You are not logged in.
If we can turn deserts into forests and farms we should.
:evil: HUMANS HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT!
Offline
If we can turn deserts into forests and farms we should.
:evil: HUMANS HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT!
I guess we'll have to disagree on that point.
Fan of [url=http://www.red-oasis.com/]Red Oasis[/url]
Offline
So we should just bend over, spread our buttocks, and accept whatever the planet decides to throw at us? With that mentality, we'd still be living nomadic existence, because building houses is reclaiming land from nature to our use.
So I guess we shouldn't try to restore the Aral Sea, we should just accept that the planet "wants" it to be a barren wasteland now.
We shouldn't try to restore the Sahara, we should just accept that the planet "wants" it to be a barren wasteland now.
Do we have the "right" to irrigate land that became desert in the last 5 years, in an attempt to restore it to bloom? If not, that's basically a mentality of "bending over and letting the planet do as it will". If yes, then do we have the "right" to irrigate the land that became desert in the last 50 years? 500 years? 5000 years? Where does the limit go? If we go back far enough, Sahara wasn't desert. We have the "right" to turn back the clock by 5 years, but not 50,000? Where does the line go, and who has the right to decide where the line goes?
Offline
So we should just bend over, spread our buttocks, and accept whatever the planet decides to throw at us? With that mentality, we'd still be living nomadic existence, because building houses is reclaiming land from nature to our use.
So I guess we shouldn't try to restore the Aral Sea, we should just accept that the planet "wants" it to be a barren wasteland now.
We shouldn't try to restore the Sahara, we should just accept that the planet "wants" it to be a barren wasteland now.
Do we have the "right" to irrigate land that became desert in the last 5 years, in an attempt to restore it to bloom? If not, that's basically a mentality of "bending over and letting the planet do as it will". If yes, then do we have the "right" to irrigate the land that became desert in the last 50 years? 500 years? 5000 years? Where does the limit go? If we go back far enough, Sahara wasn't desert. We have the "right" to turn back the clock by 5 years, but not 50,000? Where does the line go, and who has the right to decide where the line goes?
Aral Sea catastrophe was caused by humans.
So we have DUTY to restore it because we disrupted the ecosystem.
But Sahara was a desert long time ago and it is BIOME on it's own right.
For you it is a barren wasteland but for it's desert animals and nomadic people it is a home.
Try to put scorpion, vulture, cacti or desert nomadic people into rainforest....
Do you want to reduce biodiversity and seed only animals from the country what has the climate you want to recreate on Sahara?
Not only you would kill animals, you will also disrupt the life of the nomadic people.
Rather tell Chinese that they stop reproducing like rabbits.
I do not want to have an overcrowded Earth.
I am living in a village and even tought of living in a city is frightening for me.
I belive Lovelock's GAIA theory that states that Earth is basically a living organism that has it's own self-regulating mechanisms that should not be disturbed.
So we should rather concentrate on eliminating the pollution and desertification and deforastation.
Also, with no deserts the sea will became a biological desert - no deserts to fertilize it with minerals from slit and dust and so plankton will have less nutrients to grow.
Offline
And why not genetically tweak humans to be better adopted to desert?That will make the colonisation of natural deserts more easy.
For example, if humans could manifacture their water from food like kangoroo desert rat do trough oxidative phosphorylation ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_rat ; and produce more concentrated urine; then we will be able to colonise naturally arid areas while stop desertification.
Ofc it is a thing of further future, but if we want to colonise Mars, Moon and asteroids on a large scale, we will need low G genetical enhacements anyways.
Offline
I have often thought about the idea of governments constructing large scale mountain building programs in areas which have low rainfall or in areas which can tweak the climate to produce a cooler more favouarble climate for human habitation or for establishling more fertile farming areas and also increasing forrestation.
My theory is this. For example. In Australia which in southern areas and dessert areas the climate seems to be getting drier and drier. All major states in Australia are considering building large scale desalination plants at the moment. These plants use coal as in Australia we are generally opposed to nuclear power. Desalination plants can change the salt content in water and therefore alter aquatic life that some people say will threaten fisheries if the plants are built to large as is proposed for the state of Victoria.
What i have always thought to be a more logical approach would be to build a large artificial mountain range. I know what you are thinking..that it couldn't be done. However such a project would not be a short term project but a massive construction project almost self perpetuating project that would be measured in timelines of many decades to a century or more to build. I suggest building a massive mountain range with the aid of our best scientists who would predict where a mountain should be built to cause rainfall to precipitae and in which areas. This project would mean massive land areas be put aside for mountain building. Huge earth moving equipment, in my opinion built around a train and rail network of shifting earth would be employed. These tarins would shift earth gradually along a gradient. With new raillines being built at higher latitudes as the mountain progressively builts up in height. Huge steel conveyers would evenly distrubute soil and earth and cement and concrete, rock, and other materials over big distances to spread the soil.
The earth moving equipment, from escavators, conveyers to train locomotives etc would be electric powered. The electricity would come from future Helium- 3 fusion or other short term current technology nuclear reactors if other option isn't available. In my opinion a massive rocket program would land on the moon and mine the surface for Helium 3 in the near future. As helium 3 future proposed nuclear reactors dont produce radioactive waste like current uranium reactors. Therefore not harming public as much. Therefore special purpose Heium 3 reactors(if possible) would power all the mountain building equipment for many decades. Earth removed from certain areas would become vast freshwater lakes which Australia needs desperately as we have been in the grip of a bad drought for more than 7 years. The worst on record.
Building a mountain in my opinion requires so much imagination and courage that it is no suprise that no leader or individual has been great enough to propose or go ahead with such a massive project. But the rewards..for instance to Australia would be enormous.
Rainfall would increase. I would propose to build personally a mountain range to go from the northen area of Victoria along the murray across to the left or West of Australia into south Australia. I would build a mountain in a way to most effectively capture water and be of use to humans for farming, forrestation and habitation, by "designing" a mountain range which is several hundred kilometers long. The mountain wouldn't have to be Mt everest height to be of good use. I have studied ecology and science and from my own observations of how best to build a mountain to create the most ideal environment I suggest a mountain be made like this:-
The start of the mountain nedds to rise about 600meters from sea level and then gradually rise for a distance of maybe at least 50 - 100 km of plateau..to a height of about 1000- 1500meter(1500meters in australia would be ideal). The mountain must rise sharpely at a steep gradient to first reach 600meters and then just slightly rise all the way to 1500 meters. This altitude is the most ideal altitude in my opinion from my oextensive personal bservations of many foresst types in australia. Tress like tall mountain ash or the equivalent of Red sequia foreests in N. America thrive at these altitudes. You will create a self sustaining environment which will create an abundance of foreest types from cool temperate rainforests in southern states of Victoria to warm rainforrest vegetation in more northernly aress of australia, where these mountain terraforming areas would be contructed. It is