reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Poppycock! We replace the predators with the harvest. You miss the point completely. The point is to manage the oceans for the sole benifit of
mankind, pristine ecosystems be damned. The oceans are screwed with or without us friend.
Nature left to itself will self destruct 100% guaranteed. That’s the point, in order for mankind to stand the test of time only one option is valid
and it involves the complete management of our biosphere. Certainly we should not run out and start tearing down the balances but we must explore the
notion or face certain extinction. It doesn’t take a real deep thinker to realize this. I didn’t make it up, it’s just how it is.
Your attitude is suicidal because although Earth supports human life today it will not in the future. Only through the control of the critical natural
systems, and the technology to manage global temperatures can we hope to endure. Humankind will be very lucky to survive another 10,000 years if we
continue the natural order approach. We can however master our environment and set our own term of survival.
I never thought that my ocean farming idea was a cure all, it was more to show a point of view. Which says we can endure, but most all species will
fall in the process, and that these species are doomed anyway etc. "Survival and humanity are complete opposites!"
Dooming mankind for this doomed environment is a bad idea!
If we killed ourselves in the process at least we will have tried to survive. If nothing else we will have created a window for diversity in future
species. We should take baby steps and only exploit for what we need. As the population increases our exploitation will as well. One would hope our
technology would curtail our exploitation leading to a completely managed biosphere and a population in the multi trillions in the far far future.
This large population will require resources beyond those found on Earth and even in our galaxy thereby leading us to the stars and a perpetual
In your mind how would humankind survive the test of time? I would love to hear other ideas!
I agree that AGW is a non issue. A warmer world rich in C02 is just what the doctor ordered actually. I speak of vast time frames and of human
existence beyond the Earths ability to support life. It’s clear that with enough C02 temps will rise, but it’s not really clear how much is enough
to raise temps to runaway levels. I suspect that there is not enough C02 on Earth to kill the planet so to speak so even if we dumped all of the C02
into the atmosphere (Which is not possible by the way) we face only an adaptive situation. It is other species that will bear the brunt of AGW, and
that’s what the real fuss is about. I say screw em they are doomed anyhow.
You can’t make an amulet without breaking a few eggs.
[edit on 18-1-2010 by Donkey_Dean]