Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change....

Posted 12 years ago on March 13, 2012, 1:53 p.m. EST by F350 (-259)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I thought I'd share this piece of MMGW extremist fantasy and all around crazy shit with you fine OWS Greeniacs,this is where all this Climate Change hysteria is leading to.

"From drugs to help you avoid eating meat to genetically engineered cat-like eyes to reduce the need for lighting, a wild interview about changes humans could make to themselves to battle climate change."

The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. Liao is keen to point out that the paper is not meant to advocate for any particular human modifications, or even human engineering generally; rather, it is only meant to introduce human engineering as one possible, partial solution to climate change. He also emphasized the voluntary nature of the proposed modifications. Neither Liao or his co-authors, Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford, approve of any coercive human engineering; they favor modifications borne of individual choices, not technocratic mandates. What follows is my conversation with Liao about why he thinks human engineering could be the most ethical and effective solution to global climate change.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/

58 Comments

58 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

Yes, once again, they seek a completely unnatural solution that will ultimately have dire consequences on humanity and nature.

I don't eat meat and I don't eat that much soy other than edamame . My reasons were not so much ' ethical ' in nature as much as I found it to be truly insane to consume something that was so gross and bad for me and the environment. I don't think all that soy is a healthy solution. But, anyway, my point is that if people who ate meat would actually educate themselves about the meat that they are eating, I doubt they would put it into their grocery carts- much less, their mouths. Yet, it's rather ironic that those who choose to eat meat will say things like ' Don't tell me, I don't want to know'....when I mention where the meat comes from. Denial is selfish and stupid and it harms others.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

Excessive soy consumption can also be a problem for people because ANYTHING in excess can be bad. I suggested soy because it has reasonably good amino-acid profile to match human needs for protein and by and large the diets of the U.S. population are deficient in the consumption of legumes. When eating, the most important thing to aim for is health from nutrition which requires the proper balance of various nutrients. That is probably too much for much of the U.S. population to wrap their heads around so simplistic one-shot solution can help but of course it can run into the same problem as with the old food pyramid that substituted carbohydrates for fats and made people obese.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

I agree. I also use Tempeh sometimes because that is a healthy form of soy since it's fermented like Kimchi or Kefir. When you say that soy has good amino acid profile for human consumption, I think you mean the fermented soy. I believe that the soy that we get in the grocery that resembles a block of white rubber is trash soy byproduct from manufacturing.which also includes soy milk..I call it the hamburger meat of the soy world and it's linked to thyroid problems. If I need to use a meat substitute in a dish ( which is rare) I use the Quorn products but honestly, can get a similar texture from a plump giant mushroom which is tastier and I believe, healthier. You make a good point that too much of anything is bad for us...soy, like corn and wheat is all too abundant in processed foods.
I believe we should try to eat as many whole foods as possible with minimal preparation or processing.
As you probably know, the food pyramid is hardly reliable - just another industry funded attempt to keep a human breathing and fit enough to lick a stamp. Our nutritional guidelines are based on the least amount of nutrient needed to prevent the onset of a deficiency-linked disease like scurvy without even accounting for other factors that influence a person's ability to metabolize nutrients, toxic exposure, food quality. How can anyone possibly think that every durn watermelon in the USA has the same nutrition given that they are grown in different soils, climates, different pH and fed different fertilizers, etc.. Dietitians and nutritionists are trained by industry funded schools and provide no better guidance. I am stunned by dietary recommendations for diabetics...bagels, Splenda?
My dogs eat as well as I do. I use legumes/beans in their diet as well. I will never feed my dogs a commercial brand of food.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

Yes, eating as many whole foods as possible with minimal preparation or processing is the way to go until our bodies have evolved to handle bagels, Splenda, genetically modified foods, etc. with aplomb. Many processed foods trumpet their having NO this or NO that because it is easiest for industry to give NOthing and yet have that considered as an improvement by consumers (which can make sense because of overconsumption but why should anyone in their right mind pay industry so that they can get NOthing?) Some of the genetically modified foods are a real disgrace. I did not realize how bad things got over the years until I bought some rather crummy-looking organic foods that tasted really good, just like what I used to like when I was a child. Things can slowly creep up on you if you are not careful. I think industry has bred foods for looks and shelf life sacrificing tastes and nutrients over the years.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

