But why is that bad in the grander sense of Earth and nature, not just the limited concerns of the human socio-economic sphere? The whole thing is posited that since it devastates the world, its bad. But it won't eliminate life, so its only devastating in the sense of being harmful to humans and a temporary setback on some theoretical genetic progress bar people think exists. But is really just shifting nature to a different set of strange attractors for some period of time.
I don't like how misplaced concern over the devastation to nature is used as an intensifier and justification for doing something. And I definitely don't like that human problems are used to justify doing something - that's what got us into this situation in the first place. And to top it off, why do we think we can "fix" what we "broke" - there's no evidence to indicate that we have the potential to do any such thing.
Irregardless of whether or not global warming is happening and irregardless of whether or not humanity is the cause, I've never seen this question addressed, let along answered by anyone during this debate. I'm a biologist and I'm fairly certain that life on Earth will survive no matter what. The Earth has seen periods of time where it was warmer and where it was colder than now and life survived - its pretty adaptable that way, sort of the definition of life you might say.
What are the consequences of global warming? Possibly some human structures will cease to be and some human life will be lost, tragic in terms of human life lost, but otherwise not great on a scale of "life in general". I don't think that all of a sudden the atmosphere will get hundreds of times as dense and we turn into Venus overnight destroying all life and the future possibility of life on Earth, thats just not logical. So, the "worst case scenario" is that humanity suffers some problems and possibly a few species go extinct. Big deal.
Do we really expect the world and the environment to remain static? The only constant in nature is that it changes and the only constant for life is that it must continually adapt or die. Humanity is so ego-centric that our solution for messing with the world is to mess with it some more and to freeze a condition that we are used to as the permanent and ultimate "perfect world". Is the current world the one we want to be stuck with forever? Is it the best for the interests of nature as a whole rather than just specifically humans?
We should grow up as a species and realize that the world is not here for us, we are merely one of the more recent, globally-successful species. Our conception of what is "right" for the world is not even close to right, its conflating our interests with the interests of nature in general, as if the world were merely made for us. Species come, species go, trying to hang on to the "way things were" is a very immature response to life in general, we are a baby species and acting like it. Its like the whole global warming fixing crowd drank the Kool Aid on the Biblical statement that we are the sheppards and stewards of the world. We should get over ourselves, we aren't that important.
Even if you still think that we should do something and that global warming is bad, do the global warming "fixers" seriously believe that humanity can agree on what is the "right" global environment? Humans can't even agree on simple things like compassion and how to properly treat each other and you think we can agree on the world's climate? They seem to be of the opinion that "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done".
Are we going to have a gigantic document like the European Union's constitution that fixes every detail of how the world should work for eternity? Are we going to pander to every special interest in the world? Do we fix the level of the oceans because the Dutch don't want to move? Do we continue to make the Northwest USA a rain-heavy place so that all of the hydro-electric powerplants continue to work? Did you see the effort that went into determing how "lumpy" soup versus stew was so that the proper taxes could be applied and the proper special interests could be protected? Imagine what the global environment document will be like - the mind boggles and the political shenanigans that humans will get up to.
Does anyone seriously believe that the best answer to humanity messing with the environment is for humanity to mess with it some more? Assume we can get it right on the second try? Believe that we can master all of the details of climate and correctly prognosticate all of the consequences of our actions on it to achieve the desired results? Do you have proof that we can do it rather than a hopelessly, optimistic blind-faith that humanity will figure i
> Maybe a space elevator could double as as a a "space extension cord." Or maybe we could beam the energy back with a REALLY strong laser which is converted back to electricity here on Earth.
That's just what we need, Russia with a large amount of energy and a *really* big laser sitting on the moon.
"Okay now, turn it on... Oops, sorry about that USA, you didn't need New York City, did you? It was an honest mistake. We're working on that targetting. Hold on, let's try that again..." Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Slashdot Mirror
But why is that bad in the grander sense of Earth and nature, not just the limited concerns of the human socio-economic sphere? The whole thing is posited that since it devastates the world, its bad. But it won't eliminate life, so its only devastating in the sense of being harmful to humans and a temporary setback on some theoretical genetic progress bar people think exists. But is really just shifting nature to a different set of strange attractors for some period of time.
I don't like how misplaced concern over the devastation to nature is used as an intensifier and justification for doing something. And I definitely don't like that human problems are used to justify doing something - that's what got us into this situation in the first place. And to top it off, why do we think we can "fix" what we "broke" - there's no evidence to indicate that we have the potential to do any such thing.
From a post on my weblog addressing this very issue, Why is global warming bad?
Irregardless of whether or not global warming is happening and irregardless of whether or not humanity is the cause, I've never seen this question addressed, let along answered by anyone during this debate. I'm a biologist and I'm fairly certain that life on Earth will survive no matter what. The Earth has seen periods of time where it was warmer and where it was colder than now and life survived - its pretty adaptable that way, sort of the definition of life you might say.
What are the consequences of global warming? Possibly some human structures will cease to be and some human life will be lost, tragic in terms of human life lost, but otherwise not great on a scale of "life in general". I don't think that all of a sudden the atmosphere will get hundreds of times as dense and we turn into Venus overnight destroying all life and the future possibility of life on Earth, thats just not logical. So, the "worst case scenario" is that humanity suffers some problems and possibly a few species go extinct. Big deal.
Do we really expect the world and the environment to remain static? The only constant in nature is that it changes and the only constant for life is that it must continually adapt or die. Humanity is so ego-centric that our solution for messing with the world is to mess with it some more and to freeze a condition that we are used to as the permanent and ultimate "perfect world". Is the current world the one we want to be stuck with forever? Is it the best for the interests of nature as a whole rather than just specifically humans?
We should grow up as a species and realize that the world is not here for us, we are merely one of the more recent, globally-successful species. Our conception of what is "right" for the world is not even close to right, its conflating our interests with the interests of nature in general, as if the world were merely made for us. Species come, species go, trying to hang on to the "way things were" is a very immature response to life in general, we are a baby species and acting like it. Its like the whole global warming fixing crowd drank the Kool Aid on the Biblical statement that we are the sheppards and stewards of the world. We should get over ourselves, we aren't that important.
Even if you still think that we should do something and that global warming is bad, do the global warming "fixers" seriously believe that humanity can agree on what is the "right" global environment? Humans can't even agree on simple things like compassion and how to properly treat each other and you think we can agree on the world's climate? They seem to be of the opinion that "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done".
Are we going to have a gigantic document like the European Union's constitution that fixes every detail of how the world should work for eternity? Are we going to pander to every special interest in the world? Do we fix the level of the oceans because the Dutch don't want to move? Do we continue to make the Northwest USA a rain-heavy place so that all of the hydro-electric powerplants continue to work? Did you see the effort that went into determing how "lumpy" soup versus stew was so that the proper taxes could be applied and the proper special interests could be protected? Imagine what the global environment document will be like - the mind boggles and the political shenanigans that humans will get up to.
Does anyone seriously believe that the best answer to humanity messing with the environment is for humanity to mess with it some more? Assume we can get it right on the second try? Believe that we can master all of the details of climate and correctly prognosticate all of the consequences of our actions on it to achieve the desired results? Do you have proof that we can do it rather than a hopelessly, optimistic blind-faith that humanity will figure i
> Maybe a space elevator could double as as a a "space extension cord." Or maybe we could beam the energy back with a REALLY strong laser which is converted back to electricity here on Earth.
That's just what we need, Russia with a large amount of energy and a *really* big laser sitting on the moon.
"Okay now, turn it on... Oops, sorry about that USA, you didn't need New York City, did you? It was an honest mistake. We're working on that targetting. Hold on, let's try that again..." Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.