Houston we have problem

[rvg]

lmao, desperate man...just desperate. Funny how humans have survived much more drastic climate change over the years. Wouldn't you think that a smarter thing to do than trying to force an entire planet to do what we want, would be to restructure our civilization around it? Which is easier, restructuring our society, cities, and way of life, or restructuring an entire planet? In the scheme of things, humans are pretty insignificant. It is quite arrogant to think that we have the power to craft an entire planet to our liking.

To adapt is good, to control is better. Human civilization has been at the mercy of the elements for its entire lengths of existence. It is time to run the tables imho. Technological progress is here for a reason: if we are to survive and thrive, we have to be able to exert control over our environment. More control == safer environment. Furthermore, as the population grows, any sort of natural disaster will result in very high casualties. More control will allow us to prevent or at least reduce the casualty rate.

[Vuk]

To adapt is good, to control is better. Human civilization has been at the mercy of the elements for its entire lengths of existence. It is time to run the tables imho. Technological progress is here for a reason: if we are to survive and thrive, we have to be able to exert control over our environment. More control == safer environment. Furthermore, as the population grows, any sort of natural disaster will result in very high casualties. More control will allow us to prevent or at least reduce the casualty rate.

Controlling the world around us is better up to a point. That is, point where you would spend more resources controlling than you would adapting. For instance, it is a good investment to build up higher banks around a river that keeps flooding, rather than rebuilding each year. It is not, however, smart to try to control an entire planet's weather patterns (which we do not even understand) over the course of thousands of years, to try to stop gradual changes that happen over the course of every couple hundred years. Forgetting feasibility, it is just not cost-effective (and therefore, hardly the better option).
Even if we wanted to though, who is to say that we could? The earth is a force a lot bigger than us. It is great that we can play around with clouds and get it to rain when we want, but the amount of control we have over this earth is extremely limited, with even the best of our technology. (and probably always will be)

It is not feasible, and even if it were, it would not be cost-effective. Why then should we do it when we have a feasible, and comparatively cheaper way of dealing with it? (slowly adapting our way of life over time)

[rvg]

Controlling the world around us is better up to a point. That is, point where you would spend more resources controlling than you would adapting. For instance, it is a good investment to build up higher banks around a river that keeps flooding, rather than rebuilding each year. It is not, however, smart to try to control an entire planet's weather patterns (which we do not even understand) over the course of thousands of years, to try to stop gradual changes that happen over the course of every couple hundred years. Forgetting feasibility, it is just not cost-effective (and therefore, hardly the better option).
Even if we wanted to though, who is to say that we could? The earth is a force a lot bigger than us. It is great that we can play around with clouds and get it to rain when we want, but the amount of control we have over this earth is extremely limited, with even the best of our technology. (and probably always will be)

It is not feasible, and even if it were, it would not be cost-effective. Why then should we do it when we have a feasible, and comparatively cheaper way of dealing with it? (slowly adapting our way of life over time)

The problem with the cheaper approach is that it puts billions of lives in jeopardy. That's provided that the tension amongst nations caused by the climate change does not spark a global conflict for resources and unflooded living space. That would be putting the civilization itself in danger.

[Vuk]

The problem with the cheaper approach is that it puts billions of lives in jeopardy. That's provided that the tension amongst nations caused by the climate change does not spark a global conflict for resources and unflooded living space. That would be putting the civilization itself in danger.

Oh, come on, isn't that a bit dramatic? First of all, the long term trends we are talking about happen gradually, giving people plenty of time to adapt their way of life to the area they are living in, or to move to another area. Most of the landmass on earth is unsettled. I think the apocalysm is hardly called for.

[rvg]

Oh, come on, isn't that a bit dramatic? First of all, the long term trends we are talking about happen gradually, giving people plenty of time to adapt their way of life to the area they are living in, or to move to another area.

Yes, but we're talking about a couple of billion people migrating. It'll be Hell.

Most of the landmass on earth is unsettled. I think the apocalysm is hardly called for.

Most of the unsettled lands are less than suitable for human life. The suitable lands are rather limited.

We can and should be control the environment or at the very least its effects on us. Look at the Dutch, they've been giving rising sea levels a finger for centuries now. They have a country where the North Sea should be. That is control over the environment. We can do that now on a grander scale if we take the problem seriously enough.

[Vuk]

Yes, but we're talking about a couple of billion people migrating. It'll be Hell.


Most of the unsettled lands are less than suitable for human life. The suitable lands are rather limited.

We can and should be control the environment or at the very least its effects on us. Look at the Dutch, they've been giving rising sea levels a finger for centuries now. They have a country where the North Sea should be. That is control over the environment. We can do that now on a grander scale if we take the problem seriously enough.

Except that with warmer weather in many cold, formerly unsuitable climates, a lot of that land will become suitable for human life. Also, we are not talking about a mass migration of billions of people. IF (and that is a big if), scientists have predicted trends correctly, it is going to happen over a long period of time, and not over night. Which means you will have a bunch of really small migrations over a long period of time. Hardly as hectic as billions of people just pulling stakes and moving.

[rvg]

Except that with warmer weather in many cold, formerly unsuitable climates, a lot of that land will become suitable for human life.

Except that it's not as easy as packing up and leaving. We have countries, societies. So, maybe Arabian Peninsula becomes a lush rain forest. Does that mean that people there will let the refugees in? Unlikely. They are far more likely to tell 'em to take a hike. Same deal with, say, Russia. Suppose Siberia becomes more hospitable, you think Russians will let outsiders settle there? Why should they? Why would they? Don't forget that just about every coastal country will have its own refugees to deal with. Will India take in 150 million Bangladeshis who are already getting flooded on a yearly basis?

Global warming will be a disaster.

[CBR]

Wow. 49 former NASA employees. And they have about a 1000 years combined professional experience!

23 administrators
8 astronauts
7 engineers
5 technicians
4 scientists

Climate science experience: 0, nil, nada, zilch

But why am I being so picky when one of them has 16 years experience of being "Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention"