Atmospheric CO2 (from Miracle CO2 delivery ...)

[tara]

You guys are gonna regret trying to make more CO2, consume more CO2, whatever. Stop breathing today, and help fight global warming.

I wouldn't mind being a minor temporary CO2 sink
And if I was producing more internal CO2, maybe I'd have enough energy to bike more and drive less, use less electricity in winter, and maybe some other external CO2 reducing effects. :)

 

[Kenobi]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

You guys are gonna regret trying to make more CO2, consume more CO2, whatever. Stop breathing today, and help fight global warming.

I wouldn't mind being a minor temporary CO2 sink
And if I was producing more internal CO2, maybe I'd have enough energy to bike more and drive less, use less electricity in winter, and maybe some other external CO2 reducing effects. :)

CO2 isn't the problem with global warming anyway. There are other much more significant greenhouse gases like methane that have been ignored. Pollution also an issue, why don't we burn clean fuel like ethanol? Global warming causes a release of CO2 from the oceans, like heating a soda causes the release of its CO2. Simple gas law. Yet, there are entire organizations behind reducing emissions of CO2, and they do some good because they reduce pollution, but if clean fuel were used, hell, using electricity would benefit the Earth, not hurt it. CO2 is good for all living species, and if it does build up to excessive levels, plant life will use that up, but not methane.

 

[tara]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

I can't resist responding to this, OT as it is. If anyone wants to break it out or shift it to a different thread, it's fine with me.

You guys are gonna regret trying to make more CO2, consume more CO2, whatever. Stop breathing today, and help fight global warming.

I wouldn't mind being a minor temporary CO2 sink
And if I was producing more internal CO2, maybe I'd have enough energy to bike more and drive less, use less electricity in winter, and maybe some other external CO2 reducing effects. :)

CO2 isn't the problem with global warming anyway.

I disagree about CO2 not being a problem,

There are other much more significant greenhouse gases like methane that have been ignored.

though I agree it is not the only problem wrt global warming. CO2 is one of the weaker green-house gases (GHG), but it is by far the greatest volume, and therefore a significant contributor. The Kyoto Protocol, inadequate as it was to oppose human-induced global climate change (GCC), did take into account methane and other more potent GHGs. There is some research and some action towards limiting them, too, for instance figuring out how to modify stock feed to reduce methane emissions.

Pollution also an issue, why don't we burn clean fuel like ethanol?

I agree that other kinds of pollution are also a problem, though that doesn't reduce the importance of GCC.
Ethanol is a lot cleaner than, say, tar sands. But the CO2 release from burning any fossil fuel is a major contributor to GCC, though some have worse effects than others. Combustion of ethanol also releases CO2, though if it is sustainably managed one could say that this is a renewable resource, and their emissions will be reabsorbed and can be used again with a long-term lower net CO2 release than fossil fuels. So far, it is not evident that most ethanol is produced in such ways. There is also a problem of immediate wide-spread hunger being exacerbated by food-producing land being converted to growing monoculture biofuels, as well as concern about land fertility being degraded by this practice.

Global warming causes a release of CO2 from the oceans, like heating a soda causes the release of its CO2. Simple gas law.

Yes. This is one of the reasons why it is so important to see if we can reduce GHG emissions enough to avoid crossing the bigger irreversible tipping points.

Yet, there are entire organizations behind reducing emissions of CO2,

Yes, good on them.

and they do some good because they reduce pollution,

Yes, and they help inform and organise people to make necessary changes to reduce the human contribution to GHG-induced GCC.

but if clean fuel were used, hell, using electricity would benefit the Earth, not hurt it.

I guess this is both an issue of information and of values - what each of us counts as benefit. I think there will likely be a place for lower-impact electricity generation for a long time, but it will be quite a challenge to get there from here. I think electricity has it's place, but it is produced in several difference ways, and a lot of it is produced either by combustion or thermonuclear methods. Even hydro-generation creates a fair bit of destruction when it's set up, especially in places where a large amount of vegetation is submerged by the dams, releasing a lot of CO2 etc as it decomposes.
There is currently a fairly limited supply of cleaner-generated electricity, and the fossil fuel and other wasteful industries have a lot of political power which they use to maintain their profits, regardless of the (externalised) costs. Changing the way society works, in useful directions, and in time, is a huge challenge. Fortunately, there are a growing number of people aware of this and actively working for good solutions. I also think some electricity is well-used, in ways that benefit humans and other life. As far as I am aware, even if all current electrical and combustion energy was converted to ethanol-generated electricity, and there was no increase in demand/supply, the CO2 emissions would still risk pushing the climate too far.

CO2 is good for all living species, and if it does build up to excessive levels, plant life will use that up, but not methane.

I guess, again, this is a combination of information and values. Uncontroversially, all living species as far as we are aware require CO2 to live. Under ideal conditions, many animals effectively produce all the CO2 we need. Higher CO2 in the very local environment can sometimes be helpful. It doesn't follow that global increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration is supportive of any particular species, let alone all of them.
CO2 levels have been measurably rising, and plants have not so far taken it up in sufficient amounts to prevent the GCC that is already occurring.
But more and more species are likely to face extinction as GCC proceeds. All the animals and plants that have evolved to thrive in a niche environment can be threatened if that niche disappears altogether, or changes faster than they can adapt, or moves faster than they can move with it, or changes in such away that other species migrate into their area and dominate.

It would take a lot to make humans extinct, since we have been able to adapt to so many different environments. But it could get pretty rough, and massively reduce the population.

As you say, methane is also important. If the temperature rises beyond some tipping points, and too much of the frozen subterranian and submarine methane evaporates, the atmosphere could get unbreathable for us. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere could conceivably have this effect. (Not saying this will happen, but I think such conditions have occurred on Earth before.)

Short of that, and much more likely if not already evident, I'm wouldn't personally consider all these effects to be beneficial for life on Earth:
- Sea level rise (eg 4m not out of the question in the next 100yrs) - a number of the worlds largest cities, and a lot of food growing land submerged. Too me, that looks like it could cause a lot of death, suffering, and desperate refugees looking for new homes on smaller landmasses. So far, Pacific Islanders are already facing this, as the lower islands begin to submerge and face salination of food-growing land.
- Large increase in number and severity of extreme weather events - droughts, floods, hurricanes, extremes of hot and cold. (Put more energy into the weather system, and what do you get? More weather.) As you are aware, some of this is already evident in warming oceans causing increased frequency and severity of hurricanes.

- Massive crop failures as a direct result of weather changes. Also as a result of invading pest species.
- Massive imbalance in the oceans, with changing temperatures and and pH. Loss of much current sea life, reduction of fish catch.
- Inundation or abandonment of hazardous sites, including nuclear reactors, nuclear fuel storage sites, toxic dumps, etc, with resulting breaches of containment.
- Spread of some infectious diseases to new areas, as changed climate supports different vectors.
- Increase in scale of wild-fires (reckon this is happening already?).
- Increase in human conflicts and violence over increasingly scarce resources. Potential for chaos as more systems break down. We've been seeing this for a long time with previous resource depletion and the social elevation of greed. Massive world-wide social and political changes away from competition and towards cooperation could help lessen this in important ways, but I think we are too late to prevent it all - it's already happening.

Some possible ways I am aware of to help reduce emissions include:
- Obvious stuff, like burn less petrol. Small differences can be made by individual, but large improvements require political will to plan cities and change economies to support active transport modes over motorised modes, to reduce the need for travel, invest in efficient public transport, etc.
- Organise for and support policies to support development of lower-impact energy systems.
- Design dwellings to make best use of solar heating when it's cold, natural cooling when it's hot, etc.
- Farm and garden to develop soils rather than deplete them - major CO2 source/sink. Use and encourage low-artifical fertilizer use.
- Buy less unnecessary stuff.
- Figure out how to improve our health, so we can spend less time in hospital :).

Mitigating the the GCC effects that we can't forestall could include:
- planning/designing for future increased weather and higher sea levels, both individually and collectively. For instance, if I were to design a house now, I'd be going for a roof that is secured for a higher wind zone than ours currently is, probably more than the regulation foundation height, and taking into account solar gain etc as much as practical (and affordable). Where droughts are likely, consider investing in rainwater harvesting. Promote policy for good design on a wider scale.
- Opposing the development of more polluting projects.
- Working to build local communities for resilience in the face of whatever challenges. Security in the face of conflict will come from strong community ties.
- etc...

It's kind of a daunting prospect, but we've got a better chance of dealing well with it if we face reality. It's kind of in the interests of our own and everyone else's health.

 

[Kenobi]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

I can't resist responding to this, OT as it is. If anyone wants to break it out or shift it to a different thread, it's fine with me.

Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong about any of this, I'm just trying to learn. I like to discuss, but I don't care whether I'm right or wrong.

You guys are gonna regret trying to make more CO2, consume more CO2, whatever. Stop breathing today, and help fight global warming.

I wouldn't mind being a minor temporary CO2 sink
And if I was producing more internal CO2, maybe I'd have enough energy to bike more and drive less, use less electricity in winter, and maybe some other external CO2 reducing effects. :)

CO2 isn't the problem with global warming anyway.

I disagree about CO2 not being a problem,

There are other much more significant greenhouse gases like methane that have been ignored.

though I agree it is not the only problem wrt global warming. CO2 is one of the weaker green-house gases (GHG), but it is by far the greatest volume, and therefore a significant contributor. The Kyoto Protocol, inadequate as it was to oppose human-induced global climate change (GCC), did take into account methane and other more potent GHGs. There is some research and some action towards limiting them, too, for instance figuring out how to modify stock feed to reduce methane emissions.

Unlike CO2, methane is not beneficial to any life on Earth. With the higher quantity of CO2 in the air, plants would develop the capacity to grow larger and produce more O2 in exchange. Circulation of fresh air is a crucial part of indoor grow ops so the O2 is gotten rid of, and more CO2 is introduced. Sometimes growers even introduce CO2 from tanks into the grow ops, and this is even more effective. How powerful this effect would be, I don't know, but I think you should consider this natural coumter-balancing effect.

Pollution also an issue, why don't we burn clean fuel like ethanol?

I agree that other kinds of pollution are also a problem, though that doesn't reduce the importance of GCC.
Ethanol is a lot cleaner than, say, tar sands. But the CO2 release from burning any fossil fuel is a major contributor to GCC, though some have worse effects than others. Combustion of ethanol also releases CO2, though if it is sustainably managed one could say that this is a renewable resource, and their emissions will be reabsorbed and can be used again with a long-term lower net CO2 release than fossil fuels. So far, it is not evident that most ethanol is produced in such ways. There is also a problem of immediate wide-spread hunger being exacerbated by food-producing land being converted to growing monoculture biofuels, as well as concern about land fertility being degraded by this practice.

When there is more CO2 in the air, plants can grow larger and adapt to a higher variety of soils and climates. When there is more plants, animals have the capacity to grow larger, grow larger brains, and it's the same with humans. How do you think dinosaurs grew to such extremely volumous sizes? I can only find one explanation, a higher amount of plant life, caused by higher CO2 content in the air.

When there is more food to consume, and beings consume more food, consider that the rate of adaption will rise. Humans will either adapt directly, or have more energy to form external adaptions.

Global warming causes a release of CO2 from the oceans, like heating a soda causes the release of its CO2. Simple gas law.

Yes. This is one of the reasons why it is so important to see if we can reduce GHG emissions enough to avoid crossing the bigger irreversible tipping points.

Yet, there are entire organizations behind reducing emissions of CO2,

Yes, good on them.

and they do some good because they reduce pollution,

Yes, and they help inform and organise people to make necessary changes to reduce the human contribution to GHG-induced GCC.

but if clean fuel were used, hell, using electricity would benefit the Earth, not hurt it.

I guess this is both an issue of information and of values - what each of us counts as benefit. I think there will likely be a place for lower-impact electricity generation for a long time, but it will be quite a challenge to get there from here. I think electricity has it's place, but it is produced in several difference ways, and a lot of it is produced either by combustion or thermonuclear methods. Even hydro-generation creates a fair bit of destruction when it's set up, especially in places where a large amount of vegetation is submerged by the dams, releasing a lot of CO2 etc as it decomposes.
There is currently a fairly limited supply of cleaner-generated electricity, and the fossil fuel and other wasteful industries have a lot of political power which they use to maintain their profits, regardless of the (externalised) costs. Changing the way society works, in useful directions, and in time, is a huge challenge. Fortunately, there are a growing number of people aware of this and actively working for good solutions. I also think some electricity is well-used, in ways that benefit humans and other life. As far as I am aware, even if all current electrical and combustion energy was converted to ethanol-generated electricity, and there was no increase in demand/supply, the CO2 emissions would still risk pushing the climate too far.

CO2 is good for all living species, and if it does build up to excessive levels, plant life will use that up, but not methane.

