Geoengineering is an Awesome Life Purpose

[aurum]

9 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Good luck with that, How do you expect even our best geo engineers to be creating from a higher level of intelligence than the level of intelligence that created nature in the first place ? 

The same intelligence that created "nature" created geoengineers.

Again, you keep failing to recognize the limitations of your own categories / constructs.

9 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

When creating nature, do you think God was half assing it ?

When creating geoengineers, do you think God was half assing it?

[Wilhelm44]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

The same intelligence that created "nature" created geoengineers.

Again, you keep failing to recognize the limitations of your own categories / constructs.

When creating geoengineers, do you think God was half assing it?

Just because God created geoengineers does not imply that it's a good idea to try and replace nature somehow. God also created murderers and rapists. I'm sure geoengineering has it's place and purpose though.

But the whole notion of trying to improve nature seems silly. As if nature is the problem and not us.

I have asked you many times, give me one example of something in nature that you feel needs to be improved ?

And yes, it's arrogant to think that we can improve nature, when we're not even close to understanding it fully.

 

Edited June 9 by Wilhelm44

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

But the whole notion of trying to improve nature seems silly. As if nature is the problem and not us.

What do you think all technology is?

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I have asked you many times, give me one example of something in nature that you feel needs to be improved ?

Here's a potential example you might like:

Imagine you could engineer a forest that changed colors based on air pollution or soil health, with the goal of providing visceral biofeedback to humans. It might dim in color the worse things got. 

[Wilhelm44]

6 hours ago, aurum said:

What do you think all technology is?

Here's a potential example you might like:

Imagine you could engineer a forest that changed colors based on air pollution or soil health, with the goal of providing visceral biofeedback to humans. It might dim in color the worse things got. 

 I have no problem with geoengineering used for a planet in crisis.

But when the crisis is over, and lets say we have major breakthroughs in clean technologies, and pollution is a thing of the past, 

then I see no reason to replace nature with something mechanical or genetically modified.

There's a reason why you choose organic food over something that's been genetically modified for example.

(How about we just use all our technological powers to clean up our act. )

 

 

[Wilhelm44]

@aurum

Hypothetical situation:  Lets say the crisis is over, no more pollution etc.

Do we really have any reason left then to change the design of a tree for example ?

ps I get it, it would be really cool to have a tree with fluorescent leaves etc.

But we can create parks in cities for that kind of thing, we don't need to replace nature as such.

[aurum]

54 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

There's a reason why you choose organic food over something that's been genetically modified for example.

No, actually I'm very much against that mindset.

If I had a billion dollars I'd start a GMO food company and engineer that too.

ps organic food is a myth. 

54 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Hypothetical situation:  Lets say the crisis is over, no more pollution etc.

Do we really have any reason left then to change the design of a tree for example ?

You're hypothesizing a fantasy situation.

Survival is never done.

[Wilhelm44]

18 minutes ago, aurum said:

No, actually I'm very much against that mindset.

If I had a billion dollars I'd start a GMO food company and engineer that too.

ps organic food is a myth. 

You're hypothesizing a fantasy situation.

Survival is never done.

It's not nature's fault that we are in a crisis.

If we have technology to create designer trees, then surely we can aim our technological powers at cleaning up our act in an effective way.

Yes of course organic farms are not perfect. But when you go food shopping, you don't go looking for GMO products, or maybe you do ?

[Wilhelm44]

@aurum  If anything is a fantasy, it would be the replacement of nature with our own creation. That sounds like a scientist's wet dream.

[aurum]

4 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

If we have technology to create designer trees, then surely we can aim our technological powers at cleaning up our act in an effective way.

That's certainly part of the potential of geoengineering, yes.

4 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

But when you go food shopping, you don't go looking for GMO products, or maybe you do ?

Not necessarily, but that's because GMO is still in its infancy. That's why I'd start a company around it.

Don't confuse GMO food today with GMO food in a hundred years.

4 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

If anything is a fantasy, it would be the replacement of nature with our own creation. That sounds like a scientist's wet dream.

"Replacing nature with our own creation" is literally all of civilization.

Do you want to get rid of all of civilization?

[Wilhelm44]

@aurum  Come on, you know it's possible to have a thriving civilization that finds a way to live in harmony with nature.

[LastThursday]

On 6/7/2025 at 9:11 PM, aurum said:

The point is beyond immediate human survival. It's about a VISION for humanity, which environmentalists don't have.

What is the environmentalist vision for humanity? Living like hippies, making our own soap and doing zero-waste? I don't find that to be a compelling vision.

Environmentalists are not wrong though even if you think their vision is weak sauce. We can change our lifestyles as humans and it not be a bad thing: most of us recycle now and we probably don't think much about it. If public transport we're cheap, reliable and affordable we'd all use it more. It doesn't make us hippies, it makes us more self aware collectively.

Maybe engineering a grand vision for the human species instead of geoengineering one is more important? We as apes do like a good story.

[aurum]

10 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Environmentalists are not wrong though even if you think their vision is weak sauce.

It's "wrong" in the sense that it mostly only motivates people away from negative outcomes. Defense vs offense.

Leadership requires inspiration and purpose.

10 hours ago, LastThursday said:

We can change our lifestyles as humans and it not be a bad thing: most of us recycle now and we probably don't think much about it. If public transport we're cheap, reliable and affordable we'd all use it moreWe can change our lifestyles as humans and it not be a bad thing: most of us recycle now and we probably don't think much about it. If public transport we're cheap, reliable and affordable we'd all use it more

Your thinking is so small.

 

[aurum]

13 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

@aurum  Come on, you know it's possible to have a thriving civilization that finds a way to live in harmony with nature.

It'll be made possible by people embracing geoengineering.

[Wilhelm44]

11 minutes ago, aurum said:

It'll be made possible by people embracing geoengineering.

Just don't be replacing all the trees with mechanical trees. Something very valuable will be lost that way. 

(See Carl Richard's post in the Off Topic section titled: I touched a tree.)

[aurum]

1 minute ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Just don't be replacing all the trees with mechanical trees. Something very valuable will be lost that way. 

I make no such guarantee.

[Wilhelm44]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

I make no such guarantee.

Did you even read his post ?

[aurum]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Did you even read his post ?

Yes, I read it the other day.

[Wilhelm44]

@aurum   If you really had a strong connection with nature, you wouldn't take the potential replacement of trees with

mechanical trees so lightly.

[aurum]

1 minute ago, Wilhelm44 said:

@aurum   If you really had a strong connection with nature, you wouldn't take the potential replacement of trees with

mechanical trees so lightly.

Yes, the more attached you are to things, the harder it is to let them go.

Of course.

I don't take it lightly, but I am open to the possibility. You are not. Which is why your vision is more limited.

[Wilhelm44]

Just now, aurum said:

Yes, the more attached you are to things, the harder it is to let them go.

Of course.

I don't take it lightly, but I am open to the possibility. You are not. Which is why your vision is more limited.

Or perhaps your vision has some enormous flaws, have you considered the possibility ?