Just a quickie: nice concept, overall approach seems to tick most, if not all, of the boxes. Analogising in terms of the human body, in this case comparing the earth to a sick child, tends to have a strong resonance for us--well, we all know a bit about human bodies and can easily relate in terms of them.
A niggle about the child analogy: isn't the planet a bit past the child stage in terms of development? Our species is now old enough to try prescribing the planet's treatment. A better fit than childhood would be 'coming of age' in the old Brit sense of reaching adult estate at the age of 21. Adults have to make their own ways, make their own decisions and live or die by the results. But I am probably running off down another road with that. In general there are many of us who would prefer what might be described as a geonurturing approach--historically we have seen enough scorched earth and bold radical surgery approaches to be very wary of going down that road again in the current apocalyptic situation. Alvia: the kind of approach Ray is taking precludes nuclear options. What he says about population isn't addressed at all in your response. And what do you suggest re population? It isn't a topic that can simply be ignored in the long term--even though, in the long term we are all dead.... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
