"J.D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If I thought that without a cut 30% of the US Carbon
>Emissions in the next 10 years we would likely start
>losing some of major cities, then I'd consider it. As
>it is, I think that the global warming problem likely
>has a much larger timeframe than that, and that the
>same marginal benefit to global temperatures can
>likely be achieved through much cheaper cuts 10-30
>years from now, thanks to advances in technologies.
That's somewhat similar to my stance.
I figure we'll either develop cheap fusion and move off-planet in the next
few centuries (either physically or digitally), or such things are beyond
the organizational and technological capabilities of mere humans and we'll
destroy ourselves, taking the bulk of the biosphere with us, as we slam
headlong into our limitations. Long term stability - that is, freezing
technology at current levels - doesn't seem an even remotely feasible option
without rewiring the brains of 6 billion Homo sapiens to a nearly
inconveivable extent.
In the former case we'll have plenty of time to fix things up after the
fact. In the latter case, it's rather moot.
Of course, this sounds dangerously like apocalyptic ravings, and - if a
widespread philosophy - would lead to ever-accelerated damage that might
kill us before we acheive the necessary technologies. A better "public"
philosophy to promote would be one that maximizes the possibilities for
scientific and technological advances and minimizing the factors that would
work against that. If most scientific work went on, say, on the beaches of
the world that are at danger of being flooded c/o global warming, I'd more
strongly advocate reducing greenhouse admissions.
But I'm a cynical bastard. :)
Joshua
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
