Science
04 Dec 12
04 Dec 12
Let's face it, Homo Sap is just too dumb to act in concert to stem global-warming-climate-change. But, paradoxically, the brainy ape has always been cunning enough to adapt to Mother Nature's violent mood-swings.
So, assuming six degrees of heat increase within the next 100 years, what should the adaptable among us be thinking and doing?
04 Dec 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageActually designing an effective political system is so difficult that all humanity has failed to do so. I don't think that makes us dumb, I think it just makes the problem a very very difficult one. How do you design a system that benefits all, whilst successfully countering the detrimental effects of selfish behavior? The systems we have come up with are actually quite successful, but countries with a short electoral cycle have a major problem with it resulting in short term planning at the expense of long term goals.
Let's face it, Homo Sap is just too dumb to act in concert to stem global-warming-climate-change.
But, paradoxically, the brainy ape has always been cunning enough to adapt to Mother Nature's violent mood-swings.
No, he hasn't. We die in droves every time there is a major earthquake or flood. And we are usually stupid enough to go right back to our old ways soon after such events. We don't adapt, we simply out produce.
So, assuming six degrees of heat increase within the next 100 years, what should the adaptable among us be thinking and doing?
Well most major cities will have to move a little bit further from the current coast, because the coasts will be moving inland. Farmers will have to adapt to changing climate, but that is nothing new for farmers.
What we should be doing, is working towards cutting CO2 emissions, finding ways to cool the planet and sequester the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. Even if we can cool the planet, the acidity in the oceans is likely to cause us problems.
04 Dec 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage-do everything possible to escape and survive the inevitable global famine that would wipe out most of humanity and perhaps nearly all civilization.
Let's face it, Homo Sap is just too dumb to act in concert to stem global-warming-climate-change. But, paradoxically, the brainy ape has always been cunning enough to adapt to Mother Nature's violent mood-swings.
So, assuming six degrees of heat increase within the next 100 years, what should the adaptable among us be thinking and doing?
Become self-sufficient in food and everything else but especially food because climate change, combined with sea level rise that would flood all the most fertile agricultural land, would mean there simply would not be nearly enough resources left to be able to produce even close to the amounts of food the growing human population requires.
Of course, it would be infinitely smarter to cut CO2 and thus prevent global famine in the first place.
A 6-degree rise in global temperature would be more than enough to create disaster and would be a shameful testimony to human stupidity.
04 Dec 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo what could be done about that? An interesting idea for adapting to the Martian atmosphere is to splice in the crocodile haemoglobin gene that enables the ancient saurians to handle low-oxygen environments. What analogous functionalities could be engineered in?
Even if we can cool the planet, the acidity in the oceans is likely to cause us problems.
04 Dec 12
Originally posted by humySurely you could imagine some sustainable habitats adapted to this grim scenario.
-do everything possible to escape and survive the inevitable global famine that would wipe out most of humanity and perhaps nearly all civilization.
Become self-sufficient in food and everything else but especially food because climate change, combined with sea level rise that would flood all the most fertile agricultural land, would mean there simply would no ...[text shortened]... t to be able to produce even close to the amounts of food the growing human population requires.
Assume as much technological advancement as your scheme requires.
04 Dec 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIts simple, either we learn to live with the various fish that survive the catastrophe, or we do something about all that CO2. Trying to re-engineer all the sea life would be a non-starter, though a few food species of fish might be worth doing.
So what could be done about that? An interesting idea for adapting to the Martian atmosphere is to splice in the crocodile haemoglobin gene that enables the ancient saurians to handle low-oxygen environments. What analogous functionalities could be engineered in?
04 Dec 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageyes, of course that would work if I assume unlimited technology. The only problem is, the necessary technology would be too far into the future.
Assume as much technological advancement as your scheme requires.
But, in the far future, I can imagine such things as artificial floating land masses on oceans (like a flat ship but continuous over thousands of kilometers in all directions sidewise) created for habitation over vast areas of ocean water that would otherwise be unproductive due to the low nutrient levels in those parts of the oceans.
Once we have that, sea level rise would become almost irrelevant and we can produce all our food on this 'floating land'.
04 Dec 12
6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't think that is true -at least it is not true providing we totally abandon the hopelessly inefficient meat production ( on land ) and go veterinarian which I hope one day we all will as a result of reason finally prevailing.
It would make just as much sense to produce our food in the water below or around this land.
This is because I would guess the realistic optimum yield per hector of ocean food is unlikely to ever be as great as that of land unless, instead on relying on plankton being at the bottom of the food chain, you artificially feed the fish with food produced on the land ( like what happens in many fish farms ).
Potato crop yield would be typically be ~15 tons per hector ( see http://www.moa.gov.bd/statistics/Table3.09Yield.htm ) -the optimum being much higher than this.
