[Stubbs]

Intersting use of the word proactive, like it's only possible to be taking positive actions if they involve making money.

[Will Hunt]

What I wonder is if we'll ever reach a point, hundreds of years from now, where the most advanced nations have engineered themselves - via synthetic foods and all sorts of crazy shit - into such a resilient existence independent of the 'old concerns' of the natural environment that looking after the natural world doesn't matter, or even enter people's minds. Except perhaps for a few lucky/unlucky tribes left out in the cold living from the land.

With respect, Pete, are you completely mental?

Everything we have comes from the environment in some way, whether it be from an animal, vegetable, or mineral. Where are these future superhumans going to get their water from if not the environment? Where will they gain the materials to synthesise food if not from, well, food? Maybe we'll all decide to be made out of metal as skin and bone is so fragile? Maybe we'll evolve wings so that we can fly above the rising sea levels like albatross? Or some other "crazy shit"?

If you're so hell bent on making money, then just look up "Ecosystem Services". This is a simple concept that any sane and intelligent person grasped a long time ago, but has recently become popularised as a buzz phrase because it is the only way to make simple-minded, one-dimensional accountants realise that if they go far back enough in their supply chain they find "The Environment" at the root of it all.

[Johnny Brown]

areas that currently have a 'marginal' climate for habitation which could become more amenable to habitation

Let's say all of Canada and Siberia become ideal grain-growing country. Do you think those countries will let the population of the less happily affected countries move there? Or do you think barricades will go up as Africa becomes a dust bowl?

There are two extremes to this - do you care only if some humans survive happily - in which case bring it on, or do you care if we cause a mass extinction and ecosystem collapse - in which case we're already there.

Having seen Waterworld I am quietly confident of my place in the future.

[a dense loner]

Aren't you thinking of Westworld at burbage?

[SA Chris]

The Judge Dredd type walled Mega Cities and Cursed Earth scenario doesn't seem that improbable after all.

[petejh]

What I wonder is if we'll ever reach a point, hundreds of years from now, where the most advanced nations have engineered themselves - via synthetic foods and all sorts of crazy shit - into such a resilient existence independent of the 'old concerns' of the natural environment that looking after the natural world doesn't matter, or even enter people's minds. Except perhaps for a few lucky/unlucky tribes left out in the cold living from the land.

With respect, Pete, are you completely mental?

Everything we have comes from the environment in some way, whether it be from an animal, vegetable, or mineral. Where are these future superhumans going to get their water from if not the environment? Where will they gain the materials to synthesise food if not from, well, food? Maybe we'll all decide to be made out of metal as skin and bone is so fragile? Maybe we'll evolve wings so that we can fly above the rising sea levels like albatross? Or some other "crazy shit"?

If you're so hell bent on making money, then just look up "Ecosystem Services". This is a simple concept that any sane and intelligent person grasped a long time ago, but has recently become popularised as a buzz phrase because it is the only way to make simple-minded, one-dimensional accountants realise that if they go far back enough in their supply chain they find "The Environment" at the root of it all.

That's a pretty emotional response to what essentially is idle pondering Will; and quite patronising. Seems I made the mistake of pondering on an emotive issue (climate change) in ambiguous terms which you've chosen to interpret as meaning I'm a signed-up member of the 'let's fuck over everything and everyone for personal gain' brigade. Perhaps worse, I mentioned the self-evident fact that some sections of the human race will seek to gain from whatever circumstances it finds itself in, but I didn't overtly signal how they must be baddies and all us on here are the goodies.
It's likely that I'm much more informed about issues around sustainable development and renewable energy, and much less 'hell-bent on making money' - nice mental leap there! - than you (or Stubbs) might like to believe but I'm not going to churn out links of what I'm reading or bore you with details of behavior which puts me firmly in the right-on group, like some endless online dinner party of well-meaning self-righteous bores.

Your response reaffirms how difficult it is to discuss seemingly overwhelming issues which are beyond any one group's control, without some people becoming defensive and defaulting to facile characterisations. Try reading what I wrote but with a neutral attitude.

[Johnny Brown]

He does have a decent point though - whatever 'crazy shit' they engineer it will still need raw materials. Only the most valuable of these will ever be economic to mine from elsewhere than this planet. Perhaps self-sufficient starships will cruise the galaxy fuelled by a controlled big bang and mining from dead planets, Earth no more real to them than the Garden of Eden is to us. But I'm not convinced.

[andy_e]

Perhaps self-sufficient starships will cruise the galaxy fuelled by a controlled big bang and mining from dead planets, Earth no more real to them than the Garden of Eden is to us.

Is this after the attack and their escape form the twelve planets and Kobol?

[Stubbs]

It's likely that I'm much more informed about issues around sustainable development and renewable energy, and much less 'hell-bent on making money' - nice mental leap there! - than you (or Stubbs) might like to believe but I'm not going to churn out links of what I'm reading or bore you with details of behavior which puts me firmly in the right-on group, like some endless online dinner party of well-meaning self-righteous bores.

