldn’t we? Ultimately an asteroid is just a flying rock, it has no greater purpose. |
Interesting comments. I don't actually know what I think here, It's good hearing all these different opinions. I even think there's a case for arguing that all our actions are natural because they ate a result of us being natural beings doing stuff in our own habitat. In that respect, stopping a flying rock destined to wipe us out is sort of "natural".
If we stretch that argument though, so is extraction of the Earth's natural resources and burning them.
I'm not sure we have a moral obligation to stop tsunamis happening either. It's fair play, to try to stop them from a preservation of your species point of view, but is it a moral issue? Perhaps it is. I'm not sure.
Finally, that flying rock. How can we know it has no greater purpose? I'm not looking at this from a theological point of view, rather one of scale based awareness. I mean, a mitochondrion in one of my skin cells would likely have some chemical awareness of the other components it shares its cell with, but is unlikely aware at all that there ate billions of cells like his own just a few centimetres outside the walls of his own cell. It (the single mitochondrion wouldn't imagine in its wildest dreams that it was part of a multi-trillion cell collection called a person. Perhaps we are looking at our planet in the same way as the mitiochondrion looks at his world, just the contents of the cell in which it lives and works.
Who knows? | |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 09:21 - Jul 30 with 2299 views | StokieBlue |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 09:08 - Jul 30 by caught-in-limbo |
Interesting comments. I don't actually know what I think here, It's good hearing all these different opinions. I even think there's a case for arguing that all our actions are natural because they ate a result of us being natural beings doing stuff in our own habitat. In that respect, stopping a flying rock destined to wipe us out is sort of "natural".
If we stretch that argument though, so is extraction of the Earth's natural resources and burning them.
I'm not sure we have a moral obligation to stop tsunamis happening either. It's fair play, to try to stop them from a preservation of your species point of view, but is it a moral issue? Perhaps it is. I'm not sure.
Finally, that flying rock. How can we know it has no greater purpose? I'm not looking at this from a theological point of view, rather one of scale based awareness. I mean, a mitochondrion in one of my skin cells would likely have some chemical awareness of the other components it shares its cell with, but is unlikely aware at all that there ate billions of cells like his own just a few centimetres outside the walls of his own cell. It (the single mitochondrion wouldn't imagine in its wildest dreams that it was part of a multi-trillion cell collection called a person. Perhaps we are looking at our planet in the same way as the mitiochondrion looks at his world, just the contents of the cell in which it lives and works.
Who knows? |
By that argument we might as well never do anything just in case we are interfering with an unknowable greater purpose.
Given in your description it's impossible to know this greater purpose it must surely be disregarded entirely. If not then everything is a guess about around an unquantifable and unfalsifiable idea.
SB [Post edited 30 Jul 2019 9:23]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 11:44 - Jul 30 with 2256 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Stokie (and allcomers), as requested, a seperate thread.....space and climate.. on 09:21 - Jul 30 by StokieBlue |
By that argument we might as well never do anything just in case we are interfering with an unknowable greater purpose.
Given in your description it's impossible to know this greater purpose it must surely be disregarded entirely. If not then everything is a guess about around an unquantifable and unfalsifiable idea.
SB [Post edited 30 Jul 2019 9:23]
|
You think it's an unknowable greater purpose. I'm not so sure it is. I'm more optimistic about humanity and the future of scientific discovery to write it off. I'm sure you'd use other words to describe that sort of open-minded scepticism.
My "description" is purely an example of how some people illustrate why we don't know about the things that are outside our self-defined limits of our consciousness. I'm not saying it's impossible to know these sorts of things and certainly not saying they must be disregarded.
Nothing should be disregarded in science. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