I guess, again, this is a combination of information and values. Uncontroversially, all living species as far as we are aware require CO2 to live. Under ideal conditions, many animals effectively produce all the CO2 we need. Higher CO2 in the very local environment can sometimes be helpful. It doesn't follow that global increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration is supportive of any particular species, let alone all of them.
CO2 levels have been measurably rising, and plants have not so far taken it up in sufficient amounts to prevent the GCC that is already occurring.
But more and more species are likely to face extinction as GCC proceeds. All the animals and plants that have evolved to thrive in a niche environment can be threatened if that niche disappears altogether, or changes faster than they can adapt, or moves faster than they can move with it, or changes in such away that other species migrate into their area and dominate.

It would take a lot to make humans extinct, since we have been able to adapt to so many different environments. But it could get pretty rough, and massively reduce the population.

As you say, methane is also important. If the temperature rises beyond some tipping points, and too much of the frozen subterranian and submarine methane evaporates, the atmosphere could get unbreathable for us. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere could conceivably have this effect. (Not saying this will happen, but I think such conditions have occurred on Earth before.)

I would say it's impossible for CO2 levels to rise enough that humans can't adapt to them. First of all, we have plants to make this process difficult. Second of all, we already know it's possible for humans to adapt to extremely high body CO2 concentrations. We have so much CO2 in our bodies that external air would have to reach a very high concentration of CO2 to match it. Not to mention some humans have adapted to breathe extremely slowly, and in fact have more cell oxygen and better functioning than the rest of us. What would happen would be that we would breathe the same quantity of air, but we would have more CO2, and more oxygen in our bodies. Eventually, breathing more would increase cell oxygen, instead of reducing it like at present, because at present the atmosphere has too much oxygen, and not enough carbon dioxide.

Short of that, and much more likely if not already evident, I'm wouldn't personally consider all these effects to be beneficial for life on Earth:
- Sea level rise (eg 4m not out of the question in the next 100yrs) - a number of the worlds largest cities, and a lot of food growing land submerged. Too me, that looks like it could cause a lot of death, suffering, and desperate refugees looking for new homes on smaller landmasses. So far, Pacific Islanders are already facing this, as the lower islands begin to submerge and face salination of food-growing land.
- Large increase in number and severity of extreme weather events - droughts, floods, hurricanes, extremes of hot and cold. (Put more energy into the weather system, and what do you get? More weather.) As you are aware, some of this is already evident in warming oceans causing increased frequency and severity of hurricanes.

- Massive crop failures as a direct result of weather changes. Also as a result of invading pest species.
- Massive imbalance in the oceans, with changing temperatures and and pH. Loss of much current sea life, reduction of fish catch.
- Inundation or abandonment of hazardous sites, including nuclear reactors, nuclear fuel storage sites, toxic dumps, etc, with resulting breaches of containment.
- Spread of some infectious diseases to new areas, as changed climate supports different vectors.
- Increase in scale of wild-fires (reckon this is happening already?).
- Increase in human conflicts and violence over increasingly scarce resources. Potential for chaos as more systems break down. We've been seeing this for a long time with previous resource depletion and the social elevation of greed. Massive world-wide social and political changes away from competition and towards cooperation could help lessen this in important ways, but I think we are too late to prevent it all - it's already happening.

I don't think human greed has anything to do with scarce resources. We already have wars, and there is already greed anyway. If we are not greedy over necessities, we will be greedy over wants and luxuries. Why are people so unhappy? They perceive relationships, fame, money as being able to fulfill them. The truth is, nothing can fulfill anyone. And what happened is most people now perceive a "safe haven" and they think dreams far into the future will become real. If humans struggle to obtain short-term needs, we do not suffer because we appreciate life, and we are present in the moment. Most people are blind to how chaos ceases suffering.

Chaos can lead to human enlightenment, and a decrease and ego and greed. When humans are overwhelmed with stress, they fall back onto their natural selves and their ego is shattered. This can bring forth enlightenment. According to some scientists, this is already happening, but do not view death as suffering, and life as not suffering. One can have people dying all around them, and not suffer, and one can be in a virtual paradise with rainbows, bunny rabbits, and world peace, and suffer. It depends on how much you appreciate your life as it is, and that is definitely better when you are close to death everyday.

I'm not saying it's good to cause chaos without a purpose. I'm saying humans suffer because there isn't enough chaos. People by the sea may have to migrate. People may die. But it will be better for the whole planet if more CO2 is in the air.