Your response reaffirms how difficult it is to discuss seemingly overwhelming issues which are beyond any one group's control, without some people becoming defensive and defaulting to facile characterisations. Try reading what I wrote but with a neutral attitude.

I'm sure you are very well read Pete, it's just that you have a particular habit of playing devil's advocate on a wide range of subjects. Whereas someone like Sloper generally posts their opinions (or a toryboy caricature thereof), you seem to like not posting what you actually think, but something more provocative instead. I don't think this is particularly constructive to a majority of discussions.

[a dense loner]

Yeh like a discussion on ukb that's gonna give answers in how to avoid armageddon. None of it's real

[petejh]

JB - Canada? They'd let anyone in!

Is 'Africa' (I assume you have certain parts of the continent in mind?) going to become a dust bowl? Is 'the US'? Are both, neither? China? The only thing anyone can say with certainty is if and when parts of the world do change into uninhabitable 'dust bowls' the people living there will either die or move, depending on the option available to them.

Are there parts of Africa that can absorb? Are there parts of Africa that may benefit from climate change? Seems to me if you don't know the answers, or at least are asking the questions, to the flip-side then you're just focusing on 'not hitting the lamppost'.

How about as a thought experiment people do a bit of research on any possible positive outcomes of climate change and post up on this thread - see if you can manage it in a way that doesn't get you accused of heresy or believing unfettered capitalism is the one true faith. Doing so might even help counter some angst...

Edit - playing devil's advocate or just circling an argument to get the best understanding of the various factors? Yeah I do, it seems like the most sensible way of trying to understand any complex subject.

[Stubbs]

How about as a thought experiment people do a bit of research on any possible positive outcomes of climate change and post up on this thread - see if you can manage it in a way that doesn't get you accused of heresy or believing unfettered capitalism is the one true faith. Doing so might even help counter some angst...

Edit - playing devil's advocate or just circling an argument to get the best understanding of the various factors? Yeah I do, it seems like the most sensible way of trying to understand any complex subject.

The second paragraph suggests that other people who have posted have come to their point of view without any critical thinking and are just regurgitating the slogans of the particular camp you think belong to. This is a little rude I think.

By positives are you talking economic, geographic, sociological? Obviously the earth's climate has been changing for 4 billion years, I guess one positive outcome of the current trend could be the end of humans and cutting short the Anthropocene epoch and letting the planet sort itself out.

I guess this report from the IPCC would make some good reading to add to the list although it's quite long and maybe a bit dry! https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/full-report/ 

[Oldmanmatt]

Yeh like a discussion on ukb that's gonna give answers in how to avoid armageddon. None of it's real

Oh it's real.


We're all Doooooommeed I tell you, Dooooommmeeed!

(To be read in an hysterical Highland accent).

[Oldmanmatt]

How about as a thought experiment people do a bit of research on any possible positive outcomes of climate change and post up on this thread - see if you can manage it in a way that doesn't get you accused of heresy or believing unfettered capitalism is the one true faith. Doing so might even help counter some angst...

Edit - playing devil's advocate or just circling an argument to get the best understanding of the various factors? Yeah I do, it seems like the most sensible way of trying to understand any complex subject.

The second paragraph suggests that other people who have posted have come to their point of view without any critical thinking and are just regurgitating the slogans of the particular camp you think belong to. This is a little rude I think.

By positives are you talking economic, geographic, sociological? Obviously the earth's climate has been changing for 4 billion years, I guess one positive outcome of the current trend could be the end of humans and cutting short the Anthropocene epoch and letting the planet sort itself out.

I guess this report from the IPCC would make some good reading to add to the list although it's quite long and maybe a bit dry! https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/full-report/

Meant to hit "multi quote" there...

Pete, I read Geology for 2 years before switching to Engineering and still have a greater than passing interest in the subject.

Nothing that is happening is in anyway new. It has all happened before and this is certainly NOT the first time a "life form" has been responsible for catastrophic climate change and mass extinction.

It is the first time that organism has been smart enough to recognise it or do something about it.

I quite like your idea of treating it as a pioneering challenge.

[Johnny Brown]

The only thing anyone can say with certainty is if and when parts of the world do change into uninhabitable 'dust bowls' the people living there will either die or move

Glad we agree on that.

I haven't been more specific because the climate system is incredibly complex, the outcomes of a general temp rise locally are not certain and I'm not a professional.

Yes I am asking the questions of the benefits, of course. Hence my point: the areas in which we are likely to see less habitable areas become more habitable (tundra/ taiga) are mainly sparsely populated. (And as others have pointed out the tundra becoming inhabitable involves the release of huge quantities of greenhouse gases.)

Whereas the areas that are likely to become uninhabitable - due to sea level rise and movement of the desert regions - are mostly fairly densely inhabited. There is a fair chance the equatorial regions might simply become too hot for humans.

