[ExI] Was Re: Global Temperatures to Decrease

[Morris Johnson]

 Message: 16
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:06:20 -0400
From: "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Use of Irony,        or Miscommunication? (Was Re: Global
       Temperatures to Decrease


>  iii) assuming that i) is true, and irrespective of whether ii) is true
>  or not, is it an entirely negative development?

### No! Global warming is good for you! Seriously, as in, I am not
being sarcastic. It is predicted to increase agricultural productivity
by perhaps as much as 40%, based on the Stanford research on grassland
changes exposed to extra carbon dioxide. Even if parts of polar caps
melted (quite unlikely, since they didn't melt 6000 years ago when the
temperatures were higher than projected by IPCC), this still would not
erase the gains to the economy.

I COMPLETELY CONCUR.  U OF MINNESOTA HAS A COMPLEX COMBINATION OF GRASSES
AND FORBES THAT
REQUIRE LITTLE  INPUT IN COMPARISON WITH 300 BUSHEL CORN WHICH IN ENERGY
TERMS THIS EMULATES.

SPEAKING AS A CANADIAN , WE INHABIT SOMETHING LIKE ABOUT A 350 MILE WIDE
SLICE ALONG OUR SOUTH BOUNDARY.  A TEMPERATE ARCTIC  OR EVEN ONE WITH BIO
CAPACITY OF A COOL RAINFOREST WOULD ENABLE US TO SUSTAIN THE SAME POPULATION
AS CHINA INSTEAD OF ABOUT 33 MILLION. OR ABOUT A 40 FOLD
INCREASE.

I BELIEVE THAT FOR THE BIOECONOMY TO BE OPTIMIZED THAT THE TERRAFORMING OF
THE CLIMATE AND
CAPTURE OF MOST OF THE AVAILABLE CARBON AND WATER INTO BIOPRODUCTS OF SOME
DESCRIPTION IS A FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT.

THE KEY ISSUE IS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO NOT EXERT ANY EFFORT TO ADAPT TO
CHANGE.

ADAPTATION IS A DYNAMIC INDUSTRIAL PROCESS AND WOULD NO DOUBT REQUIRE ENERGY
WASTED ON WARS AND OTHER SOCIAL  DIFFERENCES TO  BECOME MORE  PROFITABLY
FOCUSED.

YES THE SHORT TERM AND BY THAT I MEAN PERHAPS  SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS
DISRUPTION OF WATER RESOURCES MAY REQUIRE  A CONCERTED GLOBAL EFFORT TO
LIVE WITH, BUT RESTORING THE PLANET TO THE  DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT THAT
SUPPORTED GLOBAL WIIDE JUNGLES AND DINOSAURS  IS WORTH CONSIDERATION.

I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF THE RESOURCE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS CALLED THE GLOBAL
SECURITY/WAR OR SUCH  NAME BY OTHERS.  HOWEVER, I WOULD BE SOMEWHAT
SATISFIED IF THE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SATELLITE SENSING, ROBOTICS ,
COMMUNICATION AND BATTLEFIELD MEDICINE RESEARCH WOULD BE VERY QUICKLY
BROUGHT BACK INTO THE CIVILIAN SECTOR AND COMMERCIALIZED MUCH LIKE THE
ARPANET BECAME THE INTERNET.

BEFORE WE CONDENMN THE GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING DEBATE LETS REMEMBER THAT A
MAJOR PART OF THE POPULATION WHO COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO THINK ABOUT THE
ENVIRONMENT NOW DOES.

NOW PERHAPS WE IN THE LIFESPAN EXTENSION FIELD CAN PLOT TO CREATE THE DEBATE
AND PREPARATORY ACTIVITY ON THE SAME GLOBAL SCALE FOR OUR AREA OF SPECIAL
INTEREST..

AFTER ALL THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO MIGHT REALLY TAKE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY
OF BOTH ISSUES
IS A POPULATION WHO MIGHT LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO EITHER ENJOY OR ENDURE THE
RESULTS.

PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON A 75 YEAR LIFE CYCLE WILL NEVER THINK ON A 75 MILLION
YEAR SCALE;
NO MORE THAN BACTERIA WOULD PLAN ON A CENTURY LONG SCALE.

LETS LET  MARKET ECONOMICS AND SELF INTEREST DRIVE SUPER-LONG-LIVED PEOPLE
TO MAKE LONG TERM PLANS.


MORRIS
701-240-9411
---------------------------

>  iv) assuming that i and iii) is true, and irrespective of wheher ii)
>  is true or not, should be avoided at any price, or (in other terms)
>  what price would be acceptable to avoid or limit it?

### No price is acceptable. You don't pay to prevent something that's
actually good for you.

------------------------
>
>  Point ii) and iv) are important, because interestingly it appears from
>  polls that many people who would be ready to accept important
>  sacrifices to limit an anthropogenic global warming would not be
>  willing to accept a fraction of them to embark in geo-engineering
>  projects aimed at reducing a "natural", albeit equally adverse, global
>  warming.
>
>  This clarifies well enough how poisoned by neoluddite mentality the
subject is.

### You bet!

In this vein, it's amazing how low "Scientific American" fell. From a
neat pop-sci magazine, now down to a commie rag, publishing some
English teacher's tirades against economists:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes

Rafal


------------------------------


-- 
LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc.
Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.
306-447-4944
701-240-9411
Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan
Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals
http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan
http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com
megao at sasktel.net, arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com
extropian.pharmer at gmail.com

Transhumanism ..."The most dangerous idea on earth"
-Francis Fukuyama,
June 2005
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080419/2b665a8c/attachment.html>