On February 28th, we discuss “natural geoengineering,” the capability of the Ecosystem to contrast and, in part, remedy the damage done to it by humans. It is a webinar organized by WAAS (World Academy for Arts and Science) in collaboration with the Club of Rome. We discuss the role of forests and oceans, and we compare it with some more possible actions. We also discuss the human side of the problem, especially for the less privileged populations living in the regions that risk being the most negatively affected by global warming.
Thanks for the heads up, Ugo. I doubt that I, as a layman, would be able to understand much of the seminar in real time ... but I would love a synopsis or even a transcript if such will be available on the web.
And thanks for having a virtual conference, as opposed to flying people to a conference hotel !
Whatever one believes with respect to the "climate change" issue, I believe you are on a safe track with the "Natural Geoengineering" idea. As I read it, this approach consists of two core ideas. The first would be simply to back off on consumption and seek a more sustainable way of living. The second would involve moving, IN A NATURAL WAY USING NATURAL METHODS, toward reconstruction of the ecosphere to make it more closely resemble an earlier, more natural world.
I find most of the geoengineering proposals I've read about much more alarming than the prospect of climate change itself. Many of them appear to be huge gambles that may not work and likely would have unanticipated side effects. Worst yet, many seem like they might be irreversible, leaving humankind (not to mention all the other creatures on earth and the planet itself) far from shore without landmarks, never to find our way back. The approach you describe has the apparent benefit of moving the planet back to a known earlier state.
The "experts" advocating these radical, engineered artificial solutions to a (perceived?) human-made crisis are people in a hurry, unwilling to wait until they reach the point in their research that would allow a safe application of their ideas. In their hubris, they push ahead aggressively, viewing the human race itself as nothing more than a planet filled with nameless test subjects. This is just one of many areas where this is true--bioengineering, artificial intelligence, radical cultural restructuring, and information manipulation are other examples.
The effects on the planet and on humanity itself are extremely complex, and this seems insufficiently appreciated. One analogy I might make would be the modern use of pharmaceuticals amongst the elderly. I read just recently that in the US (at least), it is not uncommon for the elderly to take as many as 14-15 prescription medications regularly (that is, long-term). After the first couple, the rest are usually taken to counteract side-effects of earlier ones, stacking a new one on as those side-effects multiply. A recent study found some amazing improvement in general health was realized simply by cutting way back on the number of meds these people were taking.
I think you are not understanding what "collapse" means - nor does Gaya Herrington (Herrington comes from the arena of Economics. Never listen to economists about mitigation and adaptation to climate change and the other issues we face) - if either of you thinks collapse is not already underway. Collapse is not a single point in time, particularly in a spectacularly complex system. The massive interconnections and teleconnections are too complex for such assumptions.
E.g., just ten year ago Antarctica was supposedly not losing mass. Then it was, that it would before the end of the century. Then that it is now. Then that it has been for decades, and, finally, a new report just in the past few days shows it started @ 1950 - just like the Arctic. This is something I predicted over ten years ago because I come at these issues nature-first, not human constructs-first as economists, climate scientists, and pretty much all others do.
No, collapse is a process that we are deeply into already. The question is not whether we are collapsing, it is whether it is still reversible. If we wait till 2040 or 2050 to begin serious action to reverse it, there will be zero chance of success, imo, because we are likely already at the edge of too late. In fact, I put our chance of success at not more than 5% - not because we can't, but because we aren't choosing to and won't choose to, and partly because of misleading analyses such as the one you present here from people who do not study nature's functions.
I’ve been reading “Healing Earth” by John Todd and I can’t and don’t want to shake his hope that we, as humans, are at the beginning of a new cycle wherein we work with all our kin to steward the earth back to health. It definitely can be done 😊
Thanks for the heads up, Ugo. I doubt that I, as a layman, would be able to understand much of the seminar in real time ... but I would love a synopsis or even a transcript if such will be available on the web.
And thanks for having a virtual conference, as opposed to flying people to a conference hotel !
Whatever one believes with respect to the "climate change" issue, I believe you are on a safe track with the "Natural Geoengineering" idea. As I read it, this approach consists of two core ideas. The first would be simply to back off on consumption and seek a more sustainable way of living. The second would involve moving, IN A NATURAL WAY USING NATURAL METHODS, toward reconstruction of the ecosphere to make it more closely resemble an earlier, more natural world.
I find most of the geoengineering proposals I've read about much more alarming than the prospect of climate change itself. Many of them appear to be huge gambles that may not work and likely would have unanticipated side effects. Worst yet, many seem like they might be irreversible, leaving humankind (not to mention all the other creatures on earth and the planet itself) far from shore without landmarks, never to find our way back. The approach you describe has the apparent benefit of moving the planet back to a known earlier state.
The "experts" advocating these radical, engineered artificial solutions to a (perceived?) human-made crisis are people in a hurry, unwilling to wait until they reach the point in their research that would allow a safe application of their ideas. In their hubris, they push ahead aggressively, viewing the human race itself as nothing more than a planet filled with nameless test subjects. This is just one of many areas where this is true--bioengineering, artificial intelligence, radical cultural restructuring, and information manipulation are other examples.
The effects on the planet and on humanity itself are extremely complex, and this seems insufficiently appreciated. One analogy I might make would be the modern use of pharmaceuticals amongst the elderly. I read just recently that in the US (at least), it is not uncommon for the elderly to take as many as 14-15 prescription medications regularly (that is, long-term). After the first couple, the rest are usually taken to counteract side-effects of earlier ones, stacking a new one on as those side-effects multiply. A recent study found some amazing improvement in general health was realized simply by cutting way back on the number of meds these people were taking.
I think you are not understanding what "collapse" means - nor does Gaya Herrington (Herrington comes from the arena of Economics. Never listen to economists about mitigation and adaptation to climate change and the other issues we face) - if either of you thinks collapse is not already underway. Collapse is not a single point in time, particularly in a spectacularly complex system. The massive interconnections and teleconnections are too complex for such assumptions.
E.g., just ten year ago Antarctica was supposedly not losing mass. Then it was, that it would before the end of the century. Then that it is now. Then that it has been for decades, and, finally, a new report just in the past few days shows it started @ 1950 - just like the Arctic. This is something I predicted over ten years ago because I come at these issues nature-first, not human constructs-first as economists, climate scientists, and pretty much all others do.
No, collapse is a process that we are deeply into already. The question is not whether we are collapsing, it is whether it is still reversible. If we wait till 2040 or 2050 to begin serious action to reverse it, there will be zero chance of success, imo, because we are likely already at the edge of too late. In fact, I put our chance of success at not more than 5% - not because we can't, but because we aren't choosing to and won't choose to, and partly because of misleading analyses such as the one you present here from people who do not study nature's functions.
I’ve been reading “Healing Earth” by John Todd and I can’t and don’t want to shake his hope that we, as humans, are at the beginning of a new cycle wherein we work with all our kin to steward the earth back to health. It definitely can be done 😊