And also we need to clearly and objectively - no censorship - no preformed bias - explore the degree to which, if at all, increasing "greenhouse" gases actually do or do not materially change the climate or the average ambient surface temperature on this planet. Are rising Co2 levels causal or consequent to global warming?
Wow. Finally someone took a crack at pointing out the extent of our true anthropic self centered interest! Redundant, for sure. We cannot even be honest about that. No, it's not the earth we are saving, it's us, because we have an impact, as does everything else evolution has created, on that same earth. So, go extinct, be hysterical idiots, adapt, or be careful and cognizant. We'll see!!
Nobody is saying not to be careful here, but the idea that any of us “know” that only idiots would do (insert thing here) in such a complicated and dynamic system is just a religious exercise.
Which is the more moral path: to stop burning fossil fuels and kill most of humanity or to burn too much and kill an as of yet undetermined amount of humanity? The answer? Outside of universities nobody gives a shit about this as a moral exercise because it stems from an unpopular religion based on self hatred. Most people would like air conditioning and safe refrigerated food.
Economics has always been about wasting abundant resources in order to save scarce resources. Which resources are abundant and scarce changes over time.
We need to approach this with reason and an eye to true sustainability, not quasi-religious dogma.
Nothing new really. You are just missing losers (not the author!) arguing about the marketing strategy and rationale for global government that will never happen…
I'm not a geologist, and I have even more trouble understanding the controversy. It seems very much like trying to separate flyshit from the pepper. Isn't the real question, will we continue to flourish through the end of the Holocene Interglacial, or will we shoot ourselves in the foot trying to apologize for being human?
Again I have said before but we should name the current era the Anthropocene and it should be a flex not an embarrassment. We're the greatest species that has ever walked the earth. I'm biased of course.
Human induced changes are largely to the Earth's biota. Many would argue negative changes, but that is debatable since increasing CO2 levels have increases overall biomass on Earth. We could also greatly expand Earth's biomass by ocean fertilization, especially putting floating Nuclear Power plants in the deep ocean that pump up nutrient rich seawater & sediment up from the ocean bottom.
By far and away the most significant change humans can make to the Earth's biota is replication. It is well within our capability to bioform Mars, raising Mars temperature above 0 degC, and increasing atmospheric pressure to a biologically adaptable level, by releasing super greenhouse gases into the Mars atmosphere. And then seeding Earth organisms to accelerate the bioforming of Mars, until Earth plants can thrive there. Doing that will be the greatest event in the history of Earth life since the Cambrian explosion.
SmithFS, who are you? And what is your agenda? Ocean fertilization, sinking SMRs to the sea floor, colonizing Mars with terrestrial biota… Your ideas are quite grandiose and potentially dangerous imo as you seem oblivious to risks and negative impacts.
My agenda is REAL solutions not scams like wind & solar power, ITER, agro-fuels, biomass power, hydrogen, battery utility storage, a few more. I didn't say sinking SMRs to the sea floor, I said floating Nuclear power plants, that pump up water from the seafloor. That is not a proven method, it should work, but it would have to be evaluated scientifically and an economic value determined for increased ocean food production and CO2 ultimately drawn from the atmosphere. Ocean fertilization has had preliminary studies, some success. Looks feasible.
You can call them grandiose, but stopping climate change is also grandiose. It doesn't matter what label you want to attach to it, all that matters is that it is doable at a modest cost. I don't see what risks and negative impacts there is to turning a dead planet into a living World.
The problem with ocean fertilization is that it will upset existing ecosystems, nutrient cycles etc. and create new ecosystems (if we are lucky) that depend on human inputs. Not saying we should not restore ecosystems but I’m not in favor of replacing them by high-maintenance man made systems.
#1) To supply human consumption, is inevitably going to upset some ecosystems. What you think vast areas of land & sea encased under solar panels and gargantuan wind turbines doesn't upset ecosystems? The incredible amount of materials that must be mined to make that huge mass, and then disposed of somehow.
The logical analysis is what is cost/benefit vs other methods, in particular the overwhelmingly predominant method being used for the past decade = wind & solar power. Also agrofuels. Biomass burning. Hydrogen. Utility batter storage. BEVs. All have big environmental impacts.
#2) I believe there is a certain hierarchy we need to accept for ecosystems. If we can turn desert into forested land is that not an improvement? If we can green barren wastelands with plant & animal life, is that not a valuable achievement? If we can turn the areas of the deep ocean that are almost devoid of life, into an aquatic environment with a rich & diverse living ecosystem is that not a worthy undertaking? While reducing emissions at the same time.
