Some simple facts about the future people would rather not face

[Bruno]

We do have ways to convert CO₂ to Oxygen + other thangs, but they all take energy, a lot of energy,

[Bruno]

well, yeah. it is.
until it isn't.

well sure, but working with nature is way more efficient than trying to fight against it.  Nature has a zillion feedback systems in place that help to keep things in balance.  we've made a lot of these less effective than they used to be, but even the most barren parts of the world currently are still teeming with life in all sorts of interesting and useful ways. 

You honestly expect me to believe that, after umpteen thousand years of scientific research we can't make a machine that will turn co2 into oxygen? One that takes even slightly less than a couple of hundred years to build a replacement? We're relying on fucking trees? If that's the case then we are so useless we deserve to die.

So we got this insect in scotland - the midge. maybe you already heard of it, if not let me paint a picture - it's basically a really fucking tiny mosquito-ish thing that bites you and it itches like fuck. nowhere near as sore as a mosquito bite but these bastards swarm in their millions so you end up covered in the little cunts. So some wiseguy comes up with a plan to release a bunch of neutered females into the wild and somehow this was going to wipe the bastards off the face of the planet. Don't ask me how, I'm not a scientists, but this dude was and apparently it was going to work until some stupid ecologist starts bitching on about how this would impact the bat and swallow populations cos they fed on them and then the things that fed on bats and swallows would suffer and all kinds of grievous shit would go down.

That's when I realised the ecosystem was a delicately balanced crock of complete shit. The problem is all the subsystems are interdependent. If one component fails the whole fucking shooting match comes crashing down. There's no failover, there's no way to isolate shit, there's no built in redundancy. Basically it's a crock of shit. even if we did manage to turn the tide of climate change or the greenhouse effect which, lets face it, aint going to happen, some spanky new kind of fish aids or grass cancer might pop up, entirely without our assistance and cause a catastrophic chain reaction that would wipe out humanity on it's own.

Sorry but nature is piss weak or, to be more accurate, natures ability to look after US is piss weak. For one thing it doesn't give a shit about us so it has no agenda to make sure we're okay. If we were entirely reliant on nature I'm pretty sure we'd already be extinct but fortunately we have technology. Things like agriculture and medicine and shit like that but we're still largely reliant on "harnessing" or "circumventing" nature. We need to get over that shit before it destroys us, like it did with the dinosaurs and all the other things that were consigned to natures scrapheap.

plants are an incredibly efficient way to turn CO2 into Oxygen.  They run on solar power and they grow really quickly if you use the right sort of plants.  The advantage of trees is that they produce useable lumber and sequester carbon in their trunks rather than re-releasing it upon decomposition.  If you need quicker air maintenance something fast growing is probably going to be a much better idea.

Yes, we should (and do) tailor the ecosystem to our own needs, however part of that is preserving those complex systems that you are bitching about because those provide for our needs far more efficiently than anything that we are capable of building.

Trees rot when they die, bro.

[BabylonHoruv]

well, yeah. it is.
until it isn't.

well sure, but working with nature is way more efficient than trying to fight against it.  Nature has a zillion feedback systems in place that help to keep things in balance.  we've made a lot of these less effective than they used to be, but even the most barren parts of the world currently are still teeming with life in all sorts of interesting and useful ways. 

You honestly expect me to believe that, after umpteen thousand years of scientific research we can't make a machine that will turn co2 into oxygen? One that takes even slightly less than a couple of hundred years to build a replacement? We're relying on fucking trees? If that's the case then we are so useless we deserve to die.

So we got this insect in scotland - the midge. maybe you already heard of it, if not let me paint a picture - it's basically a really fucking tiny mosquito-ish thing that bites you and it itches like fuck. nowhere near as sore as a mosquito bite but these bastards swarm in their millions so you end up covered in the little cunts. So some wiseguy comes up with a plan to release a bunch of neutered females into the wild and somehow this was going to wipe the bastards off the face of the planet. Don't ask me how, I'm not a scientists, but this dude was and apparently it was going to work until some stupid ecologist starts bitching on about how this would impact the bat and swallow populations cos they fed on them and then the things that fed on bats and swallows would suffer and all kinds of grievous shit would go down.

That's when I realised the ecosystem was a delicately balanced crock of complete shit. The problem is all the subsystems are interdependent. If one component fails the whole fucking shooting match comes crashing down. There's no failover, there's no way to isolate shit, there's no built in redundancy. Basically it's a crock of shit. even if we did manage to turn the tide of climate change or the greenhouse effect which, lets face it, aint going to happen, some spanky new kind of fish aids or grass cancer might pop up, entirely without our assistance and cause a catastrophic chain reaction that would wipe out humanity on it's own.

Sorry but nature is piss weak or, to be more accurate, natures ability to look after US is piss weak. For one thing it doesn't give a shit about us so it has no agenda to make sure we're okay. If we were entirely reliant on nature I'm pretty sure we'd already be extinct but fortunately we have technology. Things like agriculture and medicine and shit like that but we're still largely reliant on "harnessing" or "circumventing" nature. We need to get over that shit before it destroys us, like it did with the dinosaurs and all the other things that were consigned to natures scrapheap.

plants are an incredibly efficient way to turn CO2 into Oxygen.  They run on solar power and they grow really quickly if you use the right sort of plants.  The advantage of trees is that they produce useable lumber and sequester carbon in their trunks rather than re-releasing it upon decomposition.  If you need quicker air maintenance something fast growing is probably going to be a much better idea.

Yes, we should (and do) tailor the ecosystem to our own needs, however part of that is preserving those complex systems that you are bitching about because those provide for our needs far more efficiently than anything that we are capable of building.

Trees rot when they die, bro.

Yep, but they also live for hundreds of years and get used to build houses and such.  That carbon stays locked up much longer than it does in plants that grow quickly.

[Sano]

Sorry but nature is piss weak or, to be more accurate, natures ability to look after US is piss weak. For one thing it doesn't give a shit about us so it has no agenda to make sure we're okay. If we were entirely reliant on nature I'm pretty sure we'd already be extinct but fortunately we have technology. Things like agriculture and medicine and shit like that but we're still largely reliant on "harnessing" or "circumventing" nature. We need to get over that shit before it destroys us, like it did with the dinosaurs and all the other things that were consigned to natures scrapheap.

Funny you mention agriculture and medicine as those are two of the best examples of science which depend on nature. You can't grow food if you're hell bent on destroying ecosystems because they don't react well to our own actions. Many important vaccines and other shit like that are also being developed from those annoying mosquitoes you mentioned.

The thing is, techonolgy and nature aren't mutually exclusive at all. Technology depends on nature for the most part of it; we can't simply think we'll build a human technological utopia out of thin air.

We do have ways to convert CO₂ to Oxygen + other thangs, but they all take energy, a lot of energy,

Which of course takes a lot of oil ATM, which of course liberates even more CO2... Plants are simply the most efficient way we have now. And they are fucking efficient btw, we aren't doomed if we start taking better care of things, but it'd have to start NOW.

[Bruno]

A forest that is growing (rate of decay < rate of new growth) sequesters Carbon. If it in equilibrium (rate of decay = rate of new growth) then it is carbon neutral. One that is shrinking (rate of decay > rate of new growth) then it is contributing to greenhouse gasses.

Actually, a forest in equilibrium may still be contributing to greenhouse gasses since it is releasing methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

[Bruno]

WTF does the word "natural" mean, anyway.

Are humans natural?

How is a skyscraper less natural than an anthill?

[Bruno]

What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

I like the idea of less people, I'm just not sure how we could do that ethically.

[P3nT4gR4m]

What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

I'm totally down with that. Kill two birds with one stone - hand out breeding licenses to people who seem like they're capable of bringing up a child responsibly and keep the numbers down but apparently being able to breed like fucking cockroaches is a basic human right or some shit.

Funny you mention agriculture and medicine as those are two of the best examples of science which depend on nature. You can't grow food if you're hell bent on destroying ecosystems because they don't react well to our own actions. Many important vaccines and other shit like that are also being developed from those annoying mosquitoes you mentioned.

The thing is, techonolgy and nature aren't mutually exclusive at all. Technology depends on nature for the most part of it; we can't simply think we'll build a human technological utopia out of thin air.

Yeah, good point, I stand corrected

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

I like the idea of less people, I'm just not sure how we could do that ethically.

The most effective way of limiting populations is also the most ethical; with education and relief from hardship.

[Disco Pickle]

What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

I'm totally down with that. Kill two birds with one stone - hand out breeding licenses to people who seem like they're capable of bringing up a child responsibly and keep the numbers down but apparently being able to breed like fucking cockroaches is a basic human right or some shit.

Funny you mention agriculture and medicine as those are two of the best examples of science which depend on nature. You can't grow food if you're hell bent on destroying ecosystems because they don't react well to our own actions. Many important vaccines and other shit like that are also being developed from those annoying mosquitoes you mentioned.

The thing is, techonolgy and nature aren't mutually exclusive at all. Technology depends on nature for the most part of it; we can't simply think we'll build a human technological utopia out of thin air.

Yeah, good point, I stand corrected

Fuck that.  Who the fuck decides THAT?

How do you enforce it?

Just what we need, a state body telling us one more thing we can't do without their permission.

[Payne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

[Salty]

By how much would the population have to shrink for our current rate of AWESOME doesn't kill us? If we were to do what we've been doing, would shrinking the population (through SCIENCE, for arguments sake) help at all?

[Sano]

By how much would the population have to shrink for our current rate of AWESOME doesn't kill us? If we were to do what we've been doing, would shrinking the population (through SCIENCE, for arguments sake) help at all?

Even if there were only like 200 million people on earth do you really think they'd come to a point where they simply said "fuck progress, I don't want to buy more and nicer things than I buy now"? Eventually they'd be consuming as much as our present population. Sure, that'd take some more centuries. But it would happen someday.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Fuck that.  Who the fuck decides THAT?

How do you enforce it?

There's two options.

A) Pass legislation that you can't have a kid without obtaining a license. Enforce it by whatever means necessary.

B) Every man woman and child on the face of planet earth is wiped out in a horrendous decades-long holocaust

Those are your choices. (B is the default)