mymistake Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Okay how about a realistic solution? Here is an idea - let's build a large, maneuverable space station/ship and put it into solar orbit. Let its shadow fall onto Earth and physically reduce the level of sunlight. Perhaps we would need more than one and this fleet of ships will allow us to directly control how much Earth heats up. I know how to populate the space station. A simple formula: 1) I get to go. 2) Cute girls. 3) Other smart people that can maintain the systems. There, I fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Okay how about a realistic solution? Here is an idea - let's build a large, maneuverable space station/ship and put it into solar orbit. Let its shadow fall onto Earth and physically reduce the level of sunlight. Perhaps we would need more than one and this fleet of ships will allow us to directly control how much Earth heats up. This reminds me of the technology described in Larry Niven's Known Space science fiction books, e.g., Ringworld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llwellyn Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Damn. It seems no one really disagrees that we're not going to fix this. This puts us at a very interesting place in our evolution. We are now the cause of all of the biggest threats that our species is facing, and we're aware of it. But we're not going to do anything about it, because we can't be bothered. Personally, I thought that my solution to the problem was very direct and relevant -- stop contributing to the problem; die leaving no descendants. If all 7.125 billion (2013) of us did this, the problems (as we know them) would be gone. Having no children has always been the most effective way of reducing your carbon footprint, and minimizing your contribution to ecological disaster. Any other attempts at "fixes" are at this point are vain. As you say, the problems of today are consequences of the solutions of the problems of yesterday. There will certainly be negative consequences to population decline, but it seems to be the most intelligent choice at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Damn. It seems no one really disagrees that we're not going to fix this. This puts us at a very interesting place in our evolution. We are now the cause of all of the biggest threats that our species is facing, and we're aware of it. But we're not going to do anything about it, because we can't be bothered. Personally, I thought that my solution to the problem was very direct and relevant -- stop contributing to the problem; die leaving no descendants. If all 7.125 billion (2013) of us did this, the problems (as we know them) would be gone. Having no children has always been the most effective way of reducing your carbon footprint, and minimizing your contribution to ecological disaster. Any other attempts at "fixes" are at this point are vain. As you say, the problems of today are consequences of the solutions of the problems of yesterday. There will certainly be negative consequences to population decline, but it seems to be the most intelligent choice at this point. I agree that the population of the world should decrease. But I do not think that the solution is for all of us to stop having children. This would certainly lead to human extinction, which is the end that I'm hoping we'll avoid. The earth itself is going to be fine. If we do nothing at all about climate change and just keep burning oil and polluting like there is no tomorrow, then we will drive ourselves to extinction. But life on Earth will carry on. In a few hundred million years, who knows what new life forms will emerge? But one thing is certain: in this scenario, humanity will not be among them. That`s the end that I would like to avoid, and this is why your solution doesn't work for me. It doesn't solve the problem of human extinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daffodil Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Damn. It seems no one really disagrees that we're not going to fix this. This puts us at a very interesting place in our evolution. We are now the cause of all of the biggest threats that our species is facing, and we're aware of it. But we're not going to do anything about it, because we can't be bothered. Personally, I thought that my solution to the problem was very direct and relevant -- stop contributing to the problem; die leaving no descendants. If all 7.125 billion (2013) of us did this, the problems (as we know them) would be gone. Having no children has always been the most effective way of reducing your carbon footprint, and minimizing your contribution to ecological disaster. Any other attempts at "fixes" are at this point are vain. As you say, the problems of today are consequences of the solutions of the problems of yesterday. There will certainly be negative consequences to population decline, but it seems to be the most intelligent choice at this point. I agree that the population of the world should decrease. But I do not think that the solution is for all of us to stop having children. This would certainly lead to human extinction, which is the end that I'm hoping we'll avoid. The earth itself is going to be fine. If we do nothing at all about climate change and just keep burning oil and polluting like there is no tomorrow, then we will drive ourselves to extinction. But life on Earth will carry on. In a few hundred million years, who knows what new life forms will emerge? But one thing is certain: in this scenario, humanity will not be among them. That`s the end that I would like to avoid, and this is why your solution doesn't work for me. It doesn't solve the problem of human extinction. That's such a good point. The earth has been through mass extinctions before resulting from cataclysmic changes in the atmosphere (giant asteroids slamming the earth) and has bounced back with new or evolved life forms. It seems so awful to us that a certain species, like the white rhino, is almost extinct, because that creature is familiar to us. But untold millions of life forms have come and gone, most of which we don't even know about, and we don't "grieve" for them. Because we have such a tiny, short-lived life in the grand scheme of the universe, we tend to have a tiny, short-lived view of reality. I think this is why I still (gasp!) don't fully buy into the whole climate change being all humans' fault thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 German Study from the Max Plank Institute casts doubt on Glow Bull Warming. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1 I didn't know there were German scientists on the Big Oil payroll. (okay, that was a joke) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts