What the hell is wrong with humanity?
- Thread starter Number 5
- Start date
Tigger said:
There's also a lot of talk about living in a society without growth.
However, I find quite a lot about the future fascinating, and I think through a fusion of science and philosophy we can overcome a lot of the hurdles we currently face. Lots of interesting people and thoughts, like Ray Kurzweil, Jacques Fresco, but also quite a lot that could go wrong.
I believe symbiotic relationships with man made objects will be inevitable (certain computer chip implants). People are already able to control a robotic arm with their thoughts (a la Luke Skywalker). I also think that we'll eventually hit a time where automatic replication will allow everyone to live in abundance.
It's just that our brains are still built off of outdated software in a sense. We still possess certain brain mechanisms that don't really make a lot of sense in civilized society, and I think that's the biggest challenge: like murders of passion I think are generally fueled by overstimulation of certain brain chemicals and triggers in the brain that was once useful way back in the day when you had to kill a rival to survive.
I think Dawkins also outlines quite a bit of this stuff in the selfish gene.
Bender said:
"What's your boggle?" - i just can't help but think of Judge Dredd while reading your post. But I agree with what you're saying. I don't think there can be a paradigm shift in humanity without first supressing our internal hardwiring. I think history will keep repeating itself in cycles due to the innate selfishness in people and the need to be the top dog.
Considering each generation is born essentially without any education I think it's important to remember just how quickly things can degenerate in 'civilized' society, fwiw. Additionally humans don't seem to have the ability so scope long term consequences of their behavior past a 'nimby' kind of pov.
If you check out Lovelock's writing his prediction is that humans have hurried along climate change rather than outright caused it and that we have around 80 to 100 years before the planet is far to hot to sustain it's current population, he thinks something around 200 million will top it out by then and it will take a millenium before the Earth sorts it out. I think he's more right than wrong.
If you check out Lovelock's writing his prediction is that humans have hurried along climate change rather than outright caused it and that we have around 80 to 100 years before the planet is far to hot to sustain it's current population, he thinks something around 200 million will top it out by then and it will take a millenium before the Earth sorts it out. I think he's more right than wrong.
Tigger said:
I dunno about 80- 100 years though. Sounds a bit alarmist. I doubt he's factored in moderating affects like precipitation. Alot of the additional heat energy will be absorbed and lost by increased evaporation of water and turning it into rain...that takes alot of energy.
There aren't that many places on earth that will be turned from a currently unbearably warm to uninhabitable in 100 years.
Besides, when we get to that point, there's tons of things we can do...even today if govts felt compelled to do so. You can deploy large mirrors in space to deflect sunlight away, it wouldn't take a lot to make a difference. Even more effective, if you could say place them near Venus, from that far out each mirror would imaginably provide a huge swath of coverage over the Earth.
sucka said:
Lovelock is the fellow that proved cfc's were destroying the ozone layer, I imagine he's taken something like the effect of precipitation into account.
Alarmist might be an appropriate word though, considering over 50% of Canada's ice shelves have disappeared in the last 6 years.
How in the world are large mirrors going to be effective in the way you're suggesting?
TheMightyOdin
New member
Blocking out the sun? That's some Montgomery Burns stuff there.
Seriously, even if it was possible, we need the sun.
Seriously, even if it was possible, we need the sun.
Just reducing the amount of sunlight that hits the earth. I remember reading 20 or so years ago in Science Digest (what a great mag back then...Omni too, but before they went into loonie bin, x-files-territory crackpot science) that just blotting out a tiny amount of surface area that recieves sunlight would have a noticeable effect on temperature. Someone calculated something like 1000 mirrors (reflective solar sails) in orbit around the earth...but i figure the farther you move them out, the more effective each one becomes.
TheMightyOdin
New member
Sounds kooky.
Look it up. It was proposed decades ago, but still a viable option today. Various forms of the idea have been proposed, with cost estimates of 10Bln US, which is nothing. Even if it went to $1 trillion, it's still doable given the motivation to do so. It's hardly kooky at all. Definately more benign than sending up particulate up in the atmosphere which is what's being prosposed by some think tanks. There's not that many things that can't be engineered/fixed by people. As long as someone can dare to think it up (think of all the past (legit) science fiction from the 60's and 70's and compare to what's been realized and surpassed today), someone will find a way to make it work.
