A teleological, anthropomorphic description of a "series of suicide attempts" seems just as silly as a teleological, anthropomorphic description of a loving mother-goddess. In the range of possible states of the system, there are regions of negative feedback and other regions of positive feedback. The system spends most of its time in regions of negative feedback, for the obvious reason that it tends to stay in those when it's in them. But changes such as the appearance of a new metabolic pathway can nudge it into a region of positive feedback, sometimes leading to mass extinction.
Was the argument about anything but imagery and rhetoric? On Jan 16, 2:51 am, "John Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote: > I also agree completely. i thought Andrews email was very clear. > My hope is that the Royal Society's report this spring will reach the same > conclusion. > > john Gorman > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Nissen > To: [email protected] ; [email protected] > Cc: geoengineering ; Peter Read ; [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:15 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia perspective of > Earth > > Hi Andrew, > > I agree with you absolutely: > > I think we need to be focussed very carefully on preventing any > significant sudden climate change. According to my reading of the > Arctic sea ice data, this means we have to act almost immediately if > we are to use 'gentle geoengineering'. Something far more onerous may > be required if we dawdle and argue for a year or two. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage > > That to me is completely rational. But why aren't people leaping into > action? > > My point was that our "world view" affects the way we consider our present > condition, and can produce irrational behaviour. If we (as a society) had a > world view that expected disaster, then we would be on the lookout for > imminent disasters to ward them off. As it is, we are looking at the Arctic > sea ice disappearing, and behaving as if we can't or shouldn't try and save > it - quite irrational. > > Cheers, > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:16 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia perspective of > Earth > > I think this debate has become overly narrowed by it's focus on > survival. Our existence is testament to to survival of a mere > fraction of our ancestors. The genetic records suggests that at > several point in human history, entire races or the species itself > were reduced to a few individuals. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe > > I think we should be looking at preserving civilisation, not merely a > few scattered individuals eking out an existence in a post-apocalyptic > wasteland (a la Mad Max or Terminator). > > Many writers have suggested that civilisations of whatever complexity > just aren't that stable in the face of even temporary climate change. > The Toba eruption, the Mayan collapse, the Clovis event and the 1159BC > cooling event are examples among many. > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10884-collapse-of-civilisations... > > Further, the complexity of our society makes it far less robust than > distributed, agrarian societies of the past. > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826501.500-the-demise-of-civi... > > I think we need to be focussed very carefully on preventing any > significant sudden climate change. According to my reading of the > Arctic sea ice data, this means we have to act almost immediately if > we are to use 'gentle geoengineering'. Something far more onerous may > be required if we dawdle and argue for a year or two. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage > > A > > 2009/1/15 Bonnelle Denis <[email protected]>: > > > Dear all, > > > I am surprised that time orders of magnitude are not considered as a main > parameter in such a debate. > > > It is an interesting idea that "Although windows of stability are > possible, they are simply respites between catastrophic boom-and-bust > cycles", but those windows have proved able to be stable during tens of > millions years (ice ages oscillations - driven by positive feedback forces - > have developed within a "tunnel" of precise limits which operated as rather > efficient negative feedbacks, so I'm speaking only about the major events > which really threatened life itself). > > > I agree with the anthropic principle, which says that things are what > they are but that if there had been thousands of narrow escapes, very likely > we wouldn't be here to discuss them. So, things are what they are but there > are some reasons that the number of such narrow escapes is lower than ten in > 4 billion years. > > > So, three time orders of magnitude should be considered: > > > - geological time: the Gaia model would probably provide us with some > tens of millions years of security, even if in the longer run the Medea one > could override it; > > - anthropogenic perturbation time: will we, e.g., reach the 800 ppm CO2 > level in 2040 or 2100 or never? > > - science progress time: when will there be enough knowledge for us to > either offer the economy clean and cheap solutions such a renewable energies, > or be able to fix the climate (using geoengineering) in a safe way? > > > Two conclusions can be drawn from this: > > - the Gaia / Medea debate is not an emergency from a practical point of > view (it may be relevant from a political / symbolic one) > > - there is a race among anthropogenic perturbation time and science > progress time, and every efforts should be considered as adding up rather > than competing against each other: curbing the CO2 emissions is necessary to > slow the anthropogenic perturbation down, and investigating, at the same > time, "fundamental applied physics", massive renewable energies economics, > and geoengineering, is safer than relying on only one tool to fix the climate > up. > > > The third possible debate: "should geoengineering be promoted in order to > protect us from Medea's dangers?" (surveying and fighting every dangerous > asteroids, and biological equivalents of such an idea) is, from a theoretical > point of view, equally interesting, but it is clearly not that urgent. > > > Cheers, > > > Denis Bonnelle. > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de John Nissen > > Envoyé : mercredi 14 janvier 2009 18:08 > > À : [email protected]; [email protected] > > Cc : geoengineering; Peter Read; [email protected]; Martin J > Rees > > Objet : [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia perspective > of Earth > > > Dear all, > > > I think this kind of life-force thinking runs very deep, and prevents us > > acting appropriately. > > > Just about the whole environment movement seems to be based on a thinking > > that the planet is naturally stable, and if only mankind can behave > > "naturally", all will be well - the negative feedbacks will kick in to > halt > > the current global warming and bring the temperature back to normal. > > Putting vast amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is not "natural". Putting > > sulphur in the air is not "natural". Both are CO2 and sulphur compounds > are > > seen as pollutants, and therefore, by definition bad. > > > This leads to illogical behaviour. We have to reduce sulphur emissions, > > although this leads to exacerbate global warming - possibly causing the > > visible acceleration in global warming in mid 80s shown in the glacier ice > > mass loss record (a good proxy for global temperature) [1] [2]. I know > that > > the argument is supposedly all about acid rain and asthma, but it has > > inhibited our clear thinking about the possibility of using stratospheric > > aerosols to cool the planet. > > > And, as another illogicality, our view of CO2 as pollutant makes us think > > that, because CO2 has caused global warming, therefore cutting our > emissions > > will solve all our problems. This blinds us to seeing that the Arctic sea > > ice problem cannot be solved by cutting CO2 emissions and we have to apply > > geoengineering. > > > But geoengineering in general is seen as unnatural. Our instinct is to > let > > the planet sort itself out, with minimum interference from ourselves. We > > seem even happy for another 2 degrees global warming, although global > > warming is already causing enormous problems. > > > The trouble is that the Earth system is not driven by some life force, as > in > > the Gaia theory. Nor is it driven by suicidal tendencies, as in the Medea > > idea. The Earth system has behaved in the way it has, because it needed > to > > produce us. Putting that the other way round, we wouldn't be here to > > appreciate our own development if the universe wasn't precisely as it is, > > and the history of our planet had not been much as it has been. This is > the > > anthropic principle [3] [4], but I'm applying to geological history. > > > So, if you like, there may have been many chance events during the past > four > > billion years that enabled human life to develop eventually. And there > have > > almost certainly been chance events and situations that have enabled > > civilisation to develop and the human population to explode to its current > > level. > > > These chance events (and absence of events) for our own survival are > > unlikely to continue. Therefore we are most likely to have to intervene > for > > own survival. This message is most obvious for the absence of events such > > as super and large bodies colliding with the Earth. We can appreciate > the > > danger, partly because we can think of it as far in the future or very > > theoretical, and therefore can be detached about it [5]. > > > What we seem unable to do is to appreciate an impending disaster which > could > > take us all out. We cannot think that such a thing is possible. Yet it > is > > staring us in the face. It is the Arctic sea ice disappearance and > > consequent massive methane release. That could kill us all, and most of > > life, through global heating far above the 6 degrees hell mark. > > > Cheers, > > > John > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balance > > [2] See also Haeberli comments in: > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
