NationStates Jolt Archive

In short, the oceans absorb 1/3 of the carbon dioxide emissions us lovely animals are making and are turning into carbonic acid, which=very bad for life on Earth. This isn't exactly global warming, but it is DEFINITELY our fault.

Click (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_sc/climate_conference)
NAIROBI, Kenya - The world's oceans are becoming more acidic, which poses a threat to sea life and Earth's fragile food chain, a climate expert said Thursday.

Oceans have already absorbed a third of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, leading to acidification that prevents vital sea life from forming properly.

"The oceans are rapidly changing," said professor Stefan Rahmstorf on the sidelines of a U.N. conference on climate change that has drawn delegates from more than 100 countries to Kenya. "Ocean acidification is a major threat to marine organisms."

Fish stocks and the world's coral reefs could also be hit while acidification risks "fundamentally altering" the food chain, he said.

In a study titled "The Future Oceans — Warming Up, Rising High, Turning Sour," Rahmstorf and eight other scientists warned that the world is witnessing, on a global scale, problems similar to the acid rain phenomenon of the 1970s and 1980s.

Rahmstorf, the head of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Research into Climatic Effects, says more research is urgently needed to assess the impact of ocean acidification.

David Santillo, a senior scientist at Greenpeace's Research Laboratories in Exeter, Britain, said it had come as a shock to scientists that the oceans are turning acidic because of carbon dioxide emissions.

"The knock on effect for humans is that some of these marine resources that we rely on may not be available in the future," the marine biologist, who was not involved in Rahmstorf's study, told The Associated Press by telephone.

Rahmstorf also reiterated warnings of rising sea levels caused by global warming, saying that in 70 years, temperature increases will lead more frequent storms with 200 million people threatened by floods.

Scientists blame the past century's one-degree rise in average global temperatures at least in part for the accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — byproducts of power plants, automobiles and other fossil fuel burners.

The 1997 Kyoto accord requires 35 industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The Kyoto countries meeting in Nairobi are continuing talks on what kind of emissions targets and timetables should follow 2012.

If it means human beings can live comfortably, what does it matter if a few fish die?

Hell, I read the other day that they’re doing genetic experiments to add the proteins in fish to beef and pork. Pretty soon, we won’t even need the little buggers.

Just get a few tankers of liquor to have an Exxon Valdez style wreck on this mess and it'll bring a new meaning to the expression "drink like a fish."

If it means human beings can live comfortably, what does it matter if a few fish die?

Hell, I read the other day that they’re doing genetic experiments to add the proteins in fish to beef and pork. Pretty soon, we won’t even need the little buggers.

We won't be comfortable:
-no fish to fish
-no fish to eat(for those who eat it)
-no ocean to swim in
-ships might get corroded a bit faster(although carbonic acid might be too weak for that...)

-no fish to fish
-no ocean to swim in
Those minor inconveniences are nothing compared to scheduled blackouts.
-no fish to eat(for those who eat it)
We can replace fish. Better than less computers.
-ships might get corroded a bit faster(although carbonic acid might be too weak for that...)
It is.

We won't be comfortable:
-no fish to fish
-no fish to eat(for those who eat it)
-no ocean to swim in
-ships might get corroded a bit faster(although carbonic acid might be too weak for that...)

Here's the solution:

1. Restrict CO2 emissions now
2. Develop nanotechnology to convert excess CO2
3. Clean up problem, and then we're in the clear.

We need to solve this current problem so that later technology can repair as much of the damage as possible later; right now, we're not really in a position to ignore the problem because our only solution is effectively cutting CO2 emissions.

Needless to say, if the planet dies we are screwed and no technology will save us. Technology ultimately will, but we need to survive the time before it is developed in order to have it.

In short, the oceans absorb 1/3 of the carbon dioxide emissions us lovely animals are making and are turning into carbonic acid, which=very bad for life on Earth. This isn't exactly global warming, but it is DEFINITELY our fault.

Click (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_sc/climate_conference)

I actually presented almost exactly the same data a year or so ago, in a Global Warming thread.

As a point worth bearing in mind, you are right that this isn't exactly global warming, but it does imply a variation in specific heat capacity of sea water, with the potential effects that might engender.

People often underestimate the small degree change, because they don't appreciate just how 'wet' this little blue world is.

The oceans are turning to seltzer you say? Well, becoming a clown just became alot more affordable. *buh-duh-duh-phish*

Those minor inconveniences are nothing compared to scheduled blackouts.

We can replace fish. Better than less computers.

It is.

And scheduled blackouts are trivial compared to a fractional change in albedo.

And scheduled blackouts are trivial compared to a fractional change in albedo.

But, a man who can regenerate his own lost limbs shouldn't have much of a problem with that.


...Sorry, I'll stop being a jackass. For now.

Yahoo's a little late. :rolleyes:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/Exit_Mundi_Forums/index.php?showtopic=810

And scheduled blackouts are trivial compared to a fractional change in albedo.

What does that have to do with anything?

Those minor inconveniences are nothing compared to scheduled blackouts.

Nukes (preferably breeder reactors), wind, solar, geothermal and natural gas. Just turn the coal in to natural gas, and shut down or retool the coal plants. No scheduled blackouts, less pollution, and cheap energy.

We can replace fish. Better than less computers.

See above. If we have clean electricity, we can make and run computers without pollution, develop the nanotech we need to help solve the problem, and go from there.

Cars are a bit trickier...

What does that have to do with anything?

If you really can't make that little jump, perhaps you should abandon the pretense at debate?

No more sushi! *gasp!* :eek:

Nukes (preferably breeder reactors), wind, solar, geothermal and natural gas. Just turn the coal in to natural gas, and shut down or retool the coal plants. No scheduled blackouts, less pollution, and cheap energy.
Yeah, and who's going to pay for it? You? Things will continue much the same way they have in the past. Everything will either turn out fine or life as we know it will end. There is certainly nothing you or I can do about it.
If you really can't make that little jump, perhaps you should abandon the pretense at debate?
I truly do not understand what a fancy way of saying reflection has to do with anything. A few degrees? So what? If humans can’t survive that that we don’t deserve this niche we’ve carved out.

Yeah, and who's going to pay for it? You?

Ironically, yes.

I'm planning to go in to the energy sector once I graduate, and I'll most likely end up being involved in raising money to build these plants and transmission lines to connect them to the grid. Also, wind is the fastest growing power source in the world...there's a lot of potential there.

Things will continue much the same way they have in the past. Everything will either turn out fine or life as we know it will end. There is certainly nothing you or I can do about it.

There most certainly is...it's up to us to take control and create new programs and ideas to solve our problems. A single person might not be able to do much, but a lot of individuals working to the same end can do a lot. We do shape our future, after all.

Ironically, yes.

I'm planning to go in to the energy sector once I graduate, and I'll most likely end up being involved in raising money to build these plants and transmission lines to connect them to the grid. Also, wind is the fastest growing power source in the world...there's a lot of potential there.
You do that. Good luck.
There most certainly is...it's up to us to take control and create new programs and ideas to solve our problems. A single person might not be able to do much, but a lot of individuals working to the same end can do a lot. We do shape our future, after all.
Maybe you and others shape the future, but I'm just an observer content in the knowledge that there is always the option of suicide, should the world become unlivable.:)

We won't be comfortable:
-no fish to fish

I don't eat fish.

-no fish to eat(for those who eat it)

I don't eat fish.

-no ocean to swim in

I don't swim in the ocean.

-ships might get corroded a bit faster(although carbonic acid might be too weak for that...)

Technology can make better ships.

You do that. Good luck.

Hey, there's a lot of jobs and a lot of money there...electricity demand is one thing that isn't slowing down.

Maybe you and others shape the future, but I'm just an observer content in the knowledge that there is always the option of suicide, should the world become unlivable.:)

The quote in my sig kind of reflects my opinion on the matter. I plan to be a fellow-creator who shapes our destiny rather than remain a passive observer. ;)

i have 2 points to make...

1...there are alot of whales...whales make alot of piss...piss is generally acidic...hense the increase in acidity

2. global warming doesnt exist, if you'd look back just 40 years at any temperature chart you'll see that world temperatures were dropping dramatically and people were afraid of a second ice age....

2b...from the early 1000's up until 1800ish there was a small ice age in which the world's temperature was at its lowest since the great ice age. we are simply moving in a natural swing of hot and cold...again look at any temperature chart and you'll see that the earth's temperature has been much colder and it has been much hotter, we're running at a happy medium right now.

i have 2 points to make...

1...there are alot of whales...whales make alot of piss...piss is generally acidic...hense the increase in acidity

2. global warming doesnt exist, if you'd look back just 40 years at any temperature chart you'll see that world temperatures were dropping dramatically and people were afraid of a second ice age....

2b...from the early 1000's up until 1800ish there was a small ice age in which the world's temperature was at its lowest since the great ice age. we are simply moving in a natural swing of hot and cold...again look at any temperature chart and you'll see that the earth's temperature has been much colder and it has been much hotter, we're running at a happy medium right now.
Nonetheless, we are polluting and it's definitely going into the water, so why not stop. Even if this is a natural heating. Who cares if we are breathing in smog and crap all the time.

You do realize that this has been going on since, I don't know, forever. How about we slaughter half of the world's population to reduce the CO2 we exhale and the animals too.

I'm gonna invest in heavy-freight hovercrafts - all that sea transport requirements are still there even if the sea is turning into an acid bath!

The ocean is turning to seltzer! sweet! Now all I need are a few billion gallons of milk and choclate syrup and I can create the worlds largest egg cream! Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaa!:D

I truly do not understand what a fancy way of saying reflection has to do with anything. A few degrees? So what? If humans can’t survive that that we don’t deserve this niche we’ve carved out.

You are correct - you truly do not understand. Albedo isn't just a 'fancy way of saying reflection'.

Our oceans serve a number of regulatory functions - they stop the temperature from rising too rapidly, by 'absorbing' ambient heat... both as a kind of cooling-sink, and as an equilibrium step in the hydrological cycle.

If you change the ambient temperature of the world's oceanic water by even a small fraction (and that's a hell of a lot of water), you have a number of knock-on effects - among these would be increased precipitation in some areas, and greater interference between bodies of air in other places. (Think for a second, if you have encountered any recent tales of storm-flooding anywhere, or a greater than usual incidence of ocean born storms). The problem is exacerbated by higher than usual temperatures, and by particulate pollutions - since they cause the water cycle to drop atmospheric water, rather than holding it - which also has a repurcussion on albedo.

One of the other things a slight change in temperature does, is shift the equilibrium at poles, causing some of the ice to melt, and the properties of more ice to change. THIS is important because of the concept of albedo.

Try looking up the word albedo - I've just given you the background. You should be able to see why the trend is bad.

i have 2 points to make...

1...there are alot of whales...whales make alot of piss...piss is generally acidic...hense the increase in acidity

Did you steal your arguement from Ali G? :rolleyes:

Try looking up the word albedo - I've just given you the background. You should be able to see why the trend is bad.
They’re bad, but not catastrophic. Adaptation is humanity’s specialty.

And if we don't, so what? We die? Meh.

They’re bad, but not catastrophic. Adaptation is humanity’s specialty.

And if we don't, so what? We die? Meh.

What are we going to 'adapt' to? Eating rocks?

As for the closing sentiment... "so what? We die? Meh..."

Well, knock yourself out.. but I'd quite like to pass this world on to my future generations. You want to render your genepool extinct, be my guest - but you have no right to condemn MY offspring.

Well, knock yourself out.. but I'd quite like to pass this world on to my future generations. You want to render your genepool extinct, be my guest - but you have no right to condemn MY offspring.
Well then, by all means, go out and enjoy pretending to save the world for your “offspring.” Even continue to be self-righteous and condescending about it. Whatever makes you happy.

Well then, by all means, go out and enjoy pretending to save the world for your “offspring.” Even continue to be self-righteous and condescending about it. Whatever makes you happy.

Fuck that, I want to live forever.

My sole motivation is so that my life remains enjoyable and comfortable for a long time, not to mention the fact that we need to keep working on the technology that will enable me to achieve that goal. I don't want to die, so I plan to maximize my chances of not doing so. All in all, my motivation for keeping the environment healthy is to enable me to achieve that long-term goal...not some concept of responsibility to future generations.

I don't give a shit about future generations mainly because I'm hoping to be alive when those future generations arrive.

Fuck that, I want to live forever.
Are you serious? Jesus, and here I thought you were one of the more reasonable people on these forums.

They’re bad, but not catastrophic. Adaptation is humanity’s specialty.

And if we don't, so what? We die? Meh.

You may not care if you die, and I may not care if you die, but I do care if *I* die.

Me > your game of "I'm so cool cuz I'm anti-environment and therefore rebelliously non-PC"

You may not care if you die, and I may not care if you die, but I do care if *I* die.
And what exactly are you going to do about Global Warming then?
Me > your game of "I'm so cool cuz I'm anti-environment and therefore rebelliously non-PC"
I’m not anti-environmentalist. Not in the least. I support many efforts by the government to cut down on pollution for the good of humanity.

I am just not convinced that Global Warming is that bad and that it is worth the trade offs, and if it is that bad, well then it's probably too late anyway.

Are you serious? Jesus, and here I thought you were one of the more reasonable people on these forums.

Hey, it's a long term goal. I don't think it's likely, but I wouldn't pass up the chance if it were offered.

Of course, it would be more along the lines of some kind of mind uploading or body replacement rather than true "immortality"...we're talking a while in the future here. But it's not impossible..

Hey, it's a long term goal. I don't think it's likely, but I wouldn't pass up the chance if it were offered.

Why do you want to live forever?

If eternal life is anything like this one, I think I'll pass.

There is certainly nothing you or I can do about it.

If you shoot yourself in the foot (or more appropriately, the head), then no, you won't do anything; that much is quite apparent. :|

I'm more worried about the oceanic plant life. We get the majority of our oxygen from their photosynthesis. A strong but delicate balance.. one gets screwed up.. all gets screwed. We asked for it, but it will be many years from now. We could get smacked with a big ass meteor .. but as for natural earthly occurances, I feel we need to worry about volcano (and earthquakes) eruptions and their aftermath (which is huge).

Why do you want to live forever?

Well, for one there's a lot of things I want to learn and experience, and secondly I imagine there will be things like memory editing that will keep the boredom away. Not to mention the possibility of being uploaded in to a virtual reality and living in any world I could possibly want. The whole "paradise engineering" component comes in to play here.

If eternal life is anything like this one, I think I'll pass.

That's why I want to work to improve things as much as possible; I plan to be here a while, and I want to keep making things better both for myself and everyone else. Not to mention seeing the long-term ramifications of your actions could be extremely interesting...

And what exactly are you going to do about Global Warming then?

I don't see how what I am going or not going to do is relevant to this line of discussion.

I’m not anti-environmentalist. Not in the least. I support many efforts by the government to cut down on pollution for the good of humanity.

I am just not convinced that Global Warming is that bad and that it is worth the trade offs, and if it is that bad, well then it's probably too late anyway.

Right, because of "nanotechnology" and how it will miraculously solve everything. Just like in SimEarth! Or, we'll all die so let's embrace knee-jerk nihilism.

Right, because of "nanotechnology" and how it will miraculously solve everything. Just like in SimEarth! Or, we'll all die so let's embrace knee-jerk nihilism.

Oh, nanotech will solve a lot of problems...the key is to deal with the problems that exist now which could pose a serious threat to developing those solutions.

We have to avoid catastrophe now to develop that nanotech later...it's a pretty clear path from one to another. If we don't slow or reverse these problems, we either won't be around to develop long-term solutions or we won't have the economy or technology to solve them. You save the environment as much as you can now to take advantage of the long term benefits.

Well, for one there's a lot of things I want to learn and experience,

More than you could in one lifetime?

and secondly I imagine there will be things like memory editing that will keep the boredom away.

I value consciousness too much for that. I don't think I could willingly forgo knowledge, unless it was something really awful.

Not to mention the possibility of being uploaded in to a virtual reality and living in any world I could possibly want. The whole "paradise engineering" component comes in to play here.

Quite honestly I would rather live with real people and real problems than in a world of my own design.

It would be fun for an escapist fantasy or two (or a dozen), but not fun enough to base immortality on.

That's why I want to work to improve things as much as possible; I plan to be here a while, and I want to keep making things better both for myself and everyone else.

I don't see it getting paradisiacal anytime soon, and I wouldn't want to live through the intermission.

Perhaps some kind of brain preservation mechanism would do the trick, though.

More than you could in one lifetime?

I won't know for a while; that's decades or more in the future even with current lifespans. I personally feel our human desire for knowledge is limited only by death; some people may be more comfortable with ending at a certain point, and others aren't.

I doubt I could ever be "satisfied" with knowing a certain finite amount, mainly because my life has been driven by me striving to improve myself for my own personal development. I always see new goals to achieve, and I think that would be motivation to keep going especially since the passage of time would continually reveal new things to learn, experience, and do.

And sometimes, simply existing can be a continuous source of inspiration in itself.

I value consciousness too much for that. I don't think I could willingly forgo knowledge, unless it was something really awful.

The same with me. Only really terrible things would be removed, since they do nothing but hurt me and might impede my ability to move on.

Quite honestly I would rather live with real people and real problems than in a world of my own design.

It would be fun for an escapist fantasy or two (or a dozen), but not fun enough to base immortality on.

Definitely. The primary purpose would be for relaxation and escapism (although if many, many or even all of the people alive were in it as well it would be a real world of sorts), perhaps for a lifetime or two but not permanent. It would be a way to both rest and continue to learn by experiencing different things that aren't achievable within this world.

I don't see it getting paradisiacal anytime soon, and I wouldn't want to live through the intermission.

I'm a patient guy, and the process to get from one point to another does interest me so I imagine I could take the wait. Besides, being involved in the entire process would be very interesting to say the least...you'd have the experience and wisdom to keep things on the right track in the future as well.

Perhaps some kind of brain preservation mechanism would do the trick, though.

That's kind of my fallback if I can't achieve voluntary death before I die involuntarily.

In other words, I live as long as I want and decide on a period of either permanent or temporary death rather than being forced to die. Death becomes a true choice rather than one forced upon me.

I won't know for a while; that's decades or more in the future even with current lifespans. I personally feel our human desire for knowledge is limited only by death; some people may be more comfortable with ending at a certain point, and others aren't.

I doubt I could ever be "satisfied" with knowing a certain finite amount, mainly because my life has been driven by me striving to improve myself for my own personal development. I always see new goals to achieve, and I think that would be motivation to keep going especially since the passage of time would continually reveal new things to learn, experience, and do.

I'm not saying our desire is finite; I'm more thinking that our desire is not to know but to learn, and is oriented towards novelty rather than some kind of desire for omniscience.

And sometimes, simply existing can be a continuous source of inspiration in itself.

Existing well, maybe. Happiness (genuine happiness, distinguished from mere pleasure) is a great thing.

The same with me. Only really terrible things would be removed, since they do nothing but hurt me and might impede my ability to move on.

But if I only removed horrific events, I would get bored fairly quickly.

Well, maybe not. Not if I had friends and family with me, genuine freedom, and constant access to new sources of knowledge. But if I had all of that, I'm not sure I would have any desire to continue indefinitely at all; without the incessant postponement of enjoyment compelled by the structure of our societies, life might be good enough now that later is not so important to us.

I'm a patient guy, and the process to get from one point to another does interest me so I imagine I could take the wait.

I am quite impatient, easily bored, and strongly disinclined towards the present state of things.

I very much doubt I could stand it.

Besides, being involved in the entire process would be very interesting to say the least...you'd have the experience and wisdom to keep things on the right track in the future as well.

That part would be interesting, perhaps, but there would also be the day-to-day drudgery. And I can hardly merely pass that on to others.

I'm not saying our desire is finite; I'm more thinking that our desire is not to know but to learn, and is oriented towards novelty rather than some kind of desire for omniscience.

Well, I imagine both are infinite. In my case, I like both; knowing things can be as much a source of novelty in itself as learning new ones, especially if you've got a vivid imagination. That's why developing your creativity is so important in my opinion; you don't just get that sense of novelty from learning more, but also from using what you have to create new things.


Existing well, maybe. Happiness (genuine happiness, distinguished from mere pleasure) is a great thing.

My goal isn't really

But if I only removed horrific events, I would get bored fairly quickly.

I have a feeling it would be something used only sparingly; there are some horrible things you have to remember in order to gain wisdom and to prevent them from happening again.

Well, maybe not. Not if I had friends and family with me, genuine freedom, and constant access to new sources of knowledge. But if I had all of that, I'm not sure I would have any desire to continue indefinitely at all; without the incessant postponement of enjoyment compelled by the structure of our societies, life might be good enough now that later is not so important to us.

I wonder if in that case it would be an issue; you would live indefinitely solely because you live in the now rather than constantly striving for the future. There would be no fatalistic focus on mortality but rather a focus on living. Generally, it has been found that people who are happiest and most optimistic (true happiness, not just pleasure) do live the longest simply because they enjoy living. Death is not a concern because they focus on life, and when they die they die because they are ready to do so. It's the ultimate affirmation of life in many ways.

I imagine your ultimate death would come at the time when you are ready; even if I were to live for a long time, there might be a point where I am simply ready to die.

I am quite impatient, easily bored, and strongly disinclined towards the present state of things.

I very much doubt I could stand it.

It all depends on your personality, I guess. I've always been patient simply because I don't really see a need to hurry; it also helps that I'm good at managing my time but that's more of a skill than anything.

That part would be interesting, perhaps, but there would also be the day-to-day drudgery. And I can hardly merely pass that on to others.

That's true. I imagine you'd just have to find a way to deal with it like we do now; I mean, if we really think about it we realize that we don't remember the day-to-day drudgery except for a short while, and after that we forget it. I mean, how many events can you really remember from last year, let alone 10 years ago? Ultimately, it seems we focus more on the here and now regardless of our age and tend to forget things that are too far away and unimportant to be memorable.

Memory is really well suited to that one...after all, even a short lifespan would be interminably dull if we remembered every single inane thing that has happened with the clarity of a life-changing event. I mean, even a year's worth of school or office work would be utterly hellish if we had to remember the whole thing.

Well, I imagine both are infinite. In my case, I like both; knowing things can be as much a source of novelty in itself as learning new ones, especially if you've got a vivid imagination. That's why developing your creativity is so important in my opinion; you don't just get that sense of novelty from learning more, but also from using what you have to create new things.

Indeed. You can do quite a bit with what you already know. But that only furthers my point - we really don't need to know everything, at least not for the internal goods it brings. It may be useful for some other purpose, like making good decisions, though.

I wonder if in that case it would be an issue; you would live indefinitely solely because you live in the now rather than constantly striving for the future. There would be no fatalistic focus on mortality but rather a focus on living. Generally, it has been found that people who are happiest and most optimistic (true happiness, not just pleasure) do live the longest simply because they enjoy living. Death is not a concern because they focus on life, and when they die they die because they are ready to do so. It's the ultimate affirmation of life in many ways.

I imagine your ultimate death would come at the time when you are ready; even if I were to live for a long time, there might be a point where I am simply ready to die.

Exactly. That is the life I want to live. A good one. Not necessarily a long one.

I increasingly think that that is the more worthy social goal.

It all depends on your personality, I guess. I've always been patient simply because I don't really see a need to hurry; it also helps that I'm good at managing my time but that's more of a skill than anything.

I hate managing my time. In fact, rigid schedules are one of the things I hate most.

That's true. I imagine you'd just have to find a way to deal with it like we do now; I mean, if we really think about it we realize that we don't remember the day-to-day drudgery except for a short while, and after that we forget it.

It's not the memory that bothers me, it's the way it restricts everything else; the way it turns all free time into mere rest time, the way it creates time scarcity, the way it impedes freedom, the way it alienates me from my life and turns me into a shell.

You do forget it easily, once you're out of it for a while, but there is very rarely a long-term escape.

Indeed. You can do quite a bit with what you already know. But that only furthers my point - we really don't need to know everything, at least not for the internal goods it brings. It may be useful for some other purpose, like making good decisions, though.

No, I think a drive for omniscience is a self-defeating goal; we all have to realize that we are limited in our ability to know, and I imagine accepting that is an important part of developing ourselves as people. That obviously doesn't mean you shouldn't try to learn, rather you should learn to the point where you are truly satisfied; where that point is is a mystery that I imagine you'd only know when you achieved it.

And when you reach a point where you are satisfied with what you have learned...what then?

Exactly. That is the life I want to live. A good one. Not necessarily a long one.

I increasingly think that that is the more worthy social goal.

Yeah, my concept of "immortality" might be more along the lines of removing involuntary death. When I die, I want to do so because I have reached that level of personal development, happiness and satisfaction, not because of disease, age, injury or something involuntary like that.

If I feel it is time, I'll die and if I don't I'll continue to live. It will be my final decision and hopefully one I make voluntarily.

I hate managing my time. In fact, rigid schedules are one of the things I hate most.

For one of my business classes we had to do a time log where we kept track of our time and it was all about "optimizing" our time and eliminating "waste". My apologies to them, but as much as I like business, I don't plant on running my life according to the principles of one. Life is not meant to be made efficient, and I simply will not live that way.

I don't have a schedule; frankly, I hate having them too because I end up getting nothing done and rushing to complete the assignment right before it's due. I just keep whatever I need to do with me when possible (since it's usually on a laptop or notebook) and work on it when I want. Surprisingly, it does usually work very well as long as I make sure to make a not of having to do it.

It's not the memory that bothers me, it's the way it restricts everything else; the way it turns all free time into mere rest time, the way it creates time scarcity, the way it impedes freedom, the way it alienates me from my life and turns me into a shell.

You do forget it easily, once you're out of it for a while, but there is very rarely a long-term escape.

That's true; ideally, my goal would be to eliminate that drudgery and create something that's truly free for me to determine according to my own goals and desires. Perhaps that's one of my reasons for wanting to live longer, so that I can achieve a future where that kind of drudgery is no longer necessary.

And when you reach a point where you are satisfied with what you have learned...what then?

Death, maybe. Or endless contentment, sitting with friends and talking about nothings.

Yeah, my concept of "immortality" might be more along the lines of removing involuntary death. When I die, I want to do so because I have reached that level of personal development, happiness and satisfaction, not because of disease, age, injury or something involuntary like that.

If I feel it is time, I'll die and if I don't I'll continue to live. It will be my final decision and hopefully one I make voluntarily.

Yes, the notion of involuntary death is a little disturbing. You might want to die when you're ready... but who knows when you're ready, but you?

If someone told me I would die within a month, I would try to put my life and order and kill myself myself, so that it would come when I had prepared myself for it.

For one of my business classes we had to do a time log where we kept track of our time and it was all about "optimizing" our time and eliminating "waste". My apologies to them, but as much as I like business, I don't plant on running my life according to the principles of one. Life is not meant to be made efficient, and I simply will not live that way.

Exactly. Life is about living, not productivity.

We are taught from an early age to hate leisure and love work, but that is because work is such an abomination that we would never do it otherwise. We naturally enjoy activity, but we do not like doing it on command.

Learning is far easier and far more enjoyable when there is no coercion and no necessity. The same is true of most other things.

I don't have a schedule; frankly, I hate having them too because I end up getting nothing done and rushing to complete the assignment right before it's due. I just keep whatever I need to do with me when possible (since it's usually on a laptop or notebook) and work on it when I want. Surprisingly, it does usually work very well as long as I make sure to make a not of having to do it.

That's actually a fairly good way of doing it. Me, I usually just wait until the last minute anyway.

That's true; ideally, my goal would be to eliminate that drudgery and create something that's truly free for me to determine according to my own goals and desires. Perhaps that's one of my reasons for wanting to live longer, so that I can achieve a future where that kind of drudgery is no longer necessary.

It isn't "necessary" now, except artificially. It's a social disease that is self-reinforcing; the more we are alienated from our daily activity, the more we seek to escape from it with objects, and the more objects we seek, the more alienating daily activity we engage in.

Death, maybe. Or endless contentment, sitting with friends and talking about nothings.

I imagine whatever felt most fulfilling to you; it would be a completely free choice.


Yes, the notion of involuntary death is a little disturbing. You might want to die when you're ready... but who knows when you're ready, but you?

If someone told me I would die within a month, I would try to put my life and order and kill myself myself, so that it would come when I had prepared myself for it.

I agree. That's why I feel the concept of immortality isn't so much the actual concept of living forever but rather control over death; it's that lack of control that causes people to fear death because it is so inherently against our nature as free-willed beings. It's my goal that you live as long as you desire, and when you're ready you die...for some people, that would be longer than others but ultimately finite regardless. It's ultimately a free choice, and is one that you make without the burdens of age or disease forcing you to abandon your goal before it is complete.

Exactly. Life is about living, not productivity.

We are taught from an early age to hate leisure and love work, but that is because work is such an abomination that we would never do it otherwise. We naturally enjoy activity, but we do not like doing it on command.

Learning is far easier and far more enjoyable when there is no coercion and no necessity. The same is true of most other things.

That's true as well. It's also one of the reasons why I'm planning to save my money wisely and invest it to minimize the time I have to work in favor of doing what I want. Sometimes, I might want to work because I enjoy the inner workings of the economy and business, and other times I wouldn't. Really, in that case my ultimate goal would be to work for myself, but that's a tough job and takes a long time.

That's actually a fairly good way of doing it. Me, I usually just wait until the last minute anyway.

I would sometimes, but unfortunately all of my assignments seem to be due on the same day. Cranking out 16 or 17 pages and 10 PowerPoint slides is difficult indeed in the day before a project is due.

It isn't "necessary" now, except artificially. It's a social disease that is self-reinforcing; the more we are alienated from our daily activity, the more we seek to escape from it with objects, and the more objects we seek, the more alienating daily activity we engage in.

It's a self destructive cycle, really nothing more than an addiction without end. Our happiness is ultimately a fleeting thing that is sustained by a constant stream of activity that ultimately destroys more and more of our what gives us true happiness, forcing us to rely on these quick hits of pleasure to sustain ourselves. The fortunate people realize what is actually going on and ultimately try to change themselves for the better, and if they succeed they are better off than they ever could have been. Some, even an unfortunate majority, are not so lucky and never escape the trap.

Of course, the real question is how to break that cycle...I don't know yet, and I don't know what it would take. I would like to, and I imagine I'll spend plenty of time trying to figure it out how although it's still a massively difficult task. We're talking hundreds, even thousands of years of an established cycle that needs to be dismantled to improve ourselves overall.

I agree. That's why I feel the concept of immortality isn't so much the actual concept of living forever but rather control over death; it's that lack of control that causes people to fear death because it is so inherently against our nature as free-willed beings. It's my goal that you live as long as you desire, and when you're ready you die...for some people, that would be longer than others but ultimately finite regardless. It's ultimately a free choice, and is one that you make without the burdens of age or disease forcing you to abandon your goal before it is complete.

Yes. That's a better path than mere immortality, which could well get stagnant after a point.

That's true as well. It's also one of the reasons why I'm planning to save my money wisely and invest it to minimize the time I have to work in favor of doing what I want. Sometimes, I might want to work because I enjoy the inner workings of the economy and business, and other times I wouldn't. Really, in that case my ultimate goal would be to work for myself, but that's a tough job and takes a long time.

If it works for you, go with it. Me, I don't see much potential for personal escape; I will just have to endure it, and I hope I'll endure it without ever accepting it.

I would sometimes, but unfortunately all of my assignments seem to be due on the same day. Cranking out 16 or 17 pages and 10 PowerPoint slides is difficult indeed in the day before a project is due.

Well... yes. You can get into trouble quite easily with that tactic.

It's a self destructive cycle, really nothing more than an addiction without end. Our happiness is ultimately a fleeting thing that is sustained by a constant stream of activity that ultimately destroys more and more of our what gives us true happiness, forcing us to rely on these quick hits of pleasure to sustain ourselves. The fortunate people realize what is actually going on and ultimately try to change themselves for the better, and if they succeed they are better off than they ever could have been. Some, even an unfortunate majority, are not so lucky and never escape the trap.

I don't think there are very many "fortunate people," frankly. Many of us realize what is happening, but almost none of us know how to get out of it.

We are conditioned to accept it, and if we're distracted enough, we can endure it without too much trouble - but escape is near-impossible, unless perhaps it is done socially.

Of course, the real question is how to break that cycle...I don't know yet, and I don't know what it would take. I would like to, and I imagine I'll spend plenty of time trying to figure it out how although it's still a massively difficult task. We're talking hundreds, even thousands of years of an established cycle that needs to be dismantled to improve ourselves overall.

That is the question - that, and how, once we know what we want to achieve, how to achieve it.

One thing everyone should have learned from Google Earth is that this world is a small place after all and that its resources are limited. And some folks still cannot grasp what a loss it really is when one species becomes extinct.
.

Well then, by all means, go out and enjoy pretending to save the world for your “offspring.” Even continue to be self-righteous and condescending about it. Whatever makes you happy.

Wait... you are the one saying screw everyone... and I'm the one being 'self righteous and condescending'?

(I'll ignore the juvenile jab about 'pretending to save the world', because it is kind of true, really... after all, every piece of good I might do is easily undone by someone with the intent to throw away the world. Maybe those of us who would like there to be green spaces for our grandchildren are merely making gestures - but I think those gestures are important).

Why do you want to live forever?

If eternal life is anything like this one, I think I'll pass.

That's kind of why one would want to improve this world, no?

one of 2 points the don't seem to have been mentioned.

1. The ocean is a major carbon sink. If it turned too acidic and destroyed a majority of marine fauna & flora, we're fucked.

2. Alot of arable land near seas and such rely of sea water either through mists or water cycle. Acid rain, etc..., would also affect fresh water lakes and so on. Big problem

3. If sea was acidic and ship got corroded fast, the blimp might make a come back!:)

4. Alot of coastal/tourist economies would be severly affected to the point of collapsing economies, etc...

5. have no idea what a more acidic sea would do to the north and south pole but its probably not good.

6. No more "free willy" films because all killer whales would be dead.

7. "Flipper" would never make a comeback either. Imaging the damage to the hollywood film market!

8. Surfing would become a real extreme sports. DUDE stay on the board of FRY!

5. have no idea what a more acidic sea would do to the north and south pole but its probably not good.


Actually, the 'acidity' isn't the worrying property... we should be more worried about 'specific gravity' or 'latent heat' values.

If the vapourisation temperature of seawater is reduced by even a small fraction, or the melting point is just a dot lower... our polar icecaps will start to degrade more quickly.

If it means human beings can live comfortably, what does it matter if a few fish die?

Hell, I read the other day that they’re doing genetic experiments to add the proteins in fish to beef and pork. Pretty soon, we won’t even need the little buggers.By "we" you mean people that make a living off of fishing too, right?

Actually, the 'acidity' isn't the worrying property... we should be more worried about 'specific gravity' or 'latent heat' values.

If the vapourisation temperature of seawater is reduced by even a small fraction, or the melting point is just a dot lower... our polar icecaps will start to degrade more quickly.

so more acidic sea water would lead to this. either way its due to acidity

so more acidic sea water would lead to this. either way its due to acidity

Oh, absolutely... it is the change in the 'recipe' that is the problem... but it could just as easily be a matter of the seas becoming more alkaline, or turning into peas. :)

Oh, absolutely... it is the change in the 'recipe' that is the problem... but it could just as easily be a matter of the seas becoming more alkaline, or turning into peas. :)

i still in fear of the day was some dictator pours millions of litres of jelly/jello into the sea. imaging the horror

i still in fear of the day was some dictator pours millions of litres of jelly/jello into the sea. imaging the horror

Mmmm. Jello.

I mean... 'eep!'.

Hmmmmm world's oceans turning more acidic screams the headlines
oh woe is us , we're all doomed unless we go back to an idylic pre-industrial society (and die of a nasty ikky disease caused by lack of clean water and medicine)

Question:

Hom much CO2 is needed to drop the ocean's average PH value by lets say .001% ?


Or is this story more likely a non-story spun up by the media who see a headline published "More CO2 makes the oceans more acidic by dropping the average ph value by .00000001%" and then decide to cut off the sciency bit and jazz the headline up into
"CO2 emissions gonna turn the seas to acid!"

El-presidente Boris

Fuck that, I want to live forever.

My sole motivation is so that my life remains enjoyable and comfortable for a long time, not to mention the fact that we need to keep working on the technology that will enable me to achieve that goal. I don't want to die, so I plan to maximize my chances of not doing so. All in all, my motivation for keeping the environment healthy is to enable me to achieve that long-term goal...not some concept of responsibility to future generations.

I don't give a shit about future generations mainly because I'm hoping to be alive when those future generations arrive.

Me too! Well I do care about the future...

Oh, nanotech will solve a lot of problems...the key is to deal with the problems that exist now which could pose a serious threat to developing those solutions.

We have to avoid catastrophe now to develop that nanotech later

Well, seems we're kinda in agreement now, but I think we have to avoid catastrophes not for the sake of nanotechno-miracles (which I am skeptical of), but because, well, catastrophes are catastrophic and people need to survive.

Me too! Well I do care about the future...

I care about the future because I'll be experiencing it (hopefully).

It's a selfish reason, perhaps, but everyone else benefits directly at the same time so it's a good kind of selfishness.

Well, seems we're kinda in agreement now, but I think we have to avoid catastrophes not for the sake of nanotechno-miracles (which I am skeptical of), but because, well, catastrophes are catastrophic and people need to survive.

They kind of go hand in hand. You can't develop technology without people, and you're not going to have people without an environment capable of supporting them and their economy.

We can replace fish. Better than less computers.

From an economic standpoint, it depends which is scarcer. The marginal utility of more fish could easily be greater than the marginal utility of another computer. Besides, you can't eat computers.

From a biocentric standpoint, the loss of any species is problematic.

Do you guys know what this means?

Free soda water!

Too bad I'm not alowed to have any any more.

Mmmm. Jello.

I mean... 'eep!'.

got to admit though. planes crashing into the sea would be more fun

We can replace fish. Better than less computers.


A hypothetical acidification of the oceans causing the extinction of the fish that you don't care about would also most likely result in a massive drop in foraminifera and phytoplankton, etc. These little buggers don't like a decrease in pH. As is, their carbonate shells start to dissolve as they fall through the water column (oceans have a lower pH at depth). A mass die off would result in large amounts of carbon hitting the anoxic boundary layer (where there is no oxygen in the water) that exists in some oceans.

Respiration in these conditions produces H2S, a highly toxic gas. Too much carbon hitting this could destabilise the dissolved gas, causing a massive overturn of the water and releasing the gas. For a local description using CO2 (the principle is the same) see here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#The_1986_disaster) The anoxic layer is supersaturated with H2S, and H2S release is believed to have been one of the major causes of the Permian mass extinction - where 95% of life died out. This is not something we want to happen again?

Great. just great. So all attempts to spread my genes will be thwarted by mother nature? :(

Anyhoo, I read somewhere that the next mass extinction to be caused by this could be as soon as 2200 AD--2 centuries from now. :(

Great. just great. So all attempts to spread my genes will be thwarted by mother nature? :(

Hey, thats no reason to stop!

Don't know if anyone's pointed this out, but the oceans would turn into club soda, not seltzer. Seltzer has no salt in it, see ...

Anyhoo, I read somewhere that the next mass extinction to be caused by this could be as soon as 2200 AD--2 centuries from now. :(

Time to start saving up for a launch in to space. I'll come back after the whole mess is done, but not before that.