" If food had no shelf life, it wouldn't have any life at all".
The quality of our food has diminished significantly and progressively since the the start of the industrialized revolution and I know it's a lot worse than any of us can imagine. We have kids in elementary school with high blood pressure and diabetes. HELLO????? Do parents ever stop and ask themselves why kids are asthmatic, diabetic, ADD, allergic to peanuts and artificial dyes? We need to question everything and stop just accepting this a the only reality and then buying medications. I can remember getting so excited over the SO COOL invention of TV dinners in aluminum trays and my grandmother was so excited over the invention of Tang. hahahha We had no clue how the future of food was unfolding. Folks in my grandmother's generation had always farmed and prepared their own food and so they could not comprehend how convenience would sacrifice quality until many years had passed and they began to notice how artificial everything tasted. Then of course, there was my generation who grew up with working moms who prided themselves on preparing corn dogs, tv dinners, pot pies and pay day at the burger joints or KFC. Oh and the microwave. I don't have a microwave anymore. Ironically, I researched microwaves in college and STILL used one until 7years ago. But once I realized how it was degrading the quality of my food even further, I just gave it away. The greatest gifts my father gave me: Taught me how to cook and taught me to always question authority. :D

As our population grew, so did our need for more food. We have stripped the land of it's nutrients and fortified it with a bunch of synthetic, highly toxic nutrients and pesticides.

I was thinking this morning how folks are getting so outraged over pink slime in their hamburger and I wondered, ' where the heck have they been? What did they think was really in that hamburger anyway? It's pretty clear that when it comes to food, most people don't even care what it is or if it's safe until a big scandal evolves. A lot of folks believe that organic food is more nutritious. It's safer for sure but it too can be just as sugary, fattening, processed and come from nutrient depleted soils. Those organic frozen dinners are not really healthy, you know? Neither is organic mac and cheese in a box! Gotta do your homework and spend time planning and preparing healthy meals. Americans have a long way to go in terms of educating themselves about food and nutrition. Did you know that twenty years ago nutrition had absolutely no scientific basis in human health and medicine. That's scary. No wonder we are the most unhealthy country in the industrialized world. If you haven't watched the movie, ' Food, Inc.", then you should. It's a wonderful documentary about the history of food.
We need to get back to appreciating the value of farmers and handmade items.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

Your father was wise - everyone should always question all authorities. Doubt is the best gift that anyone can give to the world to affirm the real truths. As for organic foods, they usually do not have the perfect look and more expensive but they have good reasons to be crummy-looking - should we say that they have characters? Good inputs and good processes tend to produce good results so self planning and preparation of food is often the best.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

What about those that hunt and bring home their own meat? It is even better than free range meat.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 12 years ago

Got to be careful of eating to much lead, too, if you are shooting it-just a heads up.

The deer are often consuming a lot of pesticides placed around the roadsides to kill weeds (round-up) and drinking polluted water. This is why they are sick.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

Not always true- Depends on the species, available food sources, and location of the game. Human encroachment has led to a compromised gene pool in many areas throughout the USA and a very unhealthy and diseased population of animals. I remember a few years ago that the hunters in my area were participating in a controlled hunt to reduce the deer population and had intended to give the meat to the homeless shelters and food kitchens but the deer were so unhealthy that they had to dispose of them.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 12 years ago

The funny thing is the main reason people don't want to think is because it takes a lot of calories to critically think. These people eat so poorly that the brain literally forces itself to avoid critically thinking because it does not have the calories to use or waste on thinking. It saves the energy for just the maintenance of the body. It is a vicious cycle. Without the right food critical thinking can not occur. Unless you have major will power.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 12 years ago

You may have just explained why Rush Limbaugh was so popular:)

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Isn't meat part of a well-balanced diet? Right along with grains, veggies and fruits. We didn't evolve our canines for munching on carrots...

[-] 2 points by Quark2 (109) 12 years ago

For some it is & for some it is not. But most eat to much meat, so we really need a turn around.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

There are vast populations around the world which did NOT or do not consume meats in the same high proportion as in the U.S. The longer-lasting civilizations usually have good nutritious culturally specific diets so emulating them can be a step in the right direction. For example, Mexican diet with beans and rice together in the same meal can complement the amino-acid profile of each. Oriental diets lacking calcium in the form of dairy products have tofu which has calcium.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

The people exercising their canines on meats should stop sitting in any car driving or riding because we didn't evolve our legs for sitting in a motorized transport. Different situations call for different measures so find out about things and think about why before jumping to conclusions.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

I thought canines were just left over evolutionary tools meant to be used in fighting, tearing and piercing a victim....you know..vampires for example.

Meat doesn't need to be part of a well balanced diet. The challenge though is finding nutrient rich produce and other foods ( whether you're a carnivore or not) which means that we need to buy locally and organic when possible. I believe there is an agricultural experiment taking place at Virginia State Univ. right now where they are growing organic year round fruits and veggies in cold and hot houses...including citrus. The American diet is mostly processed and contains way too much unhealthy grain..corn and wheat. A person who is not consuming a processed diet can more safely consume whole grain without the associated risks.

A person needs to be very proactive about their own health today in order to make the healthiest choices. Food really is medicine and bad medicine makes one sick.

The bottom line is that in order to reap and benefit from healthy meats, fruits and veggies, our environment needs to be healthy and well balanced ( which is not the case anymore). Caveat emptor!

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

:D Sadly, I know that you're at the very least, partly correct. But, I also think that people choose the easier, more convenient path when it comes down to making well informed choices because of cost or maybe the thought that we live in such an unhealthy world seems to overwhelming or they want to avoid accountability and guilt. Funny thing is that if people quit eating meat, they would save a ton of money in groceries AND healthcare.

[-] -3 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

Great theory Genius,you should be working with Liao. They need some more whack jobs to think up more lunacy.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 12 years ago

You just proved my point by your lack of critical thinking & your lame attempt at wit. Go eat some vegetables. Then maybe you can catch up with the rest of us.

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

I'm sorry,I guess I just forgot how incredibly intelligent champions of "critical thinking" you Leftist's are (voting Obama really demonstrated that).

[-] 2 points by Quark2 (109) 12 years ago

Generalizations like leftists makes my point even stronger and shows your limited intellect capacity clearer. Please go eat something healthy, you are embarrassing yourself with these ridiculous arguments. You are out of your league & sound like a bigot. Good food can change that.

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

Yes,you most certainly aren't in my league.

[-] 2 points by Quark2 (109) 12 years ago

I'll swim around your bait and give you a big kiss with lots of love.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

humans are natural

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

And? Are the modifications natural?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

yes

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

I don't see how it could be natural if it requires human intervention and manipulation. If it's not naturally occurring, then it's artificially induced.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Here is the BEST re-engineering of the human body -
genetically engineer a lie detector in the human body so that if it believes a lie, it shocks the body


evolution is not a fact
Mormons are not Christians
Noah put the kangaroos back in Australia
nixon is not a crook
sarah cares about anything - but herself
the earth is 6000 year old
you will be happy in heaven when you are dead
reagan is not a criminal

........................................................ZAP !!!

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

Liberals are actually intelligent

Obama is not a Kenyan born Muslim

Progressives really respect the Constitution

OWS is actually making a difference

The country really is better off now then 3 yrs ago

Obama really isn't trying to destroy America from within

Climate Change is not a hoax

....................................................ZAP !!!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE……………………….. BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . .

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

We can go a long way towards cutting out meats from our diets simply by replacing meat eating by the consumption of soy proteins in myriad forms. I discovered that once the initial aversion to unfamiliar foods had been overcome, soy products were rather palatable because they came in such great varieties, especially thanks to Oriental cuisines. Another side effect is that often you also save a fair amount of money and probably on medical bills and sufferings later in life.

Another suggestion to cut down on meat consumption is to take every carnivorous/omnivorous homo sapiens to observe the actual environments and processes through which our meats came. For psycho-aversion therapy (no need for the nausea-inducing drugs talked about in the posting), go visit a slaughterhouse, chicken farm, pig sty, or live poultry market (the free nausea can usually come without much potential side effect). Find out what we do with young calves so that we can have dairy production. Be a little careful about this though because I incurred a farmer's displeasure once in finding out about the real truth about where the meats came from.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

Humans have evolved a carnivorous physiology to improve brain development. It is risky to avoid it in our diet.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128849908

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

For those without modern nutritional knowledge, a slight risk exists in modern affluent societies. For the others, going with less meat is wise because for human ancestors, meat was hard to come by and they died young. We in modern society usually eat too much meat for our nutritional needs and we do not die young so clogged up arteries and cancers become problems. If you plan on dying by age 30, indulge yourself and eat all the meats you want. It would not matter anyway. Looking at prehistory and history, human evolution is tending towards healthier bodies, longer lifespans, and wiser individuals. Externalization of knowledge and wisdom goes a long way towards an individual's evolutionary fitness and I am assuming critical thinking skills as a foundation for that. That is why I push for teaching critical thinking skills in schools.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 12 years ago

How about simply inducing a little more social responsibility into people?

That should solve 99% of all our problems.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Ahhh, so one or two bizarre ideas, and suddenly, oh know, look what environmentalists are trying to do. I mean, do you people have any common sense at all? We wouldn't need drugs to stop eating meat, people can simply decide to avoid eating meat (it's not crack or heroin), although it is true that cattle is probably the most environmentally damaging livestock we use for food, but there's ways we could enjoy meats without going cold turkey. We could use anaerobic digesters on farms (that convert the manure to usable methane). We could use thorium reactors to generate electricity (and then it wouldn't matter how much artificial lighting we use, it wouldn't create any CO2 emissions).

Plus ... that kind of genetic engineering is science fiction at this point. Nothing like that has ever been approved for use in humans, because we don't understand the genetic implications well enough yet. When we do understand it better, you can bet that the first applications of this technology will be used for things like curing cancer, extending human lifespan, etc.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

Cool post just it could be some ethical problems

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

Eating meat can certainly be an ethical issue and it really upsets me to hear the horror the stories about factory farms. My sister is vegetarian for strictly ethical reasons. However, that was not really my reason for giving up meat years ago. My reasons were different. I worked as an environ. chemist for a large factory chicken farm and I realized that it was just plain stupid to even consider chicken safe or healthy to eat. I"m pretty fair minded about this issue though bccause I know that a plant based diet isn't always the best choice for every person because a vegetarian needs to be smart and well informed about what they are eating in order to get the right nutrition. Most humans are not about to take time to learn. I can only recommend that anyone who chooses meat, choose wisely, avoid factory farms and purchase from local farmers that provide grass fed /no grain diets to their cows.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

yeah its all a matter of choice

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

The Republicans are way ahead on this one. They've already altered the human brain of conservatives to ignore any evidence that man-made climate change exists.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by timirninja (263) 12 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/too-many-people-on-the-planet/ this is what human Engineering all about. Some ideas from those article by liao sounds like science fiction. " For example it's been suggested that we could alter the reflectivity of the atmosphere using sulfate aerosol so as to turn away a portion of the sun's heat, but it could be that doing so would destroy the ozone layer, which would obviously be problematic. Others have argued that we ought to fertilize the ocean with iron, because doing so might encourage a massive bloom of carbon-sucking plankton. But doing so could potentially render the ocean inhospitable to fish, which would obviously also be quite problematic. " How is possible to decrease meat consumption if we are dealing with money market and demand-supply strategy. Those from 3rd world countries who dont know how the smart phone look like eventually will get cheaper meat. And we will get more trans-genetic produce in future. Those kind of topics are looks distracting for me.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

Using SO2 to dim the sun does not seem so farfetched, and the theory has been tested many times for adverse effects ( an erupting volcano produces the same result). It is a pretty cheap solution ($ 100 billion compared to the $10 trillion now proposed by the IPCC solution), it could be implemented in 5 - 10 years, and the effect is quite temporary ( 1 - 2 months) so it can be turned off quickly if problems to arise.

Acid rain is one concern but the stuff is pumped up high into the atmosphere so a little bit goes a long way to lowering temps (see data on Mt. Pinatubo in the 1990s). Also the amount of SO2 necessary is small compared to the stuff we pump out today in the lower atmosphere from power plants and factories worldwide.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~gib/Breaking%20Global%20Temp%20Records.pdf

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

I suspect that we may already be locked into the adaptive phase of the human responses. SO2 should definitely be taken seriously as a potential mitigation option. There is a really CHEAP option to produce SO2 -- UNDO the successes produced by the 1990's cap-and-trade. We just let coal-fired power plants start using the often CHEAPER high-sulfur coals and tell them to rip out the pollution control equipments so that the SO2 can be freed into our atmosphere to save our Earth. We should also tell rapidly industrializing countries such as China and India to forget about pollution control because we ALL need the SO2 AND soot in our atmosphere to precipitate cloud formation through nucleation to shield our Earth from the sunlight. They will also get that much RICHER by saving the money on pollution control equipments and achieving higher operating efficiency.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

The SO2 needs to be injected into the upper atmosphere. This approach requires much lees material resulting in negligible pollution. It can also be modulated or turned off quickly and the effects are short term.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4267140

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

Yes, whatever works that can function well as our last resort to save our Earth.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

Do you believe that AGW will destroy the earth?

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

The Earth is virtually forever but human presence is absolutely NOT. AGW will NOT destroy our Earth but a vast number of us will suffer greatly. We can adapt by actively shielding sunlight globally. When midday has been turned into midnight, I am absolutely sure our AGW problem will be lessened. It seems that we would have put our Earth into the intensive care ward then. Why does the SO2 need to be injected to the upper atmosphere?

My scenario is that no more country will be interested in curbing greenhouse gas emission so the Earth will warm up, fastest in the arctic regions. The vast permafrost of Alaska, Northern Canada, Siberia will release their great store of methane to accelerate the warming. Global climatic patterns will shift accordingly and agriculture worldwide will fail. Starving refugees will be migrating worldwide and most will perish because there is NO escape from our Earth. The wealthier countries will impose strict border control so many refugees will be shot dead. Eventually, the Earth goes on happily warmer with vastly reduced or absent human population. Another scenario is that the wealthier countries will wake up and turn to geo-engineering such as turning midday to midnight with clouds or smogs. A large number of people will die from the pollution but eventually "survival of the fittest" will ensure a much reduced human population to continue on a much warmer and very polluted Earth near its seashores because the interiors would offer little for livelihoods.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

Suppose AGW turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to us? I don't know about you but I live in the the NE and this winter has been sweet! We call AGW nice weather.

Joking aside, weather forecasters have trouble knowing if it will rain tomorrow, why should I trust them with 100 year predictions? Particularly when they want us to spend $ 10 trillion to fix the problem.

The issue seems to be not whether global warming is real, but what do we do about it. To figure this out you have to answer the following questions:

  1. What is the probability that global warming is going to be catastrophic (Tens of thousands of human causalities)? We make decisions based on risk every day. Every time we get into a car for example. Why don’t we demand answers before we start making decisions. Catastrophic global warming in the next 100 years could be about as likely as a major asteroid hit. Last time I checked no one is proposing $10 Trillion expenditure on asteroid prevention.

  2. Could global warming actually be a good thing? (Nice weather, longer growing seasons, CO2 plant food, and many more people die each year from lack of heat than because of it)

  3. If it turns out to be a really bad thing what can be done about it? If we adopt all of the changes recommend by the IPCC they predict a delay in temp rise over the next 100 years by only a few months. So why spend trillions for only a small improvement? Wouldn’t that money be better spent elsewhere (poverty, hunger, clean water, prevent disease, etc.)

  4. This is America. We are the great problem solvers. Why not put the best minds to work on solving the problem instead of saying that we all have to go back to cowering in caves warming our hands over a CFL lamp? (BTW, some already have and for a lot less $ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084 )

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

It is great that you are asking these very valid questions. AGW will shift the climatic patterns so it will benefit some and hurt others - just like globalization shifted jobs to China. Try telling the unemployed U.S. citizens to work in China to make Apple products!

Not knowing for certain if it will rain tomorrow does NOT mean season forecasters will err at all in predicting that summer, fall, and winter will come again. Climate is about longer-term averages so one can be rather sure although one cannot be extremely accurate about the short-term predictions. As in flipping a coin, we cannot predict for sure whether we will get head or tail on the next flip but we can pretty much predict that the long-term proportion of coin flips will turn up about half of heads and half of tails for an unbiased coin. There are very well validated scientific data that show greenhouse gases warm things up due to their larger number of degrees of freedom in their molecules. $10 trillion dollars is a large sum so it is valid to ask for why we should spend it. Perhaps the sloppy child's trick of shoving everything under the bed and under the rug when mom orders cleaning up the bedroom will work here, too. As long as nobody really takes note, the costs would be borne by the not-so-bright or not-so-fortunate.

  1. The answers are already here so observe the patterns, ask why, and check up on the proposed explanations. Catastrophes due to AGW will NOT come with labels attached but they will be disguised as rapidly rising prices of food staples, infrastructure rerouting, increased deaths due to unusual and frequent heat waves, droughts and cold spells, countries breaking up, civil wars over resources, etc. The main concern is whether we can react fast enough to counteract the problems. Asteroid prevention is currently out of our technology's reach but AGW prevention is NOT but it seems to be out of our politics' reach. The eventual cost will far exceed tens of thousands of human casualties but they would most likely be disguised and most people will not figure out the causal relationship involved - it is the Pied Piper.
  2. Yes, for some but not for others (that is why the costs will be borne by the not-so-fortunate) - try to tell unemployed U.S. citizens that their "lost jobs" are creating wealth and riches in China and India and lifting hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians out of poverty. By the way, all of these hundreds of millions will be vastly increasing the rate of AGW, too. Then when the methane boom comes, we would be very sorry.
  3. We should spend trillions to improve efficiency (or conservations) to slow down AGW (mainly to gain time so the world would have grown richer and more capable meanwhile so our children may figure out more permanent solutions) - it will create jobs (retrofitting requires work), reduce hunger (stabler agricultural yields mean lower prices for food staples helping the poorest the most), provide cleaner water (all major power generation use lots of water - reducing power needs means less discharge), prevent the spread of tropical diseases (cooler climate curbs migration of tropical diseases and invasive species), etc. There will be more money saved over the long term once the initial investment is put down. It is akin to plugging cold draft holes so money does not fly out of the heated house. They are NOT fancy technologies that politicians like but they will make us all richer, not only in the monetary sense.
  4. The picture that you project scare people off unnecessarily. Did you lament that we got rid of the vacuum tubes in favor of the transistors? Can you imagine what an iPhone would be like if implemented with vacuum tubes? No, we will NOT cower in caves warming our hands over a CFL lamp but we may very well live in dwellings that have the same R values as caves, probably by being oriented properly and better zoning, and warmed by co-generation/geothermal heat which most people may not even notice. If houses were built into the ground with excellent material that can quickly switch from heat conducting to heat insulating and with high-geometric light-adaptive skylights, we could have our "caves" in the ground almost everywhere and we would all be proud to be the new "high-tech cave men." Remember efficiency improvements mean getting the same results with less resource input, NOT the reduction or degradation of results and conservation means freeing up more money for other worthwhile causes. The greatest savings can come from the knowledge applied by the users because all of the other factors are multiplicative cumulatively (factors < 1) but users always have the final say (users can easily change many 1s to 0s and vice versa while combining them in myriad desirable ways) and the vision and planning to use things effectively and efficiently. It helps if we have a more knowledgeable population who knows what a kwh, watt, joule, etc. are.
[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

I can't find data showing any causal relationship between AGW and present day rapidly rising prices of food staples, infrastructure rerouting, increased deaths due to unusual and frequent heat waves, countries breaking up, civil wars over resources. If anything warm weather has saved lives (fewer road fatalities and cold weather deaths) and extended the growing season in the US and elsewhere.

We seem to be shooting first and asking questions later. We should demand solid data before we divert $ trillions from more pressing needs.