TheMightyOdin said:
Possible? If you can accept the fact that right now, atoms are being split somewhere so that someone somewhere can send a series of 0 and 1's that turn into music, instantaneously from one part of the world to another, i think sending up sheets of foil on chemical rockets would be child's play. Wow, maybe i'm not such a cynic after all.
sucka said:
The long term carbon cycle and human contribution to it ( though we are part of the natural system too ) is what is driving global warming currently. The Earth's biosphere has the ability to maintain habitable conditions over a wide range of solar luminosity ( ie the ups and downs of how much heat/radiant energy the planet is subjected too ) though I must admit before I really dug into what the carbon cycle means I was much more willing to put stock in the effects of solar radiation on global climate. Lovelock shows how the Earth would have heated up much more gradually over 5 or so centuries without human intervention to pretty much the conditions he's predicting in only a century or so now. If it was even possible blocking out the sun will just stunt and kill plants that can actually help mitigate the effects of the carbon cycle never mind the direct effect on the food chain.
Once extreme change is initiated it's practically impossible to reverse, how do you tell the planet to organize storage of carbon in trees, rocks, biosphere, hydrosphere... the time scales involved in many of those processes are, to put it mildly, rather large. Additionally oceans absorb a vast amount of solar radiation that would make the notion of reflection kind of ridiculous.
Mirrors and particulates aren't going to solve that in the short term, not a chance.
Fwiw what you mentioned about precipitation ( though you were talking about energy when you should be talking about carbon ) can be looked at in a slightly different way with something called the Revelle factor that tells us for every 1ppm of carbon added to the atmosphere the ocean generally absorbs 1/10th of 1ppm.
As an aside the only good reason I can see to try to 'block out solar radiation' comes when I imagine what's going to happen to the food chain once krill and plankton die off, as it is krill are down about 80% ( they like to breed near sea ice ). Algae can't breed in warm water either, coral and fish.... I shouldn't have to go on however believing that mirrors and particulates can have an immediate impact on systems that have taken millions of years to evolve seems extremely short sighted to me but hey, we're only human.
Your original premise was about the planet heating up. I mentioned energy, which really is the same thing as heat in this case. I don't disagree that warming will continue to rise if everything remains unchecked, but probably not as bad as this Lovelock guys thinks. a)evaporation will offset some of this heat energy away. b) as it gets warmer, vegetation will likely increase as well (also due in part to a more humid environment) thus locking up some of the excess carbon, so runaway greenhouse effect may not happen as quickly.
Also, I think you are overestimating the amount of sunlight being blocked that is proposed in those mirror ideas. To block off enough sunlight to affect the food chain would entail an endeavour of a crazy scale. The number of mirrors i recall, 1000 (even this number is meaningless unless you know how big each is, but we can guess given technological feasibility at the time and what's considered practical today, say size of a foot ball field unfurled. 1000 foot ball fields isn't alot. Again, this number is from memory but that's irrelevant, becuase 1000 football fields versus 100,000 football fields or even 1 million football fields is probably not significant if we're talking about the energy requirements for the foodchain. Besides, given the amounts of sunlight recieved today, I'm pretty sure it's the intensity/frequency of the light emitted from the sun that's more important rather than how much of it per second is hitting the earth. Which is why other ideas like diffusing the amount of light, with a convex?/concave? (the one opposite to a magnifying glass) to make it weaker is the more dangerous to the foodchain but probably more difficult to achieve anyway.
Also, I think you are overestimating the amount of sunlight being blocked that is proposed in those mirror ideas. To block off enough sunlight to affect the food chain would entail an endeavour of a crazy scale. The number of mirrors i recall, 1000 (even this number is meaningless unless you know how big each is, but we can guess given technological feasibility at the time and what's considered practical today, say size of a foot ball field unfurled. 1000 foot ball fields isn't alot. Again, this number is from memory but that's irrelevant, becuase 1000 football fields versus 100,000 football fields or even 1 million football fields is probably not significant if we're talking about the energy requirements for the foodchain. Besides, given the amounts of sunlight recieved today, I'm pretty sure it's the intensity/frequency of the light emitted from the sun that's more important rather than how much of it per second is hitting the earth. Which is why other ideas like diffusing the amount of light, with a convex?/concave? (the one opposite to a magnifying glass) to make it weaker is the more dangerous to the foodchain but probably more difficult to achieve anyway.
As I said what is causing the planet to heat up is the way in which the long term carbon cycle is currently operating, not simply solar radiation as in 'hey it's a hot day out'. That's one of the bigger hurdles to overcome when trying to understand what's going on... it's not simply heat that needs to be dealt with it's excess carbon and the way in which that process works takes a very long time and we are practically unable to influence it in a meaningful way. Lovelock calls it 'pulling the trigger' where humans contributed to something ( planetary climate change ) that was going to happen anyways only to make it happen quicker, we don't have the ability to put the bullet back in the gun.
Precipitation is simply an exchange of energy, not a loss. Vegetation is not likely to increase with a 10C change in temperature, it's likely to decrease, same goes for many of the other important mechanisms of biodiversity that actually helped to keep the planets climate stable. Do you have any idea how much carbon we're talking about? Even if vegetation managed to increase the load you're suggesting could be stored is a tiny fraction of what is needed and such storage doesn't happen very quickly from our pov and is only one small part of how carbon is exchanged, stored and regulated here.
I'm saying the notion of reflecting light/energy is pointless from a human perspective even if it were possible, it will have no effect on how the Earth regulates itself in the short term. Understanding how to survive the changes is what sustainable retreat is about, not wasting time and effort trying to create a global thermostat for systems that have such tremendous inertia.
A decent interview with Strombo and Lovelock...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRQ-NqaYFzs
Precipitation is simply an exchange of energy, not a loss. Vegetation is not likely to increase with a 10C change in temperature, it's likely to decrease, same goes for many of the other important mechanisms of biodiversity that actually helped to keep the planets climate stable. Do you have any idea how much carbon we're talking about? Even if vegetation managed to increase the load you're suggesting could be stored is a tiny fraction of what is needed and such storage doesn't happen very quickly from our pov and is only one small part of how carbon is exchanged, stored and regulated here.
I'm saying the notion of reflecting light/energy is pointless from a human perspective even if it were possible, it will have no effect on how the Earth regulates itself in the short term. Understanding how to survive the changes is what sustainable retreat is about, not wasting time and effort trying to create a global thermostat for systems that have such tremendous inertia.
A decent interview with Strombo and Lovelock...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRQ-NqaYFzs
Energy doesn't go away, that's for sure....but it does transform. Heat energy is taken up to evaporate water. The higher the temperature, the more energy the water molecules have. As more excited molecules leave the surface and become vapour that heat energy has been transformed to kinetic energy. So this keeps your energy budget balanced while being able to lose heat in the process. I'm just saying all it does is delay the inevitable. Also 10 degrees over 100 years is a really high estimate, it does seem 1 part science and one part sensationalism, especially when most experts are predicting 5 degrees. I'm not disagreeing that we have a problem here, we do, but i think we can afford to put it off, which is why nothing is being done now. Right now, one person's sweltering heat is another's nice day at the beach. I'm not worried becuase i have faith that when it's crunch time, our children's children will be forced to find the solution for it...what's that saying, the mother of invention is necessity? Not the best way to deal with it, but being realistic about things and accepting human nature for what it is, my money is on nothing meaningful being committed until our hand is forced, and by that i mean once first world countries have a severe enough decline in living standards will anything be done.
I'll try to put this another way. Since about 55 million years ago the Sun has increased in brightness by about 4/10ths of 1% which adds approximately 1 watt per meter squared to the regular total of 240 watts pms normally absorbed by the Earth from the Sun. 55 million years ago there were no glaciers or any kind of frozen water on the planet and there was around 1000 ppm CO2 in that atmosphere and that footprint is roughly equal to a change of 10 watts per meter squared. Normal glacial to interglacial CO2 content is roughly 170 to 300 ppm and currently the Earth sits around 392 ppm.
That should show you how much more impact carbon has on planetary conditions rather than solar radiation.
Atmospheric CO2 is largely contributed by volcanic activity driven by continental drift and counteracted by weathering sinks however the time scales of recovery from high amounts of CO2 are enormous and don't happen at the same time, it took 20 million years for ice to start to develop again ( around 34 million years ago ).
10C may be a high estimate but the fact of the matter is that there is a definite linear increase in mean temperatures in the last 30 years alone, around 4C, enough to initiate the loss of most of the ice around the world by the end of 2030.
Our civilization was founded on a relative node of glacial and interglacial oscillation we call the Holocene period, kind of a Goldie Locks moment for mammals in terms of stable climate and it looks like the bears are coming home.
That should show you how much more impact carbon has on planetary conditions rather than solar radiation.
Atmospheric CO2 is largely contributed by volcanic activity driven by continental drift and counteracted by weathering sinks however the time scales of recovery from high amounts of CO2 are enormous and don't happen at the same time, it took 20 million years for ice to start to develop again ( around 34 million years ago ).
10C may be a high estimate but the fact of the matter is that there is a definite linear increase in mean temperatures in the last 30 years alone, around 4C, enough to initiate the loss of most of the ice around the world by the end of 2030.
Our civilization was founded on a relative node of glacial and interglacial oscillation we call the Holocene period, kind of a Goldie Locks moment for mammals in terms of stable climate and it looks like the bears are coming home.
A further thought to this that hopefully shows how much influence we have on natural change ( if we see ourselves apart from the natural process... ), CO2 changes in the atmosphere at roughly 100ppm per million years by natural processes or .0001 ppm per year. Currently humans are adding 2ppm atmospheric CO2 per year or 10,000 times greater than normal.
Also, ice in the Antarctic can form if atmospheric CO2 ppm is under 450, currently it's 392, 21 years under the current way we operate alone pretty much gets us there.
When the Kyoto accord was signed humans were increasing their contribution of CO2 by about 1.5% per year, in spite of the intent of that accord since then it's increased to 2.5%
Also, ice in the Antarctic can form if atmospheric CO2 ppm is under 450, currently it's 392, 21 years under the current way we operate alone pretty much gets us there.
When the Kyoto accord was signed humans were increasing their contribution of CO2 by about 1.5% per year, in spite of the intent of that accord since then it's increased to 2.5%
hockeyfan1
New member
What''s wrong with humanity, Mordac? The answer, could be, generational. How do I mean by that? Well, for one thing, the generations change. For example, my parents generation was of a different mindset and nature. More in tune with the times, of making a new life for themselves and their respective families. The idea of hard work in line with prosperity, respecting their new country and valuing the opportunity for a brand new start in their lives. A disciplined, 'unspoiled' generation that came from the old country, not having had much in the way of material goods, having had to endure the remnants of WWII, etc., etc.
Circa to today's generation. As we know, human nature changes. So do circumstances that surround us. Today, there is more crime than ever before. (In the '60s, '70s, and even in the mid-to late '80s, Toronto, as an example, was virtually a safe city with little of the violent crime and/or gang violence that we read of now. A huge difference between then then and the now).
It seems that there is more of the 'me' mentality today, in just about every aspect of society, even in politics. Over time, governments have adoped a less-involved stance of helping a community or communities (less money given to the lesser of our society -- no more initiatives to help a poor community with education programs for the young, etc. Economies of scale change over time as well. People have to work longer hours, some requiring two jobs, not all jobs pay well, the poor or rather, the working poor can hardly make ends meet, angry youth, too many people on welfare that do not bring prosperity but poverty to a city, communities stagnate, crime rises (commensurate with poor economic times), people get desperate (drugs, gangs, etc)., which in turn gets a huge amount of coverage in print media & elsewhere makng the situation seem worse than it may or may not be, and this in turn scares people away and make them more leery of getting involved in a situation, be it to help a helpless person victimized by a circumstance of crime, or, of not wanting to get involved for fear of others reactions (usually in the negative).
It seems that the words civility, discipline, value, respect no longer are well-defined in our society any more. Human nature does change, for better and for worse. Depending on the situation at hand, one never can really guess the outcome until it actually happens, and people's reactions are gauged.
I enjoy reading celebrity magazines from time to time, not because I love to gossip (I don't), but purely from an entertainment perspective. J don't gloat at reading about problems of others more well off than I, because the day I become that kind of person, is the day I cannot say I haven't changed. I refuse to be like most people who seem to revel in other's problems, regardless of whether said people are powerful, wealthy, or occupy a certain status in our society.
Circa to today's generation. As we know, human nature changes. So do circumstances that surround us. Today, there is more crime than ever before. (In the '60s, '70s, and even in the mid-to late '80s, Toronto, as an example, was virtually a safe city with little of the violent crime and/or gang violence that we read of now. A huge difference between then then and the now).
It seems that there is more of the 'me' mentality today, in just about every aspect of society, even in politics. Over time, governments have adoped a less-involved stance of helping a community or communities (less money given to the lesser of our society -- no more initiatives to help a poor community with education programs for the young, etc. Economies of scale change over time as well. People have to work longer hours, some requiring two jobs, not all jobs pay well, the poor or rather, the working poor can hardly make ends meet, angry youth, too many people on welfare that do not bring prosperity but poverty to a city, communities stagnate, crime rises (commensurate with poor economic times), people get desperate (drugs, gangs, etc)., which in turn gets a huge amount of coverage in print media & elsewhere makng the situation seem worse than it may or may not be, and this in turn scares people away and make them more leery of getting involved in a situation, be it to help a helpless person victimized by a circumstance of crime, or, of not wanting to get involved for fear of others reactions (usually in the negative).
It seems that the words civility, discipline, value, respect no longer are well-defined in our society any more. Human nature does change, for better and for worse. Depending on the situation at hand, one never can really guess the outcome until it actually happens, and people's reactions are gauged.
I enjoy reading celebrity magazines from time to time, not because I love to gossip (I don't), but purely from an entertainment perspective. J don't gloat at reading about problems of others more well off than I, because the day I become that kind of person, is the day I cannot say I haven't changed. I refuse to be like most people who seem to revel in other's problems, regardless of whether said people are powerful, wealthy, or occupy a certain status in our society.