What are the options to "tackle global warming"

[turk]

Okaaaaay. Here's a prediction : the Koch Bros. conspiracy theory will get "old" to the ideologues who resort to it whenever they have nothing else to argue, when things have happened which the Koch Bros. couldn't possibly have had anything to do with. I give it 5 years from today: april 19 2016. Until then I expect to hear about the Koch Bros. regularly, so no problem.

[ruckman101]

Facts aren't a theory.

neal

[turk]

Boredom is. Okay, let's go into the world and be real feeling, living, eating, shitting creatures now. BEEN FUN!

[turk]

Yr a good guy Neal. I just want to make that clear, despite all our bickering.

[chitwnvw]

I would say they don't even have a batting average, meaning zero predictions panned out in observation.

So it is kind of like the doomsday cults that predict the end of the earth on x day, then when that day comes and goes they change it to some other day.

[turk]

The way I see it, it's just beginning. Humans aren't in charge. Rather passing along naturally. Not to say it ain't worth trying, but we can't control our collective trajectory more than any "lower" species of life on earth can. So, all things considered, if it's true the earth evicts us, and a bunch of other species, because of our emissions of a gas; it's natural. To imagine collective responsibility to restrict emissions of a gas sustains something, is fine in theory; the same way collectively restricting population is. If restriction of gas emissions sustains human population somehow, it doesn't guarantee that population can live well according to what climate the earth deals. Most of the burning is in the northern latitudes in temperate to harsh climates. I'd like to see that population exist in winter without burning things. Adaption to what the earth deals makes more sense. Like Eugenics, which was, by consensus of all the official governmental science academies in the early 20th century, widely accepted "truth"; anthropogenic climate change theory is infantile in development. Eugenics proposed selective breeding of humans to produce a better race. Problem with that, it turned out, is, the more selective you got the weaker the race became, unbeknownst to the original theory. But nothing against seeking the truth and exercising caution with all due respect.

[steve74baywin]

Here is some info that came up in a search.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm

[ruckman101]

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/inde ... arine.html

It can be done.



neal

[Lanval]

Eugenics proposed selective breeding of humans to produce a better race. Problem with that, it turned out, is, the more selective you got the weaker the race became, unbeknownst to the original theory. .

Can you cite a source for this comment? The typical problem with eugenics is not a problem of selectivity; it's the association with the ethics of the NAZIs who were proponents of eugenics as gov't policy.

Only in very small and isolated populations has loss of genetic diversity been an issue.

Additionally some people argue for retention of genetic diversity where some traits deemed "undesirable" by authorities may not necessarily be undesirable from a bio-diversity standpoint. Psychological/mental conditions fit this example: autism, asperger's syndrome, etc.

L.

[steve74baywin]

Eugenics proposed selective breeding of humans to produce a better race. Problem with that, it turned out, is, the more selective you got the weaker the race became, unbeknownst to the original theory. .

Can you cite a source for this comment? The typical problem with eugenics is not a problem of selectivity; it's the association with the ethics of the NAZIs who were proponents of eugenics as gov't policy.

Only in very small and isolated populations has loss of genetic diversity been an issue.

Additionally some people argue for retention of genetic diversity where some traits deemed "undesirable" by authorities may not necessarily be undesirable from a bio-diversity standpoint. Psychological/mental conditions fit this example: autism, asperger's syndrome, etc.

L.

I read that also, they became sicker, it was first tried by the ruling families themselves.
The royal families wanted to keep their blood worthy of being the ruling class, they later found it wasn't the best thing to do. They started to diversify instead of incest. This may explain Obama.

[turk]

@ Lanval:
I disagree. The problem is it's a pseudo-science and it depends on cultural prejudice what traits are better than others. Go look it up for yourself. Off-topic.

[Lanval]

@ Lanval:
I disagree. The problem is it's a pseudo-science and it depends on cultural prejudice what traits are better than others. Go look it up for yourself. Off-topic.

Better not call it pseudo-scientists to the various animal and plant breeders who use selective breeding to create plant/animal stocks with various preferred qualities.

It's not off topic because you use this example as an attempt to support your claim. In this case, the conclusion you draw is wrong, meaning it doesn't support your claim; in other words, the original claim is falsifiable based on your 'evidentiary' support.

L.

[steve74baywin]

@ Lanval:
I disagree. The problem is it's a pseudo-science and it depends on cultural prejudice what traits are better than others. Go look it up for yourself. Off-topic.

Better not call it pseudo-scientists to the various animal and plant breeders who use selective breeding to create plant/animal stocks with various preferred qualities.
L.

I think the point about cultural prejudices and what traits are desirable is a good one.
When it comes to animals like dogs I often thought the breeders who I heard get all upset about letting a less than perfect dog mate with one of theirs, or they get upset if some amateur is going to let their less than perfect dog have pups are doing more harm than good. They are keeping the dog a set way that they see as good. They might be hindering the evolution of dogs if viewed over thousands of years. Letting dogs intermix may cause them to evolve to a much higher animal than the dogs we know today.
When talking about humans, well, what is better and to who? Those spearheading things like this want a great, robotic type laborer, not a great mind.
Oh, that reminds me of something, I think a Rockefeller when throwing tons of money to the education system leading to the creation of the DOE said I don't want a nation of thinkers but a nation of workers.
I bet you Obama's Science Czar would agree with that.

[Lanval]

I think the point about cultural prejudices and what traits are desirable is a good one.

So do I, which is why I pointed out the real problem with eugenics is not the science, but the ethics/ideology of the people using it. In careful terms:

1. Eugenics or selective breeding in a large population is a proven method (science)

2. Eugenics was championed mostly by racists who had a lousy sense of values (not-science)

**********************

The first part was my point; the second part is a given. Heinlein said it best in The Stainless Steel Rat when he argued all technological problems are human problems because technology has no intention. It's what we do with it that makes 'right' or 'wrong'. So you disagree with the dogbreeders on the points they focus on; fair enough, I think. It'd be hard to imagine the downside of breeding the hip weakness out of German Shepherds though; what do we lose?

Which nicely circles around to my original response:

Given what we know of climate change and global warming now, we should amend our practices to reduce the effect of humans on the climate. If there's any problem there, it's with the implementation: who has to give up what? Let's stick with science for now, and do the best we can with the human part of the equation.

L.

[Lanval]

I read that also, they became sicker, it was first tried by the ruling families themselves.
The royal families wanted to keep their blood worthy of being the ruling class, they later found it wasn't the best thing to do. They started to diversify instead of incest. This may explain Obama.

Royal families were a very small population; the same thing happens on isolated islands. That dangers of a limited population are well known, but mostly through trial and error. For example, it turns out to be a bad idea to a feed a large population on a single item (potatoes) because when the item has a problem, everyone dies (Irish Potato Famine).

Genetic diversity promotes strength, but that doesn't obviate the possibility of restricting undesirable traits ~ in that sense you can have your cake and eat it too.

Not sure about your Obama comment? Do you mean to imply that he is inbred, hence stupid/deficient in some way? Guess that needs another topic...

L.