From: Michael Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 07:45:24 MST
Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> The question isn't whether a temperature change is 'natural' or not,
> or if it has had precedents in the past. The real issue is what will
> its effects be, and do we want to change those effects? As
> transhumanists, I think we in general do not place any special value
> on things being natural rather than man-made, and the same goes for
> climate. Do we want the effects caused by increased amounts of carbon
> dioxide and particulate matter in the atmosphere? Do we want to
> modulate them, or even get rid of these effects - and pay the costs?
>
> >From my perspective up here in Sweden global warming might be a good
> thing. The autumns may become rainier and even more depressing if the
> models are right, but that will likely be made up by a better spring
> (which has a higher value for me personally). On the other hand,
> people in Tchad and the Netherlands might not be as happy. An
> interesting issue is how to manage a climate with many different
> groups having different preferences. According to Martyn Fogg's
> _Terraforming_ it is likely technically feasible in the near future to
> launch enough dust into the stratosphere to induce a multi-degree
> cooling. So what do I do when the Netherlands decide to lower the mean
> temperature and I want to raise it?
Why, you burn, and they sequester. Now, if your burning and
externalization of wastes causes them damage, they rightly have a case
to pursue compensation. The fact is that there are proposals to seed the
oceans with iron to stimulate plankton blooms which seems to be the most
effective way to sequester the huge amounts of carbon that some claim we
need to get rid of. Such proposals are being ignored by global warming
proponents, so it seems to me that they really don't have an interest in
solving the problem. Why then would they seek to continue harping on it
without fixing it? Follow the money. What they want are huge
energy/carbon taxes levied, huge government bureaucracies to study the
problem and propose the international regulation of energy policies. You
have scientists, who normally struggle for grant and scholarship money,
who are proposing solutions that will give them nice secure civil
service jobs with big budgets and the authority to tell evil
corporations how to run their companies. This is all part of the
green/socialist agenda.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:19 MST