If there is less oxygen in the air, there will be less fires. Fish can adapt too, it's not a death sentence to them.

Some possible ways I am aware of to help reduce emissions include:
- Obvious stuff, like burn less petrol. Small differences can be made by individual, but large improvements require political will to plan cities and change economies to support active transport modes over motorised modes, to reduce the need for travel, invest in efficient public transport, etc.
- Organise for and support policies to support development of lower-impact energy systems.
- Design dwellings to make best use of solar heating when it's cold, natural cooling when it's hot, etc.
- Farm and garden to develop soils rather than deplete them - major CO2 source/sink. Use and encourage low-artifical fertilizer use.
- Buy less unnecessary stuff.
- Figure out how to improve our health, so we can spend less time in hospital :).

I agree that most of this is a good thing. When you buy from the rich, where does the money go? Unnecessary luxuries. But not only the rich are guilty of this, but everyone. How many people smoke cigs? How many people drink alcohol? How many people smoke marijuana? How many people buy houses bigger than necessary, have kids if they are not fit to raise them, buy jewelery, buy nicer cars than necessary? This wasting is everywhere. I'm proud to shop at thrift stores for clothing. I'm proud to buy only the necessities. I'm proud to avoid supporting the greedy rich. I only spend money to thrive physically and help spread information on how to help this world.

Mitigating the the GCC effects that we can't forestall could include:
- planning/designing for future increased weather and higher sea levels, both individually and collectively. For instance, if I were to design a house now, I'd be going for a roof that is secured for a higher wind zone than ours currently is, probably more than the regulation foundation height, and taking into account solar gain etc as much as practical (and affordable). Where droughts are likely, consider investing in rainwater harvesting. Promote policy for good design on a wider scale.
- Opposing the development of more polluting projects.
- Working to build local communities for resilience in the face of whatever challenges. Security in the face of conflict will come from strong community ties.
- etc...

It's kind of a daunting prospect, but we've got a better chance of dealing well with it if we face reality. It's kind of in the interests of our own and everyone else's health.

I agree, instead of stopping CO2, we should stop pollution and instead make adaptions to the higher CO2 and climate change. Climate change isn't a problem. Our lack of adaption for it at the moment is. But we have enough time to do that.

 

[BigPapaChakra]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

This site has a lot of information pertinent to the discussion on CO2 in the environment: http://www.co2science.org/education/rep ... rtarch.php

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/oct/a3.php CO2-Enriched Air Boosts Medicinal Value of an Endangered Plant

For awhile, my various symptoms were limiting me from learning much of anything new, so I can't comment on this to the extent I would wish, but I had received A.I. Oparin's book on the origin of life awhile back; I plan on going back and reading+annotating it in the next month or so, but in the book he makes a point to explain the role of carbon and carbon dioxide on Earth and the origin of life. Dr. Peat has discussed this as well, in some articles and interviews. Dr. Peat has also discussed his alternative hypothesis about the origin of the mitochondria, and rather than coming from space or something like that, he believes there is ample evidence that CO2 led to the generation of mitochondria. Well, there are in fact studies about subcutaneous injections of CO2 increasing PGC-1a expression, thus facilitating the generation of new, more efficient mitochondria.

With this information in hand, in addition to Gerald Pollack's work (and that of others), I personally would find it hard to believe that an increased atmospheric CO2 content, and even an increased overall temperature, would have much of a negative impact on life on earth.

 

[pboy]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

some of the original cars were designed to run on vegetable oil, hemp seed oil. Theyd probably be slow but at least the burn would be clean...and those oils would be used in a better way than in the junk food supply. Ive always thought global warming would be a good thing, I mean...it would make more places inhabitable and life would flourish more like it used to thousands (or millions) or years ago. Fossil fuels are disgusting because of the sulphur clouds and smells they emit, and the added heavy metals they emit. These are what cause cancer, illness, that smog in the sky over cities, the fact you cant take a deep breath without inhaling toxic fumes...ect, co2 has nothing to do with any of that. When plants and animals were huge and life was booming all over the planet, c02 levels were much higher

 

[tara]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

I think that it is very likely that some humans would survive, as long as the methane or radiation levels don't get too high (depends on temperature of the currently frozen methane deposits, and continued safe management of nuclear faclities). Such humans would likely find a way to perpetuate the species.
I think you are right that many plants will grow larger, and some sea life would adapt. There could well be more abundant life on Earth in the future (as long as too much radiation doesn't prevent it). This is what I meant by a matter of values. I do take some comfort from the likelihood that life will be abundant again, and intelligent life will probably develop again, even if many current species become extinct. But I don't count this as an ideal outcome - I would be happier to avoid massive destruction, death, and extinctions. And I do think it is a real possibility that the anthropocene could cause human extinction too.

I think you are right that there is time to do a lot to prepare for those changes that are already inevitable, and that this would be a valuable use of a lot of resources. However, it is currently not happening at a fast enough rate. We are already committed to significant GCC on the basis of present and past GHG releases, so I think this is important.

I agree, instead of stopping CO2, we should stop pollution and instead make adaptions to the higher CO2 and climate change. Climate change isn't a problem. Our lack of adaption for it at the moment is. But we have enough time to do that.

This is exactly the opposite of what I mean. I think the more future GHG emission, including CO2, the greater the likelihood of widespread environmental destruction, including greater risk of all kinds of other pollution too. Even if we stopped all other active pollution (can't be done instantly anyway, but it's a good goal), continuing on the current track with increasing CO2 emissions will likely result in widespread extinctions, possibly including humans. Or at least massive death and likely further social collapse.

 

[tara]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

I would say it's impossible for CO2 levels to rise enough that humans can't adapt to them.

I don't think atmospheric CO2 will get high enough that it will directly cause any difficulties for humans (or most animals) breathing it. We pobably wouldn't even notice it till it was more than a thousand times higher than current levels. It would destroy our niche long before that.

I don't think human greed has anything to do with scarce resources. We already have wars, and there is already greed anyway. If we are not greedy over necessities, we will be greedy over wants and luxuries. Why are people so unhappy? They perceive relationships, fame, money as being able to fulfill them. The truth is, nothing can fulfill anyone. And what happened is most people now perceive a "safe haven" and they think dreams far into the future will become real. If humans struggle to obtain short-term needs, we do not suffer because we appreciate life, and we are present in the moment. Most people are blind to how chaos ceases suffering.

I agree that there is greed even when people have enough.
I speculate that habits of greed have begun in times of local scarcity, and perpetuated in teh culture by people who have got stuck with these habits, like an addiction, continuing to accumulate personal or family wealth well beyond where it can do any real good, and in times when there is no scarcity. But now the world is dominated by an economic system that privileges greed and gives status to people who accumulate ridiculous amounts of wealth to themselves, at the expense of all the other people from whom it is taken. Laws are made to protect this system. A lot of the world's social, economic, legal, and military structure serves to enforce the current extreme inequality, which I think is based in greed. Otherwise, the biggest companies couldn't continue to internalise profits and externalise costs as they do. This drives a great deal of needless consuption of resources and fouling of the environment. I doubt that we can keep the planet habitable without radically challenging this structure in various ways.
In some cultures, status comes from giving valuable gifts, sharing food, and hoarding is considered intolerably antisocial.

Chaos can lead to human enlightenment, and a decrease and ego and greed. When humans are overwhelmed with stress, they fall back onto their natural selves and their ego is shattered. This can bring forth enlightenment. According to some scientists, this is already happening, but do not view death as suffering, and life as not suffering. One can have people dying all around them, and not suffer, and one can be in a virtual paradise with rainbows, bunny rabbits, and world peace, and suffer. It depends on how much you appreciate your life as it is, and that is definitely better when you are close to death everyday.

I'm inclined to think chaos causes a lot of stress, and for many people this is overwhelming, and generally results in faster decline and death. Though there might be some insights on the way. I think that for people to really thrive, we need to have confidence that our most important needs can be met.

I'm not saying it's good to cause chaos without a purpose. I'm saying humans suffer because there isn't enough chaos. People by the sea may have to migrate. People may die. But it will be better for the whole planet if more CO2 is in the air.

I think some change and challenge can be good. I don't think more chaos would generally serve us.

If there is less oxygen in the air, there will be less fires. Fish can adapt too, it's not a death sentence to them.

I haven't looked up historical/geological trends, but my impression is that the evidence points to an increase in destructive fires in recent years.
Some fish may adapt. Many corals and other ecosystems are already under threat or retreating from changes in temperature and acidity. If plankton are affected, it affects the whole marine food chain. Previous geological changes have been a lot slower that this one, allowing more time for adaptation. And still major extinctions have occurred when there have been sigificant chnages in climate.

 

[Kenobi]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

I don't know what you're talking about. Most of the planet's fresh water is trapped in ice. Once it melts, there will be more water available to the planet. It will be mostly added to the ocean but where does fresh water come from? The ocean. It just undergoes purification. What if we had global cooling, would there be more fresh water then? No, less.

Extreme weather? Cold spells? Why would those things happen with more CO2 in the air?

Desertification? Pretty sure there will be more rain than before. Higher aggressiveness? Lol. People are aggressive even in today's comfortable conditions. Rich or poor, people have issues. It has nothing to do with the external circumstances.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

I don't know what you're talking about. Most of the planet's fresh water is trapped in ice. Once it melts, there will be more water available to the planet. It will be mostly added to the ocean but where does fresh water come from? The ocean. It just undergoes purification. What if we had global cooling, would there be more fresh water then? No, less.

http://scribol.com/environment/how-glob ... r-supplies

Extreme weather? Cold spells? Why would those things happen with more CO2 in the air?

Because Earth does not have one cause and one effect. And would you move to six-thousand feet overnight? Surely, how could more CO2 hurt you?

Higher aggressiveness? Lol. People are aggressive even in today's comfortable conditions. Rich or poor, people have issues. It has nothing to do with the external circumstances.

So, a human being lives and dies by virtue of itself, and has nothing to do with the external circumstances?

 

[Kenobi]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

I don't know what you're talking about. Most of the planet's fresh water is trapped in ice. Once it melts, there will be more water available to the planet. It will be mostly added to the ocean but where does fresh water come from? The ocean. It just undergoes purification. What if we had global cooling, would there be more fresh water then? No, less.

http://scribol.com/environment/how-glob ... r-supplies

Even if there were more salt water and less fresh water, what is wrong with that? More salt water species, maybe fresh water fish adapting to salt water. Fresh water is in fact not ideal for fish. It causes a rise in prolactin, salt water does not. Same for humans, there are even some Peaters on here who drink salinated water. If we needed non-salinated water, guess what, there is desalination technology available. Fresh water is overrated.

The only negative side to salinated water would be the mercury content, and pollution getting mixed into it. Guess what I favor? Removal of mercury from sea water and not creating anti-life chemicals and materials in the first place. Everything has a safe alternative these days. Even fiberglass.

Extreme weather? Cold spells? Why would those things happen with more CO2 in the air?

Because Earth does not have one cause and one effect. And would you move to six-thousand feet overnight? Surely, how could more CO2 hurt you?

Oh yeah, like sea level would rise to 6000 feet in one night. You're forgetting that it would take who-knows-how-many years. The only thing that would get in the way is humans living in bliss ignorance, and curbing that is without exception my only life goal. Think of how many humans we have, we can prepare for anything. Too many of them to live on such a limited amount of land? It's time to set laws to control birth. Bliss ignorance is also involved, people think "starting a family" will fulfill them. They don't want to admit, either, that they have inferior genetics and they should not reproduce. Don't forget we also have an entire unused continent waiting for us in case this degree of heating does happen.

It's not as simple as "global warming = bad" as you see. It will require serious adaptions for humans and animals but in the end, if pulled off correctly, life will thrive even more than before.

Higher aggressiveness? Lol. People are aggressive even in today's comfortable conditions. Rich or poor, people have issues. It has nothing to do with the external circumstances.

So, a human being lives and dies by virtue of itself, and has nothing to do with the external circumstances?

Death isn't a problem and isn't negative or evil. Try thinking about death or being in the proximity of it on a regular basis. It's a gift that puts your life into perspective. If you were immortal, you wouldn't value life.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Re: Miracle CO2 delivery concoction.

Even if there were more salt water and less fresh water, what is wrong with that? More salt water species, maybe fresh water fish adapting to salt water. Fresh water is in fact not ideal for fish. It causes a rise in prolactin, salt water does not. Same for humans, there are even some Peaters on here who drink salinated water. If we needed non-salinated water, guess what, there is desalination technology available. Fresh water is overrated.

The only negative side to salinated water would be the mercury content, and pollution getting mixed into it. Guess what I favor? Removal of mercury from sea water and not creating anti-life chemicals and materials in the first place. Everything has a safe alternative these days. Even fiberglass.

Guess what, there would not be such a fast warming without anti-life chemicals and materials.

Higher aggressiveness? Lol. People are aggressive even in today's comfortable conditions. Rich or poor, people have issues. It has nothing to do with the external circumstances.

So, a human being lives and dies by virtue of itself, and has nothing to do with the external circumstances?

Death isn't a problem and isn't negative or evil. Try thinking about death or being in the proximity of it on a regular basis. It's a gift that puts your life into perspective. If you were immortal, you wouldn't value life.

Creatures who have nothing to do with external circumstances are usually called "God".

 

[Kenobi]

I don't know what's with your attitude but I'm ending this. You just want to be right, now you're mad. Grow up.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I don't know what's with your attitude but I'm ending this. You just want to be right, now you're mad. Grow up.

I think we are on the same track, and I am pointing out things that I have noticed. I fear if you don't notice them or think about them (they are not "small details") you could break the same values that you are advocating one day, without noticing. Remember that a good end does not justify the means unless they are the best means you have to get there.

 

[Kenobi]

What details are you referring to? And what do you perceive as my values?

Like I said, buildup of CO2 is highly unlikely because plants will grow larger and consume more with higher CO2. Hemp is a plant that consumes as much O2 as a tree, and it can be used in the manufacture of ethanol as well, a clean fuel. If we were to use ethanol instead of dirty fuel, we would have to grow hemp which uses O2. Hemp can also be used in fiberglass and other harmful construction materials.

 

[Such_Saturation]

From reading, you value not producing anti-life substances, you value population control, gene pool guidance, not having a fear of death, substitution of certain materials with hemp, you value psychedelic consumption to change the mind of certain people.

Now, you must aknowledge that our current biospheric situation might contain positive elements, such as increasing carbon dioxide, only in connection with irrational practices and policy. You cannot claim we should not worry about climate change, because the mercury, the lead, the cesium, the dioxin, the bisphenol are all implied in that change. Any effect of our culture on our planet is just that, the sum of all our actions. Otherwise the amount of extra carbon dioxide would not have surprised us in the first place. It was all a consequence of irrational behaviour. Not thinking so is in some amount reductionistic. The values you manifest have a clear need for holistic foundations, at the risk of becoming dangerous otherwise.

 

[Kenobi]

I believe that external problems are a manifestation of people's internal problems, just like what you said. I believe psychedelics can't "change the mind" but make people confront their internal issues, so they go away and they no longer need addictive or spineless behavior to cover anything up.

Control of pollution in my opinion is a bigger priority than controlling CO2. Resources should be dedicated to that. The fact that the CO2 increase is caused by human irresponsibility doesn't make it a negative result. The smog is a negative result, but if we switched to ethanol, guess what, these negative humans could use it all they wanted with no damage. While a change in peoples' psychological profile would take a while, if a factor such as psychedelics were introduced, some things are easy enough and worth doing now to prevent damage. I don't get why you make life so hard for yourself. And please explain how my values could be dangerous.

 

[Such_Saturation]

For example when a very close-minded individual such as a member of the military was given LSD without being told so, that man could not take such quick and unexplained changes, and suicided a few days later.

 

[Kenobi]

Well, the US military wasn't too bright. If you gave anyone any kind of drug without them knowing, especially a drug that causes hallucinations, of COURSE they will panic.

This post just proves you believe I'm naive. I'm well-aware of the power of these drugs. That's why they are not to be taken lightly, but at the same time, they could not be so theraputic otherwise. For example, progesterone may block the firing of serotonergic neurons like LSD but it does not amplify the unconscious and block repression. Caffeine or thyroid may boost energy level, but they also make repression easier that way. No other substances have this greatly theraputic effect. And the amazing thing is, psychedelics can be taken a couple of times and exert a theraputic effect for many months after that, due to confrontation of the unconscious and perceiving things in a new way.

Let me ask you this: If not promoting the usage of psychedelics, how would you wake people up? We both know how people like to live in bliss ignorance and not challenge themselves.

 

[Such_Saturation]

It remains a choice they make, to take it. Otherwise, there are a whole variety of things you could impose on them to alter their views. Imposition would violate the very principles which got you acting in the first place, as you realize. LSD is also not a proper serotonin antagonist. A taste of the health that could be, such as coffee, thyroid and such substances cannot be ruled out in the progression path. Non-psychedelic serotonin blockers coupled with the Open Emotional Posture could easily form the pivot of the curative process. LSD could easily enter that process and be made into a science, but no single part is irreplaceable or unique in this aspect. http://www.thejournalofunconsciouspsych ... theory.pdf