"You live in a desert!
You know what it's going to a be
a hundred years from now?
It's going to be a ------- desert!
We have deserts in America
we just don't live in them!"
There are probably upsides and downsides to this idea. What I can't comprehend is people who argue that the way the climate naturally changes is in some sense superior to human-guided change. The climate doesn't have a mind or a plan, and it doesn't change in ways that are meant to do good or bad. It just happens. The Sahara doesn't "need" to be a desert. It just happens to be one. This is good for some species, and bad for others. But unlike the blind forces of nature, human scientists can weigh the pros and cons, and make plans to carry out changes that will improve things in the long run.
Today, we have the power to change the climate, for good or ill. Abdicating this responsibility is a choice with consequences, just as trying to use this ability for good is a choice with consequences. Pretending that somehow, the blind forces of nature "know best" is just a way of running away from our responsibilities, and of ignoring the power we now have, which is a dangerous way of thinking.
@ParryLost: Yes, but if something goes horribly wrong, then humans have to take responsibility for that, and we can always say that humans ought to have known better.
If the climate does it, fate, well, then the results may be tragic, but there's no one to get mad at, no one to hate--it's just the way things turned out.
I remember seeing this in Disney's "Eyes in Outer Space", which was released 50 years ago. After the animated weather control sequence, Paul Frees intoned how we can turn "useless" deserts and polar ice caps into pleasant farmland. Frickin' around with the environment isn't really a new or radical concept.
Given that a desert's borders are always in flux, I'm in principle opposed to reclaiming land from it. I am opposed to whiping it out entirely, since the desert also serves its purposes. My biggest concern is over what they plan on using to reclaim it. Introducing species just makes bigger problems in the end.
But if you make the desert moist, it will kill Shai-hulud, and with Him, the spice. The spice must flow.
Really, Is there a specific reason that there have been so many "Dune"-related posts lately? Apparently, you just know I was re-reading it, and decided to contribute.
A proper scientist wouldn't bother with planting trees to change the climate, he'd invent a damn weather control machine and do whatever the hell he wants to the atmosphere. These guys need to get their priorities straight.
We have yet to come up with enough cheap desalination to provide drinking water to parts of africa, but they think they can reliably irrigate forests perpetually. Yeah. Proof of concept, please.
The Sahara covers a landmass the equivalent of continental Europe. It has a history of drought longer than civilization itself. The prevailing winds are driven by heat generated from the rest of the landmass of Asia and the very rotation of the Earth. They can moderate some minor effects, but the basic problem is a continent-scale geographic wind-tunnel, which also is the driving force behind the southern crawl of the Gobi. (Heat which is also part of what drives the Gulf Stream, BTW. Let's not screw with that.) The forces are too big to toy with. These trees will be tended gardens for many hundreds of years and will never be self-sustained unless the entire ecology of the planet re-aligns itself, which would probably trigger a great deal of death. Meanwhile, it would be cheaper and safer to learn how to live underwater, you know, where 70% of our planet's surface is.
Minimizing our impact: I'm all for it. But let's not screw up the climate trying to air-condition places that have very real reasons to exist.
Dear scientist guys, please repair what we break. Don't redecorate to suit your own tastes.
@RoboBagins PAX'd till he Plotz'd: the Sahara used to be a lush place, with trees galore. Then along came humans and their goats (I think during a period of drought or a dry season, perhaps) and tipped it into becoming a vast wasteland desert. I'd say it 'needs it.'
Also, adding stuff like trees might make that land arable again...after a few centuries, perhaps, but it would still be massively worth it.
Sounds like these Geohackers want to start kick start the appocalypse! A plague of locusts! Whats next....Molten fire, boils, first born dead!! I think the term...'Back away from the desert' has to be shouted very loudly into their ears!!
@Dayburner: However, the sahara has changed boundaries over time and been both larger and smaller than it is now. Humans have had some influence in its spread to its current borders as well.
@MonkeyT: Yes, that's all well and true, but we really should start cataloguing the genetic codes of all of Earth's species, along with the essential proteins and amino acid chains so that we can seed other planets.
@Log1c: Possibly not ecological consequences, but every action has an reaction.
Like others in this thread have said, it used to be a forest, but humanity destroyed it. By building cities, by farming, whatever. Maybe if it's returned to natural grassland or forest, the cities will experience storms, or disasters, due to the terraforming of the desert.
@Grey_Area: That's interesting, but I find it a little hard to believe that there existed large enough domestic animal populations in Northern Africa to defoliate an area a little smaller than the U.S. I don't know, I wasn't there.
Were there any major population centers there before it turned into the big sandy? I would think it it would take a hell of a lot of people to have such a major impact and that there would be substantial evidence of their passing.
Uh, I think you should look up the definition of "terraforming".
"Terraforming.
To transform (a landscape) on another planet into one having the characteristics of landscapes on Earth."
"Terraforming (literally, "Earth-shaping") of a planet, moon, or other body is the hypothetical process of deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to those of Earth to make it habitable by humans."
By definition terraforming isn't something done on earth, it's done on other planets. So no, humans have not been terraforming since the early days, and in fact never have.
@LucyNuggler: terraforming and geoengineering are both kinds of planetary enginerring differing only in the location at which the work is done. it is not that large a dictional stretch to use the two terms as if they were synonyms.
09/18/09
You know what it's going to a be
a hundred years from now?
It's going to be a ------- desert!
We have deserts in America
we just don't live in them!"
09/16/09
Today, we have the power to change the climate, for good or ill. Abdicating this responsibility is a choice with consequences, just as trying to use this ability for good is a choice with consequences. Pretending that somehow, the blind forces of nature "know best" is just a way of running away from our responsibilities, and of ignoring the power we now have, which is a dangerous way of thinking.
09/16/09
If the climate does it, fate, well, then the results may be tragic, but there's no one to get mad at, no one to hate--it's just the way things turned out.
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
(I was seriously going to pitch a fit if the first comment wasn't a Dune joke, and now it's a random Harvey Birdman joke.)
09/16/09
09/16/09
Given that a desert's borders are always in flux, I'm in principle opposed to reclaiming land from it. I am opposed to whiping it out entirely, since the desert also serves its purposes. My biggest concern is over what they plan on using to reclaim it. Introducing species just makes bigger problems in the end.
09/16/09
Really, Is there a specific reason that there have been so many "Dune"-related posts lately? Apparently, you just know I was re-reading it, and decided to contribute.
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
Minimizing our impact: I'm all for it. But let's not screw up the climate trying to air-condition places that have very real reasons to exist.
Dear scientist guys, please repair what we break. Don't redecorate to suit your own tastes.
Thanks.
09/16/09
How about planting forests in places that need them.
09/16/09
Also, adding stuff like trees might make that land arable again...after a few centuries, perhaps, but it would still be massively worth it.
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
And then subjugate them.
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
My understanding is that like many of the large mammals of the Americas & Europe, that humanity is responsible for it disappearing.
Replanting it is actually a great idea, in my book.
09/16/09
Like others in this thread have said, it used to be a forest, but humanity destroyed it. By building cities, by farming, whatever. Maybe if it's returned to natural grassland or forest, the cities will experience storms, or disasters, due to the terraforming of the desert.
09/16/09
Were there any major population centers there before it turned into the big sandy? I would think it it would take a hell of a lot of people to have such a major impact and that there would be substantial evidence of their passing.
03/27/09
"Terraforming.
To transform (a landscape) on another planet into one having the characteristics of landscapes on Earth."
"Terraforming (literally, "Earth-shaping") of a planet, moon, or other body is the hypothetical process of deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to those of Earth to make it habitable by humans."
By definition terraforming isn't something done on earth, it's done on other planets. So no, humans have not been terraforming since the early days, and in fact never have.
03/27/09