And that they require human maintenance to sustain them is irrelevant, since the very purpose is to offset the adverse effects of other human activities. If humans give up on those ecosystems, then likely we are vacating the biosphere. So either way the problem is resolved.
I didn't say you were a solar fan. I'm saying that is what our governments are doing. We can actually use wind/solar as a baseline to compare other methods against, since they get the overwhelming amount of funding.
The rich ecosystem will be on the surface of the ocean, where phytoplankton will proliferate if they had adequate nutrients. They are consumed by zooplankton which in turn are food for larger marine life including fish & whales. I'm no marine biologist but that's the basic principal.
Great article and comments too. It's time to dump environmentalism and move on to humanism all you true believers. Want less forest fires in the American west? Manage the forests with human intervention because nature will ALWAYS burn them if left alone. CO2 enrichment of earth's atmosphere is the single biggest gift for our biosphere and warming is a close second. Time to get over our sense of moral superiority and take advantage. Life is always and ever an opportunity.
So the answer to trying to dominate the rest of nature, say, through Kapitalism, is to dominate nature instead through Kollectivism. And, not that any one life-form is greater than another in formational existence, involving no moral hierarchy, but the path forward is then to somehow involve a goodness, a collective goodness, suppose one would.
Interesting article, and I am in general agreement with the conclusion. Minor point (perhaps): Given that the discussion is about planet Earth, why are all references to the planet in lower case?
That's right, and by a vast margin, the most important impact we can have is to bioform Mars with the progeny of Earth biota. Nothing else we have done is remotely close to that in significance. Indeed if we fail to fulfill our responsibility to undertake that incredible act of creation, the Genesis of the Living Mars, even if we become completely benign in our effect on the Earth's ecosystem, that failure will be an act of destruction far beyond anything we have or likely ever will do to.
In the same way as you can accuse our governments of a failure to act responsibly to protect the Earth's ecosystems, our failure to act responsibly to facilitate the birth of a new living World.
Considering the predominant characteristic of life, and the #1 or #2 motivation is procreation, then the procreation of Earth biota to other Worlds is a heavy responsibility that sits squarely on our shoulders. Something no other Earth organism can achieve. We are the one.
Likely there is extant life in the Mars soil. Bacterial. Very important to discover if this is related to Earth life or a unique origin. However, I don't see how anyone would care if we introduced Earth life to Mars, bacteria, lichen, amoeba, phytoplankton and other autotrophs to Mars. They would compete with Mars autotrophs which would all greatly expand with a warming planet. The goal is always higher order life forms, like insects, animals, mammals, fish, trees etc., once oceans & lakes are common and the atmosphere is dense. That is of course a very long term goal depending on our tech development.
I don't really care if some original bacteria are overwhelmed by Earth organisms. We don't care if any of billions of bacterial species go extinct here on Earth.
I fail to see why it is our responsibility to create life on another planet, while it seems obvious to me we are responsible for our impact on the biosphere of the planet we already inhabit.
What would colonizing Mars bring us?
Where does the higher imperative to do so come from?
You complain about our minor impact on the Earth's biosphere, vs creating an entire World of life, that would very much be the the Earth's equal. There are billions of planets in our galaxy, but we know of only one with life. Life is the most precious thing. There is no greater gift to Mother Earth or to life in general that to achieve that Genesis. Otherwise who cares? Damage the Earth a few centuries, a blip in time, who cares? A living Mars will last even longer than Earth life will.
Colonizing Mars is a separate issue. But presumably to bioform Mars we would also colonize it. The PTB are already pushing us towards global nuclear war and deadly bioweapons. A colony on Mars could be the last chance for human civilization to survive. And it will be a different human civilization. Inevitably it will be populated by the best & brightest that Earth has to offer, whereas the Earth is degenerating to Idiocracy.
I don’t share your vision. Nor did I complain in any of my comments and not in my post, despite its title. Did you read it?
Human impact on the biosphere is not minor.
I suppose you/your offspring will get a ticket to Mars while planet Earth becomes inhabitable?
As I write in my post I choose to make the best of the situation we have on planet Earth and have no reason to believe we’d do better on another planet if we mess up here.
And also we need to clearly and objectively - no censorship - no preformed bias - explore the degree to which, if at all, increasing "greenhouse" gases actually do or do not materially change the climate or the average ambient surface temperature on this planet. Are rising Co2 levels causal or consequent to global warming?
Wow. Finally someone took a crack at pointing out the extent of our true anthropic self centered interest! Redundant, for sure. We cannot even be honest about that. No, it's not the earth we are saving, it's us, because we have an impact, as does everything else evolution has created, on that same earth. So, go extinct, be hysterical idiots, adapt, or be careful and cognizant. We'll see!!
Nobody is saying not to be careful here, but the idea that any of us “know” that only idiots would do (insert thing here) in such a complicated and dynamic system is just a religious exercise.
Which is the more moral path: to stop burning fossil fuels and kill most of humanity or to burn too much and kill an as of yet undetermined amount of humanity? The answer? Outside of universities nobody gives a shit about this as a moral exercise because it stems from an unpopular religion based on self hatred. Most people would like air conditioning and safe refrigerated food.
People who don’t know where their next meal is coming from DGAF about the environment.
Economics has always been about wasting abundant resources in order to save scarce resources. Which resources are abundant and scarce changes over time.
We need to approach this with reason and an eye to true sustainability, not quasi-religious dogma.
There is plenty of value in *increasing* sustainability and not whizzing in the well, but the misanthropy of some of these folks drives me nuts.
I'm a geologist. I have trouble considering the controversy very important to geology and society. What am I missing?
Nothing new really. You are just missing losers (not the author!) arguing about the marketing strategy and rationale for global government that will never happen…
I'm not a geologist, and I have even more trouble understanding the controversy. It seems very much like trying to separate flyshit from the pepper. Isn't the real question, will we continue to flourish through the end of the Holocene Interglacial, or will we shoot ourselves in the foot trying to apologize for being human?
Again I have said before but we should name the current era the Anthropocene and it should be a flex not an embarrassment. We're the greatest species that has ever walked the earth. I'm biased of course.
Human induced changes are largely to the Earth's biota. Many would argue negative changes, but that is debatable since increasing CO2 levels have increases overall biomass on Earth. We could also greatly expand Earth's biomass by ocean fertilization, especially putting floating Nuclear Power plants in the deep ocean that pump up nutrient rich seawater & sediment up from the ocean bottom.
By far and away the most significant change humans can make to the Earth's biota is replication. It is well within our capability to bioform Mars, raising Mars temperature above 0 degC, and increasing atmospheric pressure to a biologically adaptable level, by releasing super greenhouse gases into the Mars atmosphere. And then seeding Earth organisms to accelerate the bioforming of Mars, until Earth plants can thrive there. Doing that will be the greatest event in the history of Earth life since the Cambrian explosion.
SmithFS, who are you? And what is your agenda? Ocean fertilization, sinking SMRs to the sea floor, colonizing Mars with terrestrial biota… Your ideas are quite grandiose and potentially dangerous imo as you seem oblivious to risks and negative impacts.
My agenda is REAL solutions not scams like wind & solar power, ITER, agro-fuels, biomass power, hydrogen, battery utility storage, a few more. I didn't say sinking SMRs to the sea floor, I said floating Nuclear power plants, that pump up water from the seafloor. That is not a proven method, it should work, but it would have to be evaluated scientifically and an economic value determined for increased ocean food production and CO2 ultimately drawn from the atmosphere. Ocean fertilization has had preliminary studies, some success. Looks feasible.
You can call them grandiose, but stopping climate change is also grandiose. It doesn't matter what label you want to attach to it, all that matters is that it is doable at a modest cost. I don't see what risks and negative impacts there is to turning a dead planet into a living World.
The problem with ocean fertilization is that it will upset existing ecosystems, nutrient cycles etc. and create new ecosystems (if we are lucky) that depend on human inputs. Not saying we should not restore ecosystems but I’m not in favor of replacing them by high-maintenance man made systems.
I got 2 big problems with those type of claims:
#1) To supply human consumption, is inevitably going to upset some ecosystems. What you think vast areas of land & sea encased under solar panels and gargantuan wind turbines doesn't upset ecosystems? The incredible amount of materials that must be mined to make that huge mass, and then disposed of somehow.
The logical analysis is what is cost/benefit vs other methods, in particular the overwhelmingly predominant method being used for the past decade = wind & solar power. Also agrofuels. Biomass burning. Hydrogen. Utility batter storage. BEVs. All have big environmental impacts.
#2) I believe there is a certain hierarchy we need to accept for ecosystems. If we can turn desert into forested land is that not an improvement? If we can green barren wastelands with plant & animal life, is that not a valuable achievement? If we can turn the areas of the deep ocean that are almost devoid of life, into an aquatic environment with a rich & diverse living ecosystem is that not a worthy undertaking? While reducing emissions at the same time.
And that they require human maintenance to sustain them is irrelevant, since the very purpose is to offset the adverse effects of other human activities. If humans give up on those ecosystems, then likely we are vacating the biosphere. So either way the problem is resolved.
When and where did I advocate for sun and solar as being the solution?
Human consumption is not necessarily detrimental to the environment.
How do you want to support a rich ecosystem in the deep ocean without sunlight and what would be the benefits?
I didn't say you were a solar fan. I'm saying that is what our governments are doing. We can actually use wind/solar as a baseline to compare other methods against, since they get the overwhelming amount of funding.
The rich ecosystem will be on the surface of the ocean, where phytoplankton will proliferate if they had adequate nutrients. They are consumed by zooplankton which in turn are food for larger marine life including fish & whales. I'm no marine biologist but that's the basic principal.
All species try to change the environment so that it favours themselves.
Humanity is no different.
Great article and comments too. It's time to dump environmentalism and move on to humanism all you true believers. Want less forest fires in the American west? Manage the forests with human intervention because nature will ALWAYS burn them if left alone. CO2 enrichment of earth's atmosphere is the single biggest gift for our biosphere and warming is a close second. Time to get over our sense of moral superiority and take advantage. Life is always and ever an opportunity.
So the answer to trying to dominate the rest of nature, say, through Kapitalism, is to dominate nature instead through Kollectivism. And, not that any one life-form is greater than another in formational existence, involving no moral hierarchy, but the path forward is then to somehow involve a goodness, a collective goodness, suppose one would.
Interesting article, and I am in general agreement with the conclusion. Minor point (perhaps): Given that the discussion is about planet Earth, why are all references to the planet in lower case?
Geological epoch or event…who cares?
What matters is that we take responsibility for being the most impactful species on Earth.
Read my post “The burden of being alive in the Anthropocene”:
https://tychohuussen.substack.com/p/the-burden-of-being-alive-in-the
That's right, and by a vast margin, the most important impact we can have is to bioform Mars with the progeny of Earth biota. Nothing else we have done is remotely close to that in significance. Indeed if we fail to fulfill our responsibility to undertake that incredible act of creation, the Genesis of the Living Mars, even if we become completely benign in our effect on the Earth's ecosystem, that failure will be an act of destruction far beyond anything we have or likely ever will do to.
You write: “[…] that failure will be an act of destruction far beyond anything we have or likely ever will do to.“ Please explain yourself.
In the same way as you can accuse our governments of a failure to act responsibly to protect the Earth's ecosystems, our failure to act responsibly to facilitate the birth of a new living World.
Considering the predominant characteristic of life, and the #1 or #2 motivation is procreation, then the procreation of Earth biota to other Worlds is a heavy responsibility that sits squarely on our shoulders. Something no other Earth organism can achieve. We are the one.
What if we find Mars biota? Or recreate it? Or create a biota that is just new but can adapt well to Neo Martiformed Mars
Likely there is extant life in the Mars soil. Bacterial. Very important to discover if this is related to Earth life or a unique origin. However, I don't see how anyone would care if we introduced Earth life to Mars, bacteria, lichen, amoeba, phytoplankton and other autotrophs to Mars. They would compete with Mars autotrophs which would all greatly expand with a warming planet. The goal is always higher order life forms, like insects, animals, mammals, fish, trees etc., once oceans & lakes are common and the atmosphere is dense. That is of course a very long term goal depending on our tech development.
I don't really care if some original bacteria are overwhelmed by Earth organisms. We don't care if any of billions of bacterial species go extinct here on Earth.
I fail to see why it is our responsibility to create life on another planet, while it seems obvious to me we are responsible for our impact on the biosphere of the planet we already inhabit.
What would colonizing Mars bring us?
Where does the higher imperative to do so come from?
You complain about our minor impact on the Earth's biosphere, vs creating an entire World of life, that would very much be the the Earth's equal. There are billions of planets in our galaxy, but we know of only one with life. Life is the most precious thing. There is no greater gift to Mother Earth or to life in general that to achieve that Genesis. Otherwise who cares? Damage the Earth a few centuries, a blip in time, who cares? A living Mars will last even longer than Earth life will.
Colonizing Mars is a separate issue. But presumably to bioform Mars we would also colonize it. The PTB are already pushing us towards global nuclear war and deadly bioweapons. A colony on Mars could be the last chance for human civilization to survive. And it will be a different human civilization. Inevitably it will be populated by the best & brightest that Earth has to offer, whereas the Earth is degenerating to Idiocracy.
I don’t share your vision. Nor did I complain in any of my comments and not in my post, despite its title. Did you read it?
Human impact on the biosphere is not minor.
I suppose you/your offspring will get a ticket to Mars while planet Earth becomes inhabitable?
As I write in my post I choose to make the best of the situation we have on planet Earth and have no reason to believe we’d do better on another planet if we mess up here.