Making the Best of a Messy Real World

We face an uncertain future. And there are no easy answers.

... Complete entry

Posted by krisnotaro  on  12/18  at  11:34 PM

great article mike! All i would like to add is that by looking at the ecosystem as an emergent complex system we can overcome most of the problems with climate change, although as you pointed out some those technologies might make things worse, but then again the ecosystem is an emergent complex system, so many different things will contribute to the balance of it, however, that "balance" does not have to look exactly like it is today and was 10 years ago, 40 years ago, or 150 years ago, the understanding of "ecosystem balance" in itself will change. However, the loss of species is of course a very sad thing and something we need to continue to consider.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/21  at  02:58 PM

Excellent article!

Your choice of title here is almost prophetic. After the rather dismal results that finalised in Copenhagen last week, this could well have read, "Making the best of a real messy climate summit". And so instead of a signed and agreed treaty between nations we have an "accord"!

"Accord" : definitions

1. Harmony of people's opinions or actions or characters
2. Concurrence of opinion
3. A written agreement between two states or sovereigns
4. Sympathetic compatibility

Can we really rely entirely upon politicians to solve these global issues? I am beginning to realise that waiting for politicians and governments to show some leadership here may be pointless and time wasting, thus I have decided upon my own resolve to reduce my carbon footprint by reducing my energy consumption - directly.

Perhaps if we all became even a little more proactive now about saving energy and reducing our usage, then our governments would then realise that we mean business. And then they may just begin to realise, (through decreased consumption, tax revenues, energy trade and other persuasions), that they indeed need to show some firm leadership. Almost everyone I speak to, (including myself), agrees that action needs to be taken now, yet we still await for the initiative from central government.

We had an energy saving initiative promoted back in the seventies through all media, simply the slogan – "SAVE IT!" … Seems that slogan applies with more weight and importance now than it ever did before.

Anyone wanting to read and download this recent Copenhagen "accord" of nations, the link can be found here…
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8424522.stm

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/22  at  02:07 AM

Sorry Mike, your capabilities with communications and media may well be stellar, but your lack of knowledge concerning earth's ecosystems is massive.

Some few of earth' ecosystems ARE remarkably stable, like tropical rain-forests, but others are massively unstable, with regular catastrophic fluctuations for which a host of species have adapted quite well, thanks very much. Never mind that over 25% of earth's land surface ecosystems have adapted to seasonal temperature variability sufficient to kill and shutdown almost all biological productivity (we call it winter), let us look briefly at stream, river, forest, prairie and northern ecosystems.

All of the species resident in stream ecosystems have adapted to unpredictable catastrophic events we call floods. They do fine.

All of the species resident in applicable prairie and forest ecosystems have adapted to unpredictable catastrophic events we call fires, They do fine.

All of the species resident in certain northern land areas have adapted to unpredictable catastrophic events we call glaciation. They do fine.

All these ecosystems and many others are very unstable. Their residents have all adapted to this fact, and do fine.

All the failure of Biosphere 2 demonstrates is how poor our current understanding of earth's ecosystems and biosphere actually is.

The rest of your points concerning doom and gloom fit under the category of could, might, should, oughta. These are NOT science, merely speculation. In fact, climatology is not science, merely anecdotal naturalistic observation followed by more speculation. LOL Tell me -- what is earth's temperature today ? ROFL absurd.

If earth's biosphere was so fragile that some species/event/act of god could come along and totally zap it, believe me it would have happened already in the billions of years available. Earth would be a lifeless cinder. But it is NOT.

While we make a total shambles of our civilization and the carrying capacity of earth's ecosystems in the short term, in the long term, earth will abide. Thanks very much.

Posted by Giulio Prisco  on  12/28  at  12:19 PM

Techno-rapturists among our reading audience might be quick to respond with glib answers about miraculous nanotechnology solutions that are just around the corner, or the promise of a superintelligent friendly AI who can take over everything and solve all our troubles just like Daddy would.

Nobody responded with similar answers. Perhaps we should show more respect for our audience?

If there are no "techno-rapturists" in the audience, then this sentence is redundant. If there are some, they may feel unnecessarily insulted.

I recommend we work together on the many technoprogressive initiatives we all agree upon, agree to disagree on unrelated personal preferences.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/28  at  12:48 PM

Actually, one "techno-rapturist" did respond, in an article on his own blog.

Posted by Giulio Prisco  on  12/28  at  01:43 PM

Thanks for the link Mike! But he did not respond with "with glib answers about miraculous nanotechnology solutions that are just around the corner". Perhaps only in the last sentence:

But the only way that will happen in a realistic projection, is for the substantial mass of humanity and industry to move into space (or cyberspace or the equivalent). And that will require nanotech.

I also think something like this is the only really viable long term solution. Of course it is far in the future, and in the meantime we must ensure that our planet remains able to sustain the biosphere, which at this moment includes our species.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/10  at  08:15 PM

I have read Mike Treder's blog, which is devoted to the concept of molecular manufacturing. If the kind of molecular manufacturing that his blog advocates is possible, would that not make the old O'neill scenario of space colonization possible? If so, it seems to me that the best way to protect the Earth would be to promote this kind of space colonization once the relevant molecular manufacturing is possible and get as many people to migrate into space and turn the Earth into a giant park. Yet, Mike has never talked about space colonization on his blog. This makes no sense to me. What he and many others seem to forget, it was the people involved in the L-5 Society who first came up with the idea molecular manufacturing.

The kind of molecular manufacturing that Mike's blog is devoted to should make the O'neill scenario far cheaper and easier to accomplish than when it was first proposed in the 1970's. Why is this then not considered an appropriate long term solution to the problem of Earth's biosphere?

I simply fail to comprehend how someone who so obviously believes in the development of molecular nanotechnology can be so blind to the obvious application of opening up the solar system to human expansion, while preserving the Earth as a park. This seems so obvious to me. How can this not be obvious to Mike himself?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/11  at  01:38 PM

@Lindsey: Thanks for the question. I've answered it at length in this new article.

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: