|Terraforming: Is it possible?27-06-2019 02:02|
|Into the Night★★★★★
|It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.|
The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?
Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.
The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-06-2019 02:04
Into the Night wrote:
You beat me to the punch.
If I grow a few tomato plants on my window sill, have I successfully terraformed?
The word "terraform" comes from sci-fi and carries powerful connotations that appeal to the type of wishful daydreamer that would be inclined to believe in fictions like Global Warming.
One of those connotations is "high tech" that can aid a scientifically illiterate loser into fantasizing about being smart and powerful.
Another connotation involved is one that Hitler utilized as the basis for the NAZI program of ethnic cleansing, i.e. "rebirth" which carries the inseparable implication that the one so terraforming is superior, has the superior "way" that should naturally survive while the rest are discarded to extinction.
A third connotation is that of playing God and being powerful to work Climate miracles, to save humanity and to be the hero that is worshipped and feared, instead of being the naive, scientifically illiterate loser who is mocked and manipulated.
Marxists don't want to actually define what they mean by "terraforming" lest they become exposed for being scientifically illiterate (i.e. get tripped up and advocate for something that is physically impossible) or be asked why they don't just become farmers and "terraform" as much as they feel they need to.
Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
|Terraforming, like in the Book of Genesis? Some people should taper off the kool aid a little. Then again. they do 'believe' they have salvation in had, by reducing CO2, significantly as well.|
If the planetary body, already has all the key ingredients needed to support life, they sure, we could plant some seeds, introduce a few critters, but we wouldn't live long enough to see how it turned out. On a large scale, we would have complete control over atmospheric conditions or climate. Whatever we planted, would still need to adapt and survive independently of our help. Some things do better than others. Bacteria do pretty well, and aren't that picky about food sources. Bacteria would be part of it, to recycle organic matter. It wouldn't be like the fish bowl we keep a pet turtle in, that needs constant care and cleaning, or the turtle dies.
I think it would be incredibly complicated to setup a working ecosystem, that would be self-sustaining, and not kill itself off. Not to mention, take many life times to achieve, couldn't do it all at one time, very slow process, a careful balance, where we couldn't control all the elements, like one a small scale, terrarium, or 'biosphere' experiment.
No, I don't believe we have the time or patience to tend the 'Garden of Eden', we always want to fix problems, rather than let the problems fix themselves. Every quick-fix, would tip the balance, and create other problems, before the system could settle down, which of course, we would want to fix...