fair.. was a little off subject... but the whole childish mother nature hating humans comment threw me a bit... i'm trying to suggest that it is fine to have the science.. and yes there are practical solutions to practical problems... i never suggested that total anihalation of the human race is what the world want and so we are powerless... more i have tried to produce an understanding of earth from a different angle. the science is great.. but it is science trying to fix what science has done... the armish people live in perfect harmony with their environment.. if we alll lived like that the world wouldn't be in the sate that its in... i'm not suggesting we grab our bibles and head into the woods to start building barns and churning butter (although minus the bibles its a pretty good idea).. im suggesting that if we whole heartedly believe that the earth has a conciousness; then maybe we will learn to understand and respect it more.. and with respect come the empathy we need to put your scientific miracle cures into practice
I wouldn't say your view is childish, that is perhaps a bit unfair. There is nothing childish in attempting to understand the world. I would, however, respectfully disagree with your beliefs. But despite that, I realise we both have the same long term goals, and we should see that as the most important uniting factor.
Science is not a position or a person, science doesn't have intentions or do things. It's just a tool. It is people trying to fix what people have done. Science can be misused and used destructively or can be used constructively... As for believing the earth has a consciousness ... unless you're proposing a likely mechanism for a claim like that I can't go anywhere near it, because I'm not going to believe something like that on assertion alone, without the slightest bit of evidence for me to think such a thing may be possible. But this is all for another thread, which I would be interested to read and contribute to PS. sorry about the 'childish' comment I probably got a bit carried away
In terms of what's possible, no. The total melting of the Greenland ice sheet would require significant further warming (3 degrees C) which probably will happen during this century if we don't act now. If we do act now to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions this catastrophic tipping point could probably be averted. So we have a little while in which to make changes. Whether the will to make the required changes exists is another matter...
there was a time when greenland was not covered in ice.. the early vikings inhabited it then, and it was a green and fertile land.. maybe we should move to greenland in anticipation of its return to this state.
Well we could, but millions living on the coastal regions around the world would be in trouble. Also, Africa would become barren and agriculture would fail. The resulting loss of life could be quite catestrophic. Yes, the climate on Earth has been radically different in the past, but there have also never been this many humans before. We simply couldn't sustain a population of our size and go back to past conditions....
this is very true... and it was our own food surplus which allowed agrigulturally poor nations to gain the population they now have, creating more mouths to feed and so more aid is needed. unfortunately as the world become more focused on local survival, the necessary aid which can be produced effectively now, will start to dwindle. how many people in the world are oil babies... probably about 4 billion.. thats 2 3rds of the world population.. so really.. we need to find an adequet replacement or face the conciquences of a massive world wide famine... and unfortunately it wont be the rich europeans that suffer. but the poorer countries which are already only surviving because of our aid.
Actually it's not our aid that keeps them alive, rather Western policy that keeps them in poverty. Aid might help when a big appeal is whipped up, but it's a drop in the ocean. A painkiller for a brain tumor....
Depressing reality is what we are facing now. The future has arrived, and this old thread from 2006 shows how naive we all were... we can all see the damage being caused yearly ramping up ever more in an ascending spiral of disaster after disaster. Just hark back to last year. In 2017 there were 16 billion dollar + disasters caused by the environment in the United States alone. The total costs are yet to be tallied, but exceed $306 billion US Dollars. The 16 "Billion-Dollar Disasters" That Happened in 2017 And today I read that in California we face extreme swings in the weather, which could damage or destroy 1/4 of California's housing, and it has happened before. In 1862 a flood inundated Sacramento and Leland Stanford had to use a rowboat to get to his inauguration as Governor. ~ Read more here.
The oil and auto interests have this country by the short hairs. They ( and many of the politicians) obviously care more about money than life itself. The next species extinction is well on its way, the coral reefs are dying out----the litany of coming disasters is voluminous.
Whilst I admire the sentiment, it can get to be too late to turn back the tide of environmental destruction , loss of bio diversity and climate change. Scientists talk about so-called 'tipping points' where it does become too late for anything humans can do to make any difference. Maybe we've already gone too far. To far for the huge numbers of species going extinct every year for instance. Since this thread was started back in 2006, a lot more damage has been done. Very little is being done on the kind of scale that would be reqiuired to avert disaster. How many more petrol cars are on UK roads now that 12 years ago for one tiny example? My guess is that only disaster actually occuring will cause the majority of sleep-walking humans to wake up.
i dont think its too late, but if we don't start making major adjustments very soon, it might come that way.