Re: science sourcess

In article <MPG.1ebed589cdb2649898ada5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Gerry Quinn <gerryq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <e317v8$npf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jdnicoll@xxxxxxxxx says...
I don't buy the "too dark to grow plants" part. For one
thing, that's really dark and for another, what is that crap
doing to people's lungs?

Another alternative - somehow we found a way to reduce atmospheric CO2.
It worked too well...

Or there's been an event like the Toba explosion 70 millennia
ago. Our tech was enough to save the people but not the rest of the
ecosystems, which are still rebounding at the time of the story. I
suggest Yellowstone as a possibility.

Of course, there wasn't much of an extinction when Toba
blew its top and you'd think we could help the recovery process
along some.

Or there are _very_ strict guidelines on how much conventional
agriculture is allowed (since it's the thing we do with the largest
footprint) and that simply can't feed the World of Tomorrow. Happily,
there are alternatives [1].

1: And it's possible that what really happened is that the alternatives
just outcompeted conventional farming, just as the new-style hay bales
replaced proper ones.

--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
.