Letters to the Editor
-
Already been thought up
"Since the dawn of time man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing: blocking it out!" -- C. Montgomery Burns
-
not geoengineering, bioengineering!
there is only one problem: increasing numbers of humans. there is only one solution: population stability.
here's a modest suggestion that doesn't need new technology and is easy to control:
governments must issue licenses to kill one person over the age of 64 as a condition to get a permit to make a baby. this will reduce population quickly, and solve social security shortfalls as well.
what's more, the money saved on geriatric health care will fund schools and hospitals indefinitely. unlike mr. benfords suggestion, this is a long term genuine solution. he is just pushing back the the time when the final constraint is reached: the 'nowheretostand' date.
-
Benford can get my support for this
Once he gives back my money for the galactic center series. He can't write a compelling fictional saga and we're to trust this guy with the actual earth?
-
Who are you kidding?
Two words: population control.
-
Just WHERE should change occur?
I guess one could think of crazier 'solutions to global warming' than blotting out the sun from the sky, but one is hard put to get hold of them.
Actually, once the link between global warming and human activities on earth is established and accepted, there is only one real resolution to the issue: DRASTICALLY reduce human population worldwide!
I understand it has been calculated that something like one 2004 tsunami, each day for 18 years or so (!!) would do the trick of bringing the human population down to a sustainable level of 1.5 billion humans. At what is considered a 'reasonable' level of consumption these days, that is said to be about the maximum that earth can support without serious damage to the global ecosystem.
It would be interesting to find out just where the thrust to reduce human numbers should be applied:
-- Should it be done in countries like China and India, which have each crossed over 1 billion population?
-- Or should it be done in 'developed' countries like the US, whose 300 billion population for instance consumes and pollutes the earth to something like the effect of 8 billion humans (or should that number be 80 billion?!!) in the 'developing' countries?
-- GSC
-
Duh!
I've been saying this for years now.
We know what happens when something like Pinatubo blows. It cooled of global temperatures by almost a half degree Centrigrade, and delayed the crisis of global warming by almost 20 years (some of us remember the heat and drought of the late 1970's and early 1980's).
It got colder, mostly. Really cold that first winter (Madison, Wisconsin had 90 straight days of below-zero weather that year). But no catastrophe, and nothing as extreme as "Blotting out the sun". The only noticable effect are some really colorful sunsets. Humans eyes can't even detect the slightly lowered amount of sunlight hitting the ground.
Regular, smaller explosions which eject dirt (or cheap, inert, highly reflective aluminum oxide) into the atmosphere would give a much less traumatic result than Pinatubo.
It isn't a question of will we do it, it is a question of when. Whole nations are set to disappear! Who is going to stop Seychelles or Bangladesh, or the Netherlands from saving themselves?
Better to start early so we don't have to do anything too dramatic to prevent catastrophe.
Fossil fuel use is being taken care of already by Peak Oil. We just need to stop the Climate Change roller coaster before it gets too much momentum.
-
Not bloody likely
This is an interesting thought experiment, but it is completely outside the pale of anything realistic.
What kind of insect hive do you think we live on? We can't get three nations on this planet to agree to a lunch menu, but we're going to get everyone's buy-in on large-scale geoengineering projects?
With all the conspiracy theories out there, how popular do you think the "blot out the sun" program is going to be with voters in democratic countries?
And for what? So we can tune the earth's temperature down a few degrees instantly? Global warming is bad therefore global cooling is good?
It's not WARMING that's the problem, it's CHANGE, rapid CHANGE in the environment. This is the equivalent of banging on your dryer with a mallet to get it to balance.
There's a simple answer for global warming which we are going to implement by default: ignore it. As the climate changes and water rises and farmlands become deserts, people will displace and then settle into a new niche.
Eventually, we will burn all the oil in the world and the Earth's climate will stabilize. Let's hope it's livable for humanity by the time we get there.
We're not going to do anything about global warming. Certainly nothing expensive and flashy. Isn't that apparent?
-
Maybe bioengineering?
I hope that somewhere there are scientists quietly working on something that will cause a mass worldwide epidemic of infertility. Scarcity of humans would cure so many many problems. Pollution is just one of them.
Or how about providing birth control pills and devices and education to all women worldwide. In countries where women have a choice births are declining.
-
Huh.
Well, it'll be good practice. How else will we learn to terraform so we can establish self-sustaining Mars colonies?
-
it doesn't need to last forever, just long enough for atmospheric co2 to reach the right level
no one is stupid enough to belive that we would do this so 9 billion people can drive hummers...ok, well maybe there is a problem.
-
It's still not enough
We have to exterminate 97% of all humans and unwind the social clock 3000 years, at least. It's the thing to do.
-
FIrst to go
Should be those who suggest that humans be exterminated like pests - them, and their families.
Gee, sounds a little rough when it's directed to you, huh?
Seems like every problem there is lies at the feet of mankind, and every solution winds up with "so get rid of people."
Too little food? Let people starve, and don't have kids. Too much disease? Let people die, and don't have kids. Alleged global warming? or cooling? Kill people have, and don't have kids. It's like the four horsemen of the apocalypse, and the solution every time is, kill people.
I don't buy into that garbage.