Soya crop yield would be typically be ~3 tons per hector ( see http://www.soystats.com/2012/page_04.htm ) -the optimum being higher than this.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a link that allowed a direct comparison with the above with sea food production but I bet the only way ocean food production can achieve those kinds of yields above is to 'cheat' ( if that is the right word ) by first growing the food on land and then feed it to the fish to grow the fish -just like many fish farmers do.
I think I should also point out that, while it is possible to have a perfectly balanced diet with land-grown food alone, a balanced diet would generally need more in it than just sea food. With just a few rare exceptions, most sea food lacks carbohydrates, roughage and vitamin C and we don't really need a diet that is so rich in protein as a pure sea-food diet so, at the very least, we should grow some of our food on land.
04 Dec 12
Originally posted by humyBut most of the world is ocean, so it is not important to get optimum yield per hectare. There is all that open ocean out there, lets use it better. Sure you may be suggesting covering it all over with land, but I thought you said 'floating islands'. I am saying that if we use 10 times the area of water as water, we might achieve the same goals. The main reason much of the sea is unproductive is the lack of nutrients. Nutrients are found near land where rivers and ocean currents provide it. If we fertilize the open ocean we could dramatically increase production. It could be as simple as putting fans on the bottom of the ocean to create vertical currents with nutrients.
This is because I would guess the realistic optimum yield per hector of ocean food is unlikely to ever be as great as that of land ....
04 Dec 12
8 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
But most of the world is ocean, so it is not important to get optimum yield per hectare. There is all that open ocean out there, lets use it better. Sure you may be suggesting covering it all over with land, but I thought you said 'floating islands'. I am saying that if we use 10 times the area of water as water, we might achieve the same goals. The main ...[text shortened]... simple as putting fans on the bottom of the ocean to create vertical currents with nutrients.
But most of the world is ocean, so it is not important to get optimum yield per hectare.
that would depend on the size of the human population of the world and that size is still greatly increasing and, depending on which assumptions prove correct, may continue to increase rapidly ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg ) and, as I just said, at least some of the food should come from the land because sea food alone would not make a balanced diet.
Besides, the less area we use to produce our food, the more area we have left over to use for other useful things ( such as forestry, homes, industry, conservation areas etc ) .
but I thought you said 'floating islands'.
actually I didn't. I said 'floating land masses' and I was thinking more along the lines of them being roughly as big as Australia and some may join onto or at least have 'floating land bridges' to the main continents.
Obviously it would be unacceptable to put such vast floating land masses over very productive ocean or where there are coral reefs because, to do so, would kill off much of the life and productivity of the ocean.
So that just leaves parts of the oceans that are naturally poor in both plankton and in coral ( or any other kind of life ). Fortunately there are vast areas of ocean that are naturally poor in both and it is in these areas that I think floating land masses would eventually ( far into the future ) be built. If you see the lower map on
http://www.gma.org/herring/biology/distribution/comparing_oceans.asp , excluding the coral areas which the map doesn't show, you will see that there is plenty of such ocean ( colored deep-blue on this map ) .
If we fertilize the open ocean we could dramatically increase production.
I have concerns of this suggestion whenever I hear it made; where would all this fertilizer keep coming from? Would the nutrients be all recycled or would much of it keep sinking to the ocean depths out of accesses to the plankton near the surface thus the surface water would have to be regularly and unsustainable fertilized by fertilizer imported from elsewhere?
If you look at where in the ocean there is naturally high levels of nutrients, they are where the ocean currents naturally draws-up nutrients from the bottom or where they run off the land. Elsewhere in the ocean, they nutrients levels are very low because they are not naturally completely recycled there which means you would forever have to continually artificially inject nutrients in those nutrient-poor areas which I cannot see how could do that sustainably.
05 Dec 12
Originally posted by humyYou can create a floating land mass the size of australia, but fertilizing the ocean is a problem?
I have concerns of this suggestion whenever I hear it made; where would all this fertilizer keep coming from? Would the nutrients be all recycled or would much of it keep sinking to the ocean depths out of accesses to the plankton near the surface thus the surface water would have to be regularly and unsustainable fertilized by fertilizer imported from elsewher ...[text shortened]... inject nutrients in those nutrient-poor areas which I cannot see how could do that sustainably.
I was thinking along the lines of exactly what you mention, ie ocean currents drawing nutrients from the ocean floor. We could either build current guides that cause natural currents to push nutrients to the suface (the way continents and some islands already do), or we could have large tubes with pumps physically pumping ocean sediment to the surface.
05 Dec 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageClimate change may not necessarily be something that negatively affects all areas. Some areas may, for instance, become more fertile, get more rainfall, and so on, while other areas may become arid or experience more extreme weather conditions. So what people should do is build defenses against weather events and/or move to different places to adapt.
Let's face it, Homo Sap is just too dumb to act in concert to stem global-warming-climate-change. But, paradoxically, the brainy ape has always been cunning enough to adapt to Mother Nature's violent mood-swings.
So, assuming six degrees of heat increase within the next 100 years, what should the adaptable among us be thinking and doing?