Re: Male vs Female viewpoints in SF
- From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Jan 2009 15:30:08 -0500
Quadibloc <jsavard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Winter weather is also a major killer, if you judge by the
difference in summer and winter total death rates -- and yet,
instead of declaring a war on winter, the government is officially
*against* global warming. For what Bush has spent on his several
wars, foreign and domestic, he could have launched a giant space
mirror which would keep the whole US comfortably warm every winter.
And we would be overrun by killer bees.
They would have to be horror-movie deadly to exceed the usual winter-
summer differential death rate.
Attempting to tamper with nature on such a scale risks all sorts of
horrifying destructive possibilities. Invasive species are just one
of them.
There are upsides and downsides to global warming.
The problems caused by winter can be solved by some capital
investment. Once we've converted to electric cars, it won't be
necessary to open our cities and highways to the outside air, so
snow need not get on the roads.
Cars aren't the only things that create air pollution or consume
oxygen. Domed cities look cool, but wouldn't really work.
Global warming will lead to millions of deaths worldwide, as people
living in small tropical countries encounter the failure of their
existing food sources, and have no option of migration, because of
national borders in the way.
Food grows better when it's warmer. They may have to switch to
different crops. Bananas instead of wheat in Canada, for instance.
There is the later problem of losing coastal cities as the ocean
level rises.
The obvious solution is to mine vast amounts of material from the
bottom of the ocean floors, so the oceans can expand downwards instead
of upwards. If the material is useful, the mining should not only pay
for itself, but make a profit.
We know what works. We know that during the years of recorded human
history, the Earth has had a climate consistent with human life.
Consistent with *some* human life. The ice ages didn't render mankind
extinct, but they probably killed some horrific percentage. I'm sure
far more people froze or starved during the ice ages than will ever be
hurt by bees.
So that climate should be maintained without alteration, until we
know *exactly* what we are doing, and have the ability to assist
anyone who is adversely affected by a proposed change.
That's not an option. Climate is a chaotic system. We can never know
exactly what we're doing, nor can we maintain it without alteration.
One thing that has *never* happened during all of prehistory is
stasis. The climate has *always* been changing, in every age, on
every timescale.
Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide. Convert to them
for all our energy use; heat our homes with electricity, ...
Even if electricity could be generated for free, *transmission* costs
alone exceed the total cost of natural gas. So unless every home gets
an onsite reactor...
use trolley buses for public transit, and use public transit during
rush hour.
Sounds good. I'm most familiar with the DC Metro system. It's run so
badly and fares are so high that people are giving it up and switching
to cars, as cars are not only faster and more reliable, but also
*cheaper*. Can you figure out how to get them to run it properly?
Ultimately, atmospheric carbon dioxide should be maintained at a
long-term natural level of 250 ppm, although levels as high as 300
ppm may be acceptable, as they have occurred naturally.
Levels far higher than that have occurred naturally. During most of
our planet's history there have been no ice caps or glaciers.
Terrorism should be a very low priority, something comparable to
the threat of used chewing gum left on sidewalks.
Someone else has already pointed out that crime, and volitional
hostile human activity in general, has to be given a very high
priority, not depending only on the actual damage successfully
caused, because the thinking actors behind it can be *emboldened*
by a failure to act.
I think they're more emboldened by overreaction. What do you think
their motive is? To be *ignored*? I don't think so.
(I am of course speaking of terrorism, not of for-profit crime such
as burglary and robbery.)
Also, it is a new problem, an addition to existing hazards, just
as AIDS is an addition to previously existing infectious disease
problems. If something is a problem _we didn't have before_, it
at least seems possible that it is also a problem we can *not have
again*, a problem we can successfully *get rid of*, unlike other
ongoing problems.
Terrorism is not new.
Another very high priority for the U.S. should be Russia's invasion
on part of Georgia on a pretext. This could be just a tit-for-tat
for Kosovo, but that in itself seriously limits U.S. freedom of
action and U.S. credibility as an ally.
One cold war was quite enough. I'm still waiting for my peace dividend.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Male vs Female viewpoints in SF
- From: James A . Donald
- Re: Male vs Female viewpoints in SF
- From: Quadibloc
- Re: Male vs Female viewpoints in SF
- References:
- Re: Male vs Female viewpoints in SF
- From: Keith F. Lynch
- Re: Male vs Female viewpoints in SF
- From: Quadibloc
- Re: Male vs Female viewpoints in SF
- Prev by Date: Re: Modern reality as old SF
- Next by Date: Re: Modern reality as old SF
- Previous by thread: Re: Male vs Female viewpoints in SF
- Next by thread: Re: Male vs Female viewpoints in SF
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