Have you looked at the potential positive side of a warmer earth with a big CO2 fertilizer kick to world crops? AGW could be the best thing that ever happened to us. Why is there no analysis being done on the up side? Instead of research we spend billions on wind mills. 2000 year old technology.

So should we spend the $10 trillion even though the IPCC predicts a delay in temp rise over the next 100 years by only a few months?

A CFL lamp is 10x more expensive than an incandescent and we end up drinking the mercury from it when it winds up in the land fill. This is going from a transistor to a knife switch; more expensive and a lot more dangerous.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

A few years back, a number of Asian countries halted rice exports due to the failure of western Australian crop. Rice is a major food staple for billions of people, mostly in Asia. Western Australia's rains depend on a rather long-term stable but at times unstable weather pattern that can easily fool people because of its almost human generation long stable pattern. That is, your parents can raise you perfectly fine on their farm there but then when you inherit the farm you can be wiped out by a drought that comes rarely but returns nonetheless. For infrastructure rerouting, look at low-lying lands or countries. There are already rising-water refugees. Europe had a major heat wave that France estimated to have caused deaths of tens of thousands of mostly elderly citizens and Russia had hardly quenchable wildfires. Why does Africa have so many wars, civil or otherwise? There are droughts and the Sahara desert was expanding as expected because the rain bands will move farther away from the Equator when temperatures heat up. Ask the people in Somalia or near the Sahel how they like it. Yes, the growing season can be extended but droughts have also increased - ask the Texans for example. You can grow crops longer because it is warmer but without water it is a totally lost cause.

I am not saying that we should shoot first and ask questions later. I am saying that we should do what is in our interests anyway. If you have your windows open in really cold weather, rather than wrapping a warm blanket around you and huddle and curse at the "conservation" effort required, does it not make more sense to close the windows first? We may never recognize "solid" data having canine bites chasing us because so many of us imbibe the methanol-laced Evian from the sea of Gallo. We do not and probably will not know enough ever because that is the nature of statistics. Any distillation of the data is removing some authenticity and most people do not have the knack to comprehend the mass of raw data in their entirety and the ones who profit from the ignorance will complain about the "distillation" so we will forever be researching, arguing about the fluctuations, and non-substantive data. The universe is probabilistic so this can in principle go on forever supported by its nature. I say that we take out insurance lest things go wrong because I do not really want to gamble on the habitability of our ONLY Earth. We have seen the effects of AGW already for about a decade. Are we much better off on the fronts we touched? Do we have much cheaper food staples due to increased crop yields, etc.?

Wind mills have been around for many centuries but I bet that you have never looked at a real modern-day wind mill. You will discover that it has carbon-fiber-reinforced blades and rare-earth-magnet electric generators. These all happened only within the last couple of decades. We are making huge passenger airplanes out of these carbon-fiber reinforcements. The magnetic field strengths of the newer magnets are orders of magnitude better than decades ago.

The objective is NOT to delay the temperature rise by a few months. The objective IS to increase efficiency and conservation through better technology, education, and planning so that we have more resources left over for everything else that is worthwhile.

A CFL bulb is several times more efficient and its lifetime is much longer than incandescent bulb. It saves on the electricity so it saves money over the long term but most people do not comprehend that the kwh saved means money in their pockets. The electricity being about half generated by coal-burning will NOT need to be generated so that will save the mercury emitted into the atmosphere from coal-burning. The result is a net REDUCTION in mercury emission to the environment. Besides, the real danger comes from methyl mercury which is much easier produced by contact with organic materials (usually in alluvial deposits at river estuaries) from the mercury emitted into the atmosphere from burning coal than from the mercury confined into bulbs in a landfill. This is precisely the kind of ignorance that I suspect is widespread in our U.S. population so that they cannot comprehend the ENTIRE life-cycle costs and benefits of various products and user behaviors over the longer term.

Do you believe that corporations know about saving money with fluorescent lamps vs. incandescent lamps? Go check out what type of lamps they use! Are they not about making more profit? Are they not acting in their interests?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

The issue is how to set priorities and where to spend our money. This must be done by analyzing the risks and today we are acting without data.

To reduce the mercury problem do you favor building more nuclear plants? No CO2, no mercury, and one nuke can save 100 square miles of wind farms. Do you know that right now we are paying wind farms in the north west not to produce electricity?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/wind_farms_paid_with_taxpayer_money_not_to_produce_electricity.html

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

Yes, setting priorities is absolutely the CORRECT way to think about the challenges but before doing that we should first nail down the values that we hold dear. I am pleased that you actually seem to be a rather thoughtful person who can accept some doses of REALITY - such as understanding that getting into a car is a rather dangerous activity but we do it anyway. Why do we as a society accept that but not some vastly smaller risks, such as radiation-induced cancers from living near a nuclear power plant?

We need to see what the alternatives are before we reach judgments about nuclear power plants, for example. If a nuclear power plant displaces coal-burning power plant, we will probably come out ahead on the environmental side. Nuclear power plants produce high-level nuclear wastes that need to be properly stored and monitored for many centuries so we may be imposing monitoring and maintenance costs on our descendants. Of course, it is more efficient if we store the wastes in a centralized repository but we do not seem to have the political will to do it at all for decades. What have we got in Yucca mountain in Nevada for billions of dollars but a big hole in the mountain and in our pocketbook? It is also a valid question of how much nuclear power utilities should pay for the continuing costs. Using nuclear power extensively and safely presumes a political structure that endures in stability. That is rather hard to satisfy in the long run.

For reducing CO2, mercury emissions, and mining degradation of the Earth, I like nuclear power but I just do not see enough people understand and feel safe with nuclear power to make it widely viable. Efficiency improvements seem to be the most viable. Too much electricity, from renewable energy sources or otherwise, can be bad because it can overload the electricity networks and cause outages but electricity is the most efficiently (i.e., minimum loss) transportable form of energy between places connected by transmission lines so it is feasible to send it widely as long as the economic incentive is there or use it locally. For example, the electricity can be used for producing magnesium to make alloys that lighten the weights of cars to boost cars' gas mileages.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

Number of people killed by wind turbines in the last ten years: 87

Number of people killed by US nuclear plants (ever): 0

Many folks claim to be green but shirk in the face of real, available-now solutions like nukes. They are not really pro-environment, they are anti-people.

I count in this group folks that want an "all-of-the-above" energy policy.

If you wanted a house built would you hire an architect that instead of a focused, thoughtful, and cohesive design pitched an "all-of-the-above" approach to your new home? Would you spend money on that?

We have a $15 trillion debt. We need a "focused-like-a-laser-beam" energy policy.

BTW, people believe what they want to believe. There are still folks that crawl into old mines to expose themselves to radon for imagined medicinal powers.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 12 years ago

The really hard thing is to convince people of the real truth of living -- that to live is to take risks and to "pollute." The risks MUST be taken although people often fell under the spell of the media and politicians in believing idealized conditions that never can or will be. We used to live in an approximately open system so the illusion seems true but when the Earth is largely populated with people, that approximation is just not true any more. "Pollution" though is not always bad because in closed cycles some "pollutions" end up being good for worthwhile purposes when they are gobbled up or re-targeted. We just need to understand matters better. For example, many people are afraid of the nuclear reactor down the street but people are scrambling to apply to universities that have nuclear reactors near which they will spend years of their lives. We would like to have radioactive isotopes for diagnoses and treating cancers but they require nuclear reactors.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

Ever? : Number of people killed by US nuclear plants (ever): 0

I don't know as I have ever seen a study on people who worked through a nuclear accident like three mile Island.

Would be interesting to see a study done on all people who have worked in the nuclear reactor industry.

You know for instances of cancer and what-not.

Your telling me that there has never been an accidental death at any USA nuclear facility.

Huh.

Hard to swallow that without a comprehensive report.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by OccupyCapitolHill (197) 12 years ago

Lol climate change nutjobs...putting the "mental" in "environmentalism".

[-] -3 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

You should really read this crap. It's good to know what the loony Left will be up to next.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 12 years ago

That's why I listen to Rush and Beck.

'Keep your enemies close', Sun Tzu