Re: Stories for James Nicoll's Nightmarish Future

In article <ddfr-6FF8FB.16120605122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
David Friedman <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In article <3799p1hit6vc2cj5j14gb7jnok9tba2q9g@xxxxxxx>,
> Lucy Kemnitzer <ritaxis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> So these things have been lumberound around in my brain for a long
>> time, trying to breed plot bits and so on. I'm thinking that they are
>> probably needing to be pollinated by less sangune ideas in order to be
>> fertile.
>>
>> -- The inexorable rise of sea level, and its consequences (island
>> nations displaced: lower salinity in ocean waters, with consequences
>> for the organisms living in the water and for currents -- there are
>> already some true concerns about the Gulf Stream and the North
>> Atlantic).
>
>I don't think there has been much rise so far, and I believe the
>estimate made some years ago of sea level rise due to global warming was
>between half a meter and a meter over a period of a century, which would
>be a problem in a few places such as Bangla Desh, but not, I think, what
>you are describing. The scenarios I have seen for a larger rise than
>that depend on something relatively sudden happening in Antarctica--I'm
>not sure how sudden, but my guess is that it wouldn't be a slow, steady
>rise.

It has been suggested that the West Antarctic Ice *** might
collapse (over a period of weeks to months, IIRC) and cause a
relatively abrupt rise of 5 to 8 meters. That would put a lot of
coastal areas under water...

Also bear in mind what the local metric is for 'sea level'. It's
not the same everywehere. In the US, for the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico it's "mean low water". For the Pacific Coast it's "mean
lower low water". To assess the salt water flood risk around the
Bay Area, remember that tides have be over +7 feet from the chart
reference.

>> -- demographic stresses (James or Charlie or maybe somebody in some
>> other context completely had something to say about the concern around
>> the upward shift in age, but I can't remember the argument, only that
>> I remember I didn't think that the conclusion was warranted: the
>> conclusion being something like having a lot of old people to take
>> care of and not so many young people to do it was never going to be a
>> problem)
>
>It gets particularly interesting if we solve aging--I have some
>discussion of that in the _Future Imperfect_ manuscript linked to my web
>site. The problem then isn't taking care of old people, since presumably
>they aren't "old" in the relevant sense, but there are a variety of
>other problems that might arise--such as successful dictators no longer
>dying and tenured academics no longer retiring.

I understand that one of the drives for robotics in Japan is to
provide caretakers for the elderly.

--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA

My dime, my opinions.
.

Loading