Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
How to ease global warming.
Topic Started: Dec 6 2007, 10:54 AM (198 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5005961,00.html
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
:lol: :lol:

Clearly, these fellows aren't scientists.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I don't know, if you really could transfer this bacteria to cows and sheep and it actually worked then it might actually be a pretty effective measure.

Of course chances are the bacteria are not going to be able to live in cows/sheep since they'll be adapted to kangaroos. However genetic engineering could concievably get round that. The question of unforseen negative consequences would always be present though.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Moonbat
Dec 6 2007, 11:02 AM

Of course chances are the bacteria are not going to be able to live in cows/sheep since they'll be adapted to kangaroos. However genetic engineering could concievably get round that. The question of unforseen negative consequences would always be present though.

I think most bioengineering students after about their third lecture in 101 catch on to the idea that nature knows best. There's a reason those bacteria are in kangaroos, and not in cows and sheep. Would they have an adverse effect on the cows and sheep? What about the bacteria that those animals produce naturally; surely they won't just go away?
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I think most bioengineering students after about their third lecture in 101 catch on to the idea that nature knows best. There's a reason those bacteria are in kangaroos, and not in cows and sheep. Would they have an adverse effect on the cows and sheep? What about the bacteria that those animals produce naturally; surely they won't just go away?


I think bioengineering students are in the buisness of finding situations where nature doesn't know best. In terms of the reason the bacteria are present in kangaroos - well bacteria in kangaroos happened to be better at reproducing if they had a certain a metabolism. As to why those bacteria didn't spread well to cows and sheep, well they might be reproductively isolated but more likely the jump to a cow/sheep environment was too severe for them to compete with the bacteria that lived there already.

So really it's quite possible that the bacteria will not be able to live in cows and sheep and it's quite possible that if they are able, they will have adverse effects. But given genetic engineering that's not a forgone conclusion. One can examine _why_ the bacteria don't surive in cows/sheep or why they are pathogenic and alter their characteristics to take account of that. Colonisation resistance might be a problem but it might simply require an initial dose of antibiotics to solve, on the other hand they might proceed by islolating the relevent genes and transferring them to bacteria already present in cows/sheep.

A lot of research would need to be done, but it's not unreasonable research to do. Infact i suspect we'll see more and more research done along these lines, synthetic biology is already starting up, and it seems the inevitable direction that molecular biology and genetics will take.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
I'd love to see the grant proposal for that one.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Moonbat
Dec 6 2007, 11:30 AM

I think bioengineering students are in the buisness of finding situations where nature doesn't know best.

And that's why there's always adverse effects, mostly unforseen until they've well established themselves. Always. Yes indeed, we showed nature a thing or two when we discovered CFCs and inorganic fertilizers, didn't we?

Actually no we didn't, and to think that humans, who have been walking upright for only a million years or so, know better than nature, as old as the Earth itself, is the height of stupidity. It is that assumption that will, every time and without fail, bite us in the ass.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Aqua Letifer
Dec 6 2007, 07:50 PM
Moonbat
Dec 6 2007, 11:30 AM

I think bioengineering students are in the buisness of finding situations where nature doesn't know best.

And that's why there's always adverse effects, mostly unforseen until they've well established themselves. Always. Yes indeed, we showed nature a thing or two when we discovered CFCs and inorganic fertilizers, didn't we?

Actually no we didn't, and to think that humans, who have been walking upright for only a million years or so, know better than nature, as old as the Earth itself, is the height of stupidity. It is that assumption that will, every time and without fail, bite us in the ass.

Nature doesn't "know" anything. Nature doesn't look out for organisms, it doesn't take actions to avoid unnecessary suffering, it doesn't provide a nice atmosphere because it cares about us. Nature is simply the product of chemical and biological evolution and consists of multiple complex systems some in equilibrium some far from equilibirum usually with many nested levels of feedback.

Sure we can cause unforseen consequences for ourselves and other organisms, and so when we see that CFCs are screwing up the ozone layer we should stop using them. The solution is to examine each situation in turn do a lot of research so that all forseeable consequences are known, then if once the technology has been put to use other unforseen negative consequences emerge, either pull the technology or adjust for them.

The solution is not to shy away from all things technological on the grounds that nature knows best. Nature didn't give us vaccines or anesthesia or hip replacements or electricity. Nature is a fantastic resource, it is beautiful beyond words and complex beyond imagining but it is not a person, it does not have wishes, it does not know things. There is no reason apriori to reject technology that invovles modifying it (as basically all technology does). Modern farm animals wouldn't have existed were it not for human selection, even houses are ultimately modifications of nature. One must simply proceed intelligently, without complacency, with our eyes open.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Moonbat
Dec 6 2007, 12:18 PM

Nature doesn't "know" anything. Nature doesn't look out for organisms, it doesn't take actions to avoid unnecessary suffering, it doesn't provide a nice atmosphere because it cares about us. Nature is simply the product of chemical and biological evolution and consists of multiple complex systems some in equilibrium some far from equilibirum usually with many nested levels of feedback.

Yes, I know that, but that wasn't my point; I didn't think I had to explain what that meant. My point was, seriously messing with natural systems that are bigger than you are, or ones you depend on, is a real bad idea.

Quote:
 
Sure we can cause unforseen consequences for ourselves and other organisms, and so when we see that CFCs are screwing up the ozone layer we should stop using them. The solution is to examine each situation in turn do a lot of research so that all forseeable consequences are known, then if once the technology has been put to use other unforseen negative consequences emerge, either pull the technology or adjust for them.


Yeah, that sounds great. Too bad we don't do that. And it's also too bad that going back to the previous levels of human influence is almost impossible once these consequences are introduced. Once the cat's out of the bag, it's out.

Quote:
 
The solution is not to shy away from all things technological on the grounds that nature knows best. Nature didn't give us vaccines or anesthesia or hip replacements or electricity. Nature is a fantastic resource, it is beautiful beyond words and complex beyond imagining but it is not a person, it does not have wishes, it does not know things. There is no reason apriori to reject technology that invovles modifying it (as basically all technology does). Modern farm animals wouldn't have existed were it not for human selection, even houses are ultimately modifications of nature. One must simply proceed intelligently, without complacency, with our eyes open.


"Nature knows best," make no mistake, but I'm not suggesting we abandon technology because of that. And again, that's a euphemism for the idea that going against natural systems leads to problems. I believe that we should try to use nature's model, not the other way around. That doesn't mean going back to the stone ages; I could give you dozens of examples of technology that had natural processes in mind, and I believe that they are hands down, always the better approach.

And I have no idea why you think modern farm animals "wouldn't have existed" were it not for human selection.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Moonbat
Dec 6 2007, 12:18 PM

Nature doesn't "know" anything. Nature doesn't look out for organisms, it doesn't take actions to avoid unnecessary suffering, it doesn't provide a nice atmosphere because it cares about us. Nature is simply the product of chemical and biological evolution and consists of multiple complex systems some in equilibrium some far from equilibirum usually with many nested levels of feedback.

Yes, I know that, but that wasn't my point; I didn't think I had to explain what that meant. My point was, seriously messing with natural systems that are bigger than you are, or ones you depend on, is a real bad idea.


What do you mean "messing"? When you cut down a single tree you're altering the ecosystem, when you rub two sticks together and make a fire you're altering the atmosphere. We cannot help but interact with the world around us.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Sure we can cause unforseen consequences for ourselves and other organisms, and so when we see that CFCs are screwing up the ozone layer we should stop using them. The solution is to examine each situation in turn do a lot of research so that all forseeable consequences are known, then if once the technology has been put to use other unforseen negative consequences emerge, either pull the technology or adjust for them.


Yeah, that sounds great. Too bad we don't do that. And it's also too bad that going back to the previous levels of human influence is almost impossible once these consequences are introduced. Once the cat's out of the bag, it's out.


I don't know - take the very example you cited - CFCs. The montreal protocol successfully cut back on their use. There are innumerable chemical compounds that are found to be toxic and then subsequently banned or reduced. I mean there is still a problem of complacency - witness the reaction to global warming but i don't think the solution is to argue against research of the kind mentioned in the link.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
The solution is not to shy away from all things technological on the grounds that nature knows best. Nature didn't give us vaccines or anesthesia or hip replacements or electricity. Nature is a fantastic resource, it is beautiful beyond words and complex beyond imagining but it is not a person, it does not have wishes, it does not know things. There is no reason apriori to reject technology that invovles modifying it (as basically all technology does). Modern farm animals wouldn't have existed were it not for human selection, even houses are ultimately modifications of nature. One must simply proceed intelligently, without complacency, with our eyes open.


"Nature knows best," make no mistake, but I'm not suggesting we abandon technology because of that. And again, that's a euphemism for the idea that going against natural systems leads to problems. I believe that we should try to use nature's model, not the other way around. That doesn't mean going back to the stone ages; I could give you dozens of examples of technology that had natural processes in mind, and I believe that they are hands down, always the better approach.

And I have no idea why you think modern farm animals "wouldn't have existed" were it not for human selection.


I just don't think means much to say "nature knows best" nature does not know anything. Nor does it strike me as particular meaningfull to talk about "going against" nature. I mean are antibiotics against nature? Disease is "natural" afterall. Is genetic engineering of bacteria allowing production of cheap insulin constitute going against nature? Are organ transplants "against nature"?

I see no reason to apriori reject bioengineering.

(In terms of farm animals - the phenotype of modern farm animals is a result of human selection processes)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Moonbat
Dec 6 2007, 01:37 PM


What do you mean "messing"? When you cut down a single tree you're altering the ecosystem, when you rub two sticks together and make a fire you're altering the atmosphere. We cannot help but interact with the world around us.

Now we're just nit-picking. I said "seriously messing." Cutting down a tree is bad for the environment in much the same way that cutting yourself shaving is bad for you. But, you'll recover from the shaving accident in a similar way to how the environment will rebound from a chopped down tree.

The problem is, either we don't care about the big stresses we put on the environment (which is what I meant by "seriously messing"), or we don't realize how big they are when we create them. I'd say both are true at times.

Quote:
 
I don't know - take the very example you cited - CFCs. The montreal protocol successfully cut back on their use. There are innumerable chemical compounds that are found to be toxic and then subsequently banned or reduced. I mean there is still a problem of complacency - witness the reaction to global warming but i don't think the solution is to argue against research of the kind mentioned in the link.


Oh, I do. All chemical compounds that are found to be toxic are only reduced. Trust me, they are not "banned"; there are still people out there using them regardless of what the Montreal protocol has to say about it. That's why I said that going back to previous levels of human influence is almost impossible.

Quote:
 
I just don't think means much to say "nature knows best" nature does not know anything. Nor does it strike me as particular meaningfull to talk about "going against" nature. I mean are antibiotics against nature? Disease is "natural" afterall. Is genetic engineering of bacteria allowing production of cheap insulin constitute going against nature? Are organ transplants "against nature"?

I see no reason to apriori reject bioengineering.

(In terms of farm animals - the phenotype of modern farm animals is a result of human selection processes)


*Sigh*. If you need me to explain what I mean by "going against nature," then fine. When I say "going against nature," I mean using a process that does not model a natural process (for example, a linear process as opposed to a circular one), in which the process used is significantly detrimental to nature itself. Or to put it another way, a process that significantly harms natural processes, such that the natural buffers that are in place cannot counterbalance the change. For example, cutting down a forested area in order to build a parking lot is "going against nature." Now, cutting down a forested area in order to build a parking lot with porous pavement isn't necessarily "going against nature", because the process you put in place -- the parking lot -- may not be significantly detrimental. That’s what Low Impact Development is all about, and it also applies to biotech and every other field of science.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Now we're just nit-picking. I said "seriously messing." Cutting down a tree is bad for the environment in much the same way that cutting yourself shaving is bad for you. But, you'll recover from the shaving accident in a similar way to how the environment will rebound from a chopped down tree.

The problem is, either we don't care about the big stresses we put on the environment (which is what I meant by "seriously messing"), or we don't realize how big they are when we create them. I'd say both are true at times.


Ok but as you point out, we often don't know how big those stresses are when we create them. We can't help interacting with the environment, all we can do is use the information available to avoid negative consequence where they are forseeable and adapt to those that are not.

But i simply don't agree that we should simply avoid new technologies - like engineering bacteria to break down methane. Once upon a time cutting down trees was a new technology, as was ploughing fields and lighting fires.

Quote:
 

Oh, I do. All chemical compounds that are found to be toxic are only reduced. Trust me, they are not "banned"; there are still people out there using them regardless of what the Montreal protocol has to say about it. That's why I said that going back to previous levels of human influence is almost impossible.


Well ozone levels are returning to pre-CFC levels, so irrespective of whether or not there is still some small usage, the Montreal protocol succeeded in reversing the damage we were doing. I mean unless we cause a phase change the robustness present in the biosphere or the atmosphere or the oceans, etc. in general means recovery is possible.

Quote:
 

*Sigh*. If you need me to explain what I mean by "going against nature," then fine. When I say "going against nature," I mean using a process that does not model a natural process (for example, a linear process as opposed to a circular one), in which the process used is significantly detrimental to nature itself. For example, cutting down a forested area in order to build a parking lot is "going against nature." Now, cutting down a forested area in order to build a parking lot with porous pavement isn't necessarily "going against nature", because the process you put in place -- the parking lot -- may not be significantly detrimental. That’s what Low Impact Development is all about, and it also applies to biotech and every other field of science.


Well it may not have a significant detrimental effect, but then engineering bacteria to break down methane may not have a significant detrimental effect either.

I don't see what's linear about engineering bacteria to break down methane or indeed what is linear about using tarmac instead of porus pavement for that matter. A linear process says y=mx+c to me or it says a process that's well modelled in terms of a linear set of differential equations.

Low impact development sounds like a smart idea but i don't see that as justifying avoiding bioengineering projects like the ones mentioned in the link. I certainly don't think you can get away with saying that the people involved aren't scientists.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Moonbat
Dec 6 2007, 02:44 PM
Ok but as you point out, we often don't know how big those stresses are when we create them. We can't help interacting with the environment, all we can do is use the information available to avoid negative consequence where they are forseeable and adapt to those that are not.

But i simply don't agree that we should simply avoid new technologies - like engineering bacteria to break down methane. Once upon a time cutting down trees was a new technology, as was ploughing fields and lighting fires.

That's kind of like having blinders on. There are some technologies we are developing which we know will have major impacts on the environment around us. We proceed with these developments without giving a proper look at potential impacts. This happens all the time, and it’s unnecessary. We're more reckless than we need to be IMO.

Quote:
 
Well ozone levels are returning to pre-CFC levels, so irrespective of whether or not there is still some small usage, the Montreal protocol succeeded in reversing the damage we were doing. I mean unless we cause a phase change the robustness present in the biosphere or the atmosphere or the oceans, etc. in general means recovery is possible.


Um, compared to when? We absolutely have not "reversed" the damage we were doing with respect to ozone. We've improved but we certainly haven't reversed anything.

Quote:
 
Well it may not have a significant detrimental effect, but then engineering bacteria to break down methane may not have a significant detrimental effect either.


How 'bout we make a friendly wager on whether or not it does. ^_^

Quote:
 
I don't see what's linear about engineering bacteria to break down methane or indeed what is linear about using tarmac instead of porus pavement for that matter. A linear process says y=mx+c to me or it says a process that's well modelled in terms of a linear set of differential equations.


I didn't say those two examples (engineering bacteria and tarmac) were linear. I was giving you a very general example of a process that is not a "natural" process. And when I say "linear," I'm not using a mathematical definition (y = mx + b). I was referring to processes that were "linear" in that they have a defined beginning and end, as opposed to a circular process. But that is neither here nor there.

Quote:
 
Low impact development sounds like a smart idea but i don't see that as justifying avoiding bioengineering projects like the ones mentioned in the link. I certainly don't think you can get away with saying that the people involved aren't scientists.


Well again, I'm not suggesting we completely abandon bioengineering. As stated above, I believe we're too reckless, more than we really need to be. As for this whole kangaroo bacteria business, there are much better ways to deal with methane emissions. Ways that are both more efficient and not as risky, environmentally.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

That's kind of like having blinders on. There are some technologies we are developing which we know will have major impacts on the environment around us. We proceed with these developments without giving a proper look at potential impacts. This happens all the time, and it’s unnecessary. We're more reckless than we need to be IMO.


Hmm but what would giving a proper look at the potential impacts look like? Aren't you selling a lot people short here? Look at genetic engineering - there has been a lot of research examine the influence over non-engineered species particularly the spread of engineered genes into non-engineered populations.

I mean ultimately you can't evaluate every possible outcome you just use the tools you have to examine what can be feasibly examined and from that you make an informed decision. One can always say "oh but you should do more" but like i said that applies to any and every technology. I can't help but feel that if we were having this conversation in the past you'd be equally opposing, the combustion engine or the use antibiotics or any new technology which simply by virtue of being new means there are unknowns surrounding it.

Quote:
 

Um, compared to when? We absolutely have not "reversed" the damage we were doing with respect to ozone. We've improved but we certainly haven't reversed anything.


Quote:
 

The Montreal Protocol is working. There is clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances in the lower atmosphere and in the stratosphere; some early signs of the expected stratospheric ozone recovery are also evident. However, failure to continue to comply with the Montreal Protocol would delay, or could even prevent, recovery of the ozone layer. Furthermore, if the Parties were to eliminate all emissions of ozonedepleting
substances soon after 2006, it would advance by about 15 years (from around 2050 to 2035) the global ozone layer recovery to pre-1980 levels (often used as a benchmark for ozone recovery).


http://ozone.unep.org/Meeting_Documents/oe.../OEWG-27-3E.pdf

So at present we're headed to return to pre-CFC levels by 2050, if we get our act together we could reduce that to 2035.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 

Well it may not have a significant detrimental effect, but then engineering bacteria to break down methane may not have a significant detrimental effect either.

How 'bout we make a friendly wager on whether or not it does.


:) Well we'll have to define what detrimental means - are we talking about a reduction in biodiversity? A reduction in the carrying capacity of a certain area of land? Simply the death of a number of organisms? I mean i would expect there to be some unforseen effects but i don't see why given that we do adapt to the effects of our technologies we should expect that the long term consequences will be negative.

Quote:
 

I didn't say those two examples (engineering bacteria and tarmac) were linear. I was giving you a very general example of a process that is not a "natural" process. And when I say "linear," I'm not using a mathematical definition (y = mx + b). I was referring to processes that were "linear" in that they have a defined beginning and end, as opposed to a circular process. But that is neither here nor there.


Fair enough, but i must confess i still don't really understand the way you use these terms. Tarmacing and engineering bacteria are not natural but using porous pavement is?

I mean it seems like what you really mean is "environmentally damaging" but then there is a bit of circularity there because it's almost like you're saying "we shouldn't go against nature because that has environmental consequences" but then you're defining "going against nature" as that which has environmental consequences!

Quote:
 

Well again, I'm not suggesting we completely abandon bioengineering. As stated above, I believe we're too reckless, more than we really need to be. As for this whole kangaroo bacteria business, there are much better ways to deal with methane emissions. Ways that are both more efficient and not as risky, environmentally.


I don't know much about dealing with methane emissions but how would you deal with methane emissions from aggricultural live stock? Altering their diet perhaps?

I guess the difference for me is that i think innovative technologies are great news, sure they carry unknowns - but they always did and i'm a lot better off living today than i would have been living 500 years ago. We have to learn how to engineer organisms such that they interact with non-engineered organisms but don't mess up ecosystems. We have to learn how to modify bacteria such that we can move many of our abiotic chemical processees into biology - which seems to have inherent environmental advantages.

Ultimately I don't see this as reckless, i just see it as new, and everything new carries uncertainties, everything new carries risk. But technological and scientific progress is driven by an exploration of the novel, the innovative, the new.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Moonbat
Dec 7 2007, 05:26 AM


Hmm but what would giving a proper look at the potential impacts look like? Aren't you selling a lot people short here? Look at genetic engineering - there has been a lot of research examine the influence over non-engineered species particularly the spread of engineered genes into non-engineered populations.

I mean ultimately you can't evaluate every possible outcome you just use the tools you have to examine what can be feasibly examined and from that you make an informed decision. One can always say "oh but you should do more" but like i said that applies to any and every technology. I can't help but feel that if we were having this conversation in the past you'd be equally opposing, the combustion engine or the use antibiotics or any new technology which simply by virtue of being new means there are unknowns surrounding it.

No, I'm not selling anyone short. For example, one of the biggest problems is unintended consequences. I don't expect scientists to cover every scenario when developing something new, but our scope of study should extend past what a technology was designed for. The internet was designed for scientists to relay information but it takes no stretch of the imagination to picture everyday people using that technology. In the past we've studied the potential impacts of intended uses, but that's certainly not an adequate scope.

Quote:
 
http://ozone.unep.org/Meeting_Documents/oe.../OEWG-27-3E.pdf

So at present we're headed to return to pre-CFC levels by 2050, if we get our act together we could reduce that to 2035.


That's fine for 2050, but this is 2007. As of right now we have reversed nothing.

Quote:
 
Fair enough, but i must confess i still don't really understand the way you use these terms. Tarmacing and engineering bacteria are not natural but using porous pavement is?


Porous pavement is less stressful on the environment. Its impact on the environment is not as high.

Quote:
 
I mean it seems like what you really mean is "environmentally damaging" but then there is a bit of circularity there because it's almost like you're saying "we shouldn't go against nature because that has environmental consequences" but then you're defining "going against nature" as that which has environmental consequences!


Um, yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. For example, nuclear power is a linear process. You start with enriched uranium, and you end up with nuclear waste. There is no natural process that uses nuclear waste. Therefore, this process is "linear" in that it has a defined beginning (enriched uranium) and end (nuclear waste). No natural processes work in this way. They are circular, and the end of one process is the start of another; nothing stagnates. Plastic is another example.

Just in case, I will make it very clear that I am not advocating getting rid of plastic, or even nuclear power. I am merely pointing out our linear approach to products, and how it doesn't fit a "natural" model. In general, it is this dichotomy that causes environmental problems.

As another example, compare tarmac to porous pavement. Porous pavement is a technology that has the natural cycles of the environment in mind. You greatly reduce the environmental problems caused by Directly Connected Impverious Areas. It allows for proper soil infiltration. Naturally-occuring bacteria and other organisms are able to live in the pavement itself, digesting the car oils and other runoff materials, instead of tarmac streamlining them into our rivers. They allow for groundwater recharge.

This is why porous pavement is a preferred technology. It is a technology that is not as intrusive to natural processes, and is proof of the benefits of foresight. Natural processes were in mind when developing this technology. This general way of thinking allows us to advance our technologies without placing ireparable stressors on the environment, and it can apply to all other areas of science.

Quote:
 
I don't know much about dealing with methane emissions but how would you deal with methane emissions from aggricultural live stock? Altering their diet perhaps?


All kinds of stuff. What you feed them, how they're contained, the size of facilities, etc.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Just to interject - I could use some of that kangaroo bacteria. (Genetically modified for humans, of course).
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

No, I'm not selling anyone short. For example, one of the biggest problems is unintended consequences. I don't expect scientists to cover every scenario when developing something new, but our scope of study should extend past what a technology was designed for. The internet was designed for scientists to relay information but it takes no stretch of the imagination to picture everyday people using that technology. In the past we've studied the potential impacts of intended uses, but that's certainly not an adequate scope.


I really think it does take a stretch of the imagination - that's why almost no one predicted it. It's easy to say in retrospect that they should have figured out that world of warcraft was inevitable when they developed the ability to share information between computers over phone lines but at the time it's just not so easy. Hindsight is 20:20.

Quote:
 

That's fine for 2050, but this is 2007. As of right now we have reversed nothing.


If we'd reversed nothing then the ozone layer would be continuing to deteriorate not slowly recovering. Come on Aqua if the ozone layer were not gradually reforming then how on Earth could it be back to pre CFC levels by any date?

Quote:
 

Um, yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. For example, nuclear power is a linear process. You start with enriched uranium, and you end up with nuclear waste. There is no natural process that uses nuclear waste. Therefore, this process is "linear" in that it has a defined beginning (enriched uranium) and end (nuclear waste). No natural processes work in this way. They are circular, and the end of one process is the start of another; nothing stagnates. Plastic is another example.

Just in case, I will make it very clear that I am not advocating getting rid of plastic, or even nuclear power. I am merely pointing out our linear approach to products, and how it doesn't fit a "natural" model. In general, it is this dichotomy that causes environmental problems.

As another example, compare tarmac to porous pavement. Porous pavement is a technology that has the natural cycles of the environment in mind. You greatly reduce the environmental problems caused by Directly Connected Impverious Areas. It allows for proper soil infiltration. Naturally-occuring bacteria and other organisms are able to live in the pavement itself, digesting the car oils and other runoff materials, instead of tarmac streamlining them into our rivers. They allow for groundwater recharge.

This is why porous pavement is a preferred technology. It is a technology that is not as intrusive to natural processes, and is proof of the benefits of foresight. Natural processes were in mind when developing this technology. This general way of thinking allows us to advance our technologies without placing ireparable stressors on the environment, and it can apply to all other areas of science.


Hmm nature really is linear (in your sense of the worrd) you know - what ultimately is happening is that light at a certain wavelength is being turned into light at a higher wavelenght. That's what the net outcome of everything the Earth is doing and that's linear.

If you are producing something like nuclear waste then it makes sense to worry about what you're going to do with it, and what the consequence of creating it are. Clearly it makes sense to look at the products of our processes and see what happens to them - but feeding them into a-human chemical and biological system doesn't necessarily help you - fossil fuel burning creates CO2 which then enters the carbon cycle but that doesn't seem to working out ok.

I mean it really makes sense to take options like porous pavement (which sounds great btw) which will have a better outcome in terms of biodiversity and in terms of ecological stability and all kinds of other things vs. say tarmac. But that relies on knowing enough about the interactions with the ecosystems and having the technological ability to create the material. I don't think it follow that we should avoid the kind of bioengineering mentioned in this thread. Though i guess we'll have to agree to differ there :).

Best wishes

Moonbat
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Moonbat
Dec 7 2007, 10:17 AM

I really think it does take a stretch of the imagination - that's why almost no one predicted it. 



You obviously don't read much sci-fi, at all. Jules Verne predicted a moon landing 100 years before it happened. Gene Roddenberry speaks of cell phone devices before anyone knew anything about wireless technology. HG Wells described fighter planes in The Sleeper Awakes in 1899. Heck, everyone who has read Hitchiker's Guide knows about the book that is actually an electronic database of information, and what does that sound like?

Quote:
 
Hmm nature really is linear (in your sense of the worrd) you know - what ultimately is happening is that light at a certain wavelength is being turned into light at a higher wavelenght. That's what the net outcome of everything the Earth is doing and that's linear.


No, I'm afraid that nature isn't linear. There is a place for the end processes in nature. An apple falls from a tree, a deer eats it, craps out the seed, a new apple tree springs to life and it drops its own apples. That's how the world works.

If you don't think we know enough about the interactions of ecosystems to propose possible problems (yeah that was on purpose), it sounds like you're selling our scientists short. But ah well, it sounds like we agree for the most part.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

You obviously don't read much sci-fi, at all. Jules Verne predicted a moon landing 100 years before it happened. Gene Roddenberry speaks of cell phone devices before anyone knew anything about wireless technology. HG Wells described fighter planes in The Sleeper Awakes in 1899. Heck, everyone who has read Hitchiker's Guide knows about the book that is actually an electronic database of information, and what does that sound like?


I've read a lot of sci-fi, and i think sci-fi shows that a lot really insightful predictions are possible but there's also lots they get a lot wrong. I really don't think it's easy to predict technological outcomes. Look how many people thought that we'd be holidaying on the moon and using nuclear powered cars etc. Closer to home just look at Gates' 640k fiasco.

Quote:
 

No, I'm afraid that nature isn't linear. There is a place for the end processes in nature. An apple falls from a tree, a deer eats it, craps out the seed, a new apple tree springs to life and it drops its own apples. That's how the world works.


You ignored what i said Aqua. All that stuff is in fact part of a linear process. The Earth is absorbing light at a certain set of frequencies and emitting it at lower frequencies. That is the net effect. It is that linearity which allows what you refer to as circular processes to exist.

All the apples and the deers, it's not magic, it's being driven by the second law and that is not circular.

Quote:
 

If you don't think we know enough about the interactions of ecosystems to propose possible problems (yeah that was on purpose), it sounds like you're selling our scientists short. But ah well, it sounds like we agree for the most part.


:) Oh i think they may well be able to propose possible problems and i think they should do just that. I just think it can be very speculative unless you have a good model of the system and accurately modelling ecosystems down to the effects of say specific chemicals or the expression of specific genes in certain organisms is pretty difficult.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply