On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 6:31:46 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: > > Yes but in general making plans to solve problems that won't show up for >> more than 15 years usually turns into a farce, it does so for 2 reasons: >> >> 1) The problem you foresee has little relation to the problem you >> eventually end up facing. >> 2) Do to advancing technology the solution you propose has rapidly become >> ridiculous. >> > > This is often true of human scale problems, but I can't see it necessarily applies to global ones. It's possible some breakthrough like nuclear fusion or nanotechnology will render proposed solutions to climate change obsolete, but I wouldn't bet my life on anyone developing either of those within 15 years. And in the meantime glaciers, permafrost and arctic/antarctic ice continue to melt, and the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere continues to rise, and every year the problem becomes that much less tractable.
Putting your faith in yet to be developed technology may conceivably work for some things (examples please?) but for fixing something that's wrong with the biosphere it seems just a little over-optimistic. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
