|
Home > Archive > Architecture > November 2007 > Are you ready for "geoengineering?"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Are you ready for "geoengineering?"
|
|
|
|
|
| On Nov 16, 8:44 am, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...8/5853/1054/DC1
Geoengineering seems to be tinkering with society/the earth to "save
the earth". My wife was directly involved in that about 10 years
ago. In an attempt to save fuel, she bought into the concept of
geoengineering and bought herself a Geo. It really wasn't much of a
car and had a lousy ride. But I suppose someone had to Geoengineer it.
| |
|
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:44835852-2a7d-40ed-b80c-73e269c95c0b@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 16, 8:44 am, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
>
> Geoengineering seems to be tinkering with society/the earth to "save
> the earth". My wife was directly involved in that about 10 years
> ago. In an attempt to save fuel, she bought into the concept of
> geoengineering and bought herself a Geo. It really wasn't much of a
> car and had a lousy ride. But I suppose someone had to Geoengineer it.
Gee. Oh!
| |
|
|
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-18, 5:25 pm |
|
"Warm Worm" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:fhku7r$12t$1@aioe.org...
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
> That's reminiscent of terraforming about which I wrote an essay for one of
> my environmental-studies class awhile back.
....and of a Star Trek episode IIRC.
| |
|
| On Nov 18, 6:09 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "Warm Worm" <u...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:fhku7r$12t$1@aioe.org...
>
>
>
> ...and of a Star Trek episode IIRC.
More like Hitch Hiker's Guide ....
| |
| Warm Worm 2007-11-20, 1:25 pm |
| On Nov 18, 6:09 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "Warm Worm" <u...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:fhku7r$12t$1@aioe.org...
>
>
>
> ...and of a Star Trek episode IIRC.
Yes, that's true.
My initial interest in it was based on my early exposure to science
shows or miniseries, like Nova, Cosmos or The Nature of Things, that
sometimes depicted hypothetical stuff like that.
I still enjoy "hypothetical pseudodocumentary science", which has
included Walking With the Dinosaurs (I think that's the title) and two
others of similar, computer-3D-animated style, where one was about
future of life on earth and what it might look like, as well as a
hypothetical alien planet.
On some levels, I think these kinds of shows are preferred over the
regular Hollywoody sci-fi fare.
In my essay, I mention McKay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McKay
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-20, 1:25 pm |
|
"Warm Worm" <glomerol@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:920f132e-7c75-403f-ad10-ab8bbd29289f@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 18, 6:09 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's true.
> My initial interest in it was based on my early exposure to science
> shows or miniseries, like Nova, Cosmos or The Nature of Things, that
> sometimes depicted hypothetical stuff like that.
> I still enjoy "hypothetical pseudodocumentary science", which has
> included Walking With the Dinosaurs (I think that's the title) and two
> others of similar, computer-3D-animated style, where one was about
> future of life on earth and what it might look like, as well as a
> hypothetical alien planet.
> On some levels, I think these kinds of shows are preferred over the
> regular Hollywoody sci-fi fare.
>
> In my essay, I mention McKay:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McKay
Thanks for that. I note the developing ethical debate in the event of
finding any life on prospective targets for terraforming. What's curious to
me is that it doesn't appear that anyone has taken issue with the position
that, just because we can, we should impose life on lifeless places. Maybe
that will come later. It seems a bit 'life-ist" to me ; )
I'm imagining that this question will become *the* ethical question of the
next millennium:
"Should we, just because we can?"
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
| Warm Worm 2007-11-21, 8:25 pm |
| Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> "Warm Worm" <glomerol@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:920f132e-7c75-403f-ad10-ab8bbd29289f@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Thanks for that. I note the developing ethical debate in the event of
> finding any life on prospective targets for terraforming. What's curious to
> me is that it doesn't appear that anyone has taken issue with the position
> that, just because we can, we should impose life on lifeless places. Maybe
> that will come later. It seems a bit 'life-ist" to me ; )
>
> I'm imagining that this question will become *the* ethical question of the
> next millennium:
> "Should we, just because we can?"
Yes, I was aware of that question, although I forget what position I
took, if any, on it at the time I wrote the essay...
Off the cuff, I'd mention a concern about all the species we're
ostensibly killing off right here under our very feet... Which reminds
me of a poem I wrote around that time:
STEPPING STONES
We won.
Stepping on them now.
Wrecklessly...
The stones in our crossing
Of a shallow, fast-moving river
Of evolution
With many a careless step,
Some fragile stones are crushed
Beneath stumbling footwork
Fossils to study at a later date,
Lessons of failure
Dinosaurs...
Their descendents might have had
Our abusive privileges
The river grows wider,
The stones become fewer and far between
As our worried feet get wetter...
Will we create our own stepping stones?
Or fall in, to join the thunder-lizards
Of our making?
Or become the stones, themselves,
Stepped upon by our
Own mistakes
|
|
|
|
|