On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Climate models predict that there should be plenty of statistical > fluctuation on the level of individual decades, > Well now, it would be pretty difficult for that prediction to be proven wrong. It reminds me of the famous and vacuous quote from J P Morgan regarding stocks: "I Believe the Market Is going to fluctuate". > > >> Given that environmentalists are claiming that it might even be too >> late to advert disaster, why aren't we seriously considering geoengineering >> approaches, as the one proposed by Nathan Myhrvold, which can be easily and >> cheaply tested and turned off at any moment? >> > > > I don't think there's any widespread agreement among scientists that > this would halt all the problems associated with high CO2 levels or on what > the side effects would be > So because there is uncertainty about what the effects of Myhrvold's plan would be we shouldn't even consider it (even though it's effects could be reversed just by turning a valve on a hose) but we should consider putting the world on a energy starvation diet because we are certain that the computer models predictions about what things will be like a century from now are correct and are certain that the changes would be so bad for humanity we should take DRASTIC action right now. > Also, if you commit to this plan then you're less likely to make any > attempt to reduce CO2 > That's it! The real problem with Myhrvold's plan is it involves no suffering, even the wicked over-consumer is not punished for his extravagant ways. It reminds me of preachers who opposed giving painkillers to women in childbirth because it was against God's plan. From Genesis 3:15 "To the woman he said, I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children." > Getting more into sci-fi territory, my hope is that within a few decades > robotics may have advanced to the point where industrial robots can > manufacture and assemble almost any mass-produced good without any > significant human labor needed, given the necessary raw materials and > energy--this would include additional industrial robots, so in this case > you'd have self-replicating machines so you could start with a small number > and soon have as large a number as you had land zoned to put them on. If > this is achieved I expect it would drastically reduce the cost of almost > all manufactured goods (probably down to not much more than the cost of the > raw materials and energy they were made from), to the the point where rapid > construction of vast number of solar panels or carbon capture devices could > be far less costly than it would be today. > Yes, and the robots would likely be very very small and very very numerous. And unlike some sci-fi ideas like faster than light spaceships or time travel there is nothing in advanced nanotechnology and molecular scale self reproducing robots that would violate the known laws of physics. New science is not needed to accomplish it, just better technology. > there's no way of knowing how long it would take to reach such a point, > I certainly don't know when it will happen, all I can say is I'd be astonished if it happened in the next 10 years and equally astonished if it didn't happen in the next 100. > I don't think this hope should be an excuse for taking no action today > Why not? I think it's a damn good excuse. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
