First Turning "purge"

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2018, 08:17 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:..... Several studies in the last year or so have suggested that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of increase is actually accelerating.

Just this month, a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that sea levels have been rising by an average of about 3 millimeters (around one-tenth of an inch) per year since the 1990s, and that the rate is gradually speeding up. If the process continues at its current rate, sea levels could rise by more than 2 feet by the end of this century alone.


Other recent studies have also suggested that previous estimates of sea-level rise, under a variety of future climate scenarios, may be too modest. Several papers in the last year, for instance—including an October paper in Environmental Research Letters and a December paper in Earth's Future—suggest that better accounting for some of the physical processes affecting ice loss in Antarctica could significantly increase estimates of future sea-level rise. Under severe climate change scenarios, these new studies suggest that sea levels could rise by more than 4 feet by the end of the century.

These 4 feet don't seem much. And this is what happens "under severe climate change scenarios". The real change will be probably 2 or 3 feet. I don't feel like worrying about that.

4 feet in this century, and up to 50 feet by 2300. It is a lot to worry about, because during high tides and storm surges, the sea rises much higher, and in some places like the east coast of the USA, it also is rising higher.

Quote:

Quote:Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet (2.5 meters) by 2100 and 50 feet (15 meters) by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections by Rutgers and other scientists.

These predictions are bad science fiction, nothing more. The technologies of 2100, let alone 2300 will be radically different than ours. First of all, oil will be long gone. Also, the development of nuclear fusion will mean combustion will not be used as a source of energy because in comparison with fusion it's comically ineffective.

By 2300 we will have colonised Mars and built habitats inside asteroids. So the burden of human and transhuman civilisation won't be placed on the Earth alone. Then our descendants will be able to undertake a rewilding project on the home planet if they want.

Oil will not be gone in time, if we don't "worry" (i.e. don't make changing our energy system a priority) about climate change. IN any case, there is no excuse whatever for continuing to develop energy from sources that will not last. The time to go renewable is right now. And if we continue on our present course, sea level rise will be 50 feet.

There is NO bad science-fiction WORSE than thinking colonizing Mars will lessen the impact of human civilization on Earth. Re-wilding our home planet is a top priority and supreme value TODAY, not for the future. The Green vision of the sixties is the one to follow and implement, NOT the transhuman vision. It's a difference in values and generations, perhaps, but your civic, tech-oriented generation will soon be just as passe as you now consider hippie boomers to be. The new prophets will stop the transhuman projectory, and redouble down on the sixties hippie green vision. Virtual machine worlds do not nurture the spirit, and they do not create or preserve life and consciousness; they destroy it all.

Quote:

Quote:We have no right to kill off any species, and all are important to global ecology. No conflict exists beween ecology and economy. Saving a species does not hurt the global economy. It may require slowing development in certain places.

This slower development might be a cause of someone's death. Imagine people sacrificed on the altar of Gaia. Greens certainly don't intend to kill people, but deaths caused by malnutrition and infections still happen. The only cure is economic development.

Under my value system, human life is above anything else. I thought it's common sense.

Horrendous storms, fires and droughts are already destroying human life. Pollution destroys human life, as for example in China, and in flooded neighborhoods of southern Texas and in coal-polluted West Virginia. ONLY the new green energy systems are viable for future development (although I don't completely reject nuclear power, provided it and also ALL green energy systems are fully safe and recyclable). The time to change is now; the longer we wait the worse things will get.

And there is NO human life without other life. Destroying the life in our oceans will destroy human life too. There is no coherent or meaningful vision or value system of transhumanism in which we destroy other life and replace everything with machines. Revering Nature is uppermost; it gives us our life, and restores our life. Without it, we know nothing of life at all, human or otherwise. The new alpha-wave prophets will reject your millennial generation's transhuman virtual value system. But, thanks for sharing and clarifying. It helps to know where we all stand.

The arts, not science, are our primary link and support for our life and spirit.
I am a piper too. I am Eric the Piper