Now if we lived in either a perfect utopian society or a complete anarchy everyone might shuffle sideways. In the reality we live in I see it being far more difficult. I think the bonus of growing grapes in Yorkshire, grain in the Yukon or having a little savanna in the Sahara is going to be fairly minor compared with the concurrent problems elsewhere.

There is no doubt in my mind that some will see it as a pioneering challenge and prosper. But I very much doubt that will be the majority. I hope to be dead before it gets going to be honest.

[tomtom]

Nothing that is happening is in anyway new. It has all happened before and this is certainly NOT the first time a "life form" has been responsible for catastrophic climate change and mass extinction.

Actually, the rate of CO2 rise is unprecedented.

CO2 has gone up and down over millions of years - and glacials and interglacials have followed suit... The rise we've seen in the last 100 years is happening far faster than anything that has happened before (that we know about)...

This is a key point - as I keep on saying - the climate systems can have long, sometimes very long lag times - and forcing such a rapid change makes many compensatory systems (negative feedbacks - e.g. carbon sinks) become less effective/redundant..

Stick some more coal on the fire eh...

[Johnny Brown]

this is certainly NOT the first time a "life form" has been responsible for catastrophic climate change and mass extinction

Do you mean a single species or just 'plants etc'? I'm not heard of any past extinctions caused by a single species or even genus before.

[petejh]

Stubbs, here's something I definitely do think: I doubt that human-caused climate change will lead to the extinction of every single human being on the planet. X billion? - yes, I believe a massive reduction in the species is probable but 'reports of the death of the entire human race have been exaggerated'.
I think such a powerful event will be a catalyst for a change in priorities and beliefs, from those that have dominated since the start of the industrial revolution.
Also, I do think a massive correction is probably a healthy thing in the thousands-of-years context of the long-term evolution of the species. But not, obviously, in the 20 - 200 year context of the short-term evolution of John and Jane Doe.
An asteroid strike is more likely to be the end of us all imo.

Meanwhile, I'll concentrate on training my middle two strength and PE.

[kelvin]

I think you and I agree on many things Pete.

[a dense loner]

nobody should concentrate on PE

[kelvin]

Some people obviously need to

[Oldmanmatt]

this is certainly NOT the first time a "life form" has been responsible for catastrophic climate change and mass extinction

Do you mean a single species or just 'plants etc'? I'm not heard of any past extinctions caused by a single species or even genus before.

.

Well, for one thing all that free O2 you and all us Aerobic organisms are so fond of?

By-product of Algal evolution. Totally changed Earths atmosphere and was a death sentence to billions of Anaerobic organisms...

And (here Tom is going to go Librarian Poo), we haven't caused Global warming.
We have been entering into this interglacial period for at least 14,000 years.
Sea levels have consistently been rising throughout that period (your Great X10 ^lots Granddaddy, probably walked over to Calais for a Crepe of a Weekend).

We've been noticing a distinct decline in Glaciation since we started writing things/painting on cave walls.

WE HAVE made it much, much worse and much, much faster. With the added bonus of perhaps pitching it into a positive feed back loop that will send it into uncharted territory.

But there have been plenty of periods in Earths history when it was ice free, or utterly Snow balled. All since life popped up it's interfering head and often that life was one of the driving factors.
Amongst all those pesky Asteroids, Super Volcanos and things; those pernicious little critters, beetle away screwing things up for all the other little critters.

[Oldmanmatt]

Stubbs, here's something I definitely do think: I doubt that human-caused climate change will lead to the extinction of every single human being on the planet. X billion? - yes, I believe a massive reduction in the species is probable but 'reports of the death of the entire human race have been exaggerated'.
I think such a powerful event will be a catalyst for a change in priorities and beliefs, from those that have dominated since the start of the industrial revolution.
Also, I do think a massive correction is probably a healthy thing in the thousands-of-years context of the long-term evolution of the species. But not, obviously, in the 20 - 200 year context of the short-term evolution of John and Jane Doe.
An asteroid strike is more likely to be the end of us all imo.

Meanwhile, I'll concentrate on training my middle two strength and PE.

Now, that one I definitely like/agree with.

Though I wouldn't underestimate how bad things might get quite soon...

[tomtom]

I'm not sure what Librarian poo is but next time I'm in the Library I'll curl down a big stinker in the Civ Eng section

Matt is right though - we're in the middle of an interglacial (the bit between glacials!!!) and yes even as recent as 100kA ago sea level was 15-20m higher...

But this rise in temps in the last 100 years (that's caused by us) is much faster than you'd expect.

Pete - yes society will react at some point - problem is, that when that happens it'll be too late (it probably already is).

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm not sure what Librarian poo is but next time I'm in the Library I'll curl down a big stinker in the Civ Eng section

Matt is right though - we're in the middle of an interglacial (the bit between glacials!!!) and yes even as recent as 100kA ago sea level was 15-20m higher...

But this rise in temps in the last 100 years (that's caused by us) is much faster than you'd expect.

Pete - yes society will react at some point - problem is, that when that happens it'll be too late (it probably already is).

Marine Engineering please.

None of us Mariners are very civil...