----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 7:59 PM Subject: [Global Change: 2012] Re: The seventieth generation
> > Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Robert. > > On 8/3/07, Robert A. Rohde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> If there are people to worry about in 20800, then it is very likely >> that they will be better equipped to deal with any concievable >> "damage" than we are today. So yes, I think a harm applied in 20800 >> should be weighted less than one applied in 2080. > > > This is not an altogether frivolous thought experiment. It appears > likely that we are in fact buying enormous and unavoidable climate > changes thousands of years into the future, when the contemporary heat > pulse propagates down to the mid-ocean and cause a carbon release > comparable to the direct anthropogenic one. > > http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GC000854.shtml > > mt I am reminded of the case of Permian Shield Volcano vs. All Life on Earth. According to the prosecution's theory, the enormous outgassing kicked off a warming that turned the oceans into a stagnant cyanobacterial pudding, with the resultant silent but deadly hydrogen sulfide flux killing off 90% of species on land and sea. Species, being what they are, bounced back to fill the empty niches, only to suffer yet another mass extinction, and another bounce-back yet again to where we are today, in the age of mammals, contemplating the distinctly mammalian morality of the next mass extinction. Viewed from this perspective, the rhythmic pulse of Earth's biotic tides admit little room for moral intervention; it's just earth pouring earth into earth. Morality plays out in how humans treat each other, and there are plenty of humans here and now to exercise our better judgment in shaping our behavior towards one another. I agree with Rhode that our near-term predicament offers enough opportunity for rational action and moral reasoning without stepping into the issue of whether future civilizations should or should not deploy orbiting parasols or submarine carbon bunkers. Those who adopt the moral ethos of sustainability will attempt to exert influence so as to not deprive future civilizations of the option to geoengineer the global energy budget, and they will make this attempt in competition or cooperation with groups aligned on other moral values and principles; freedom, equality, happiness, survival, and so on. That is the political struggle that ultimately determines what value or discount is placed on long term consequences versus near term beneficial achievements. -dl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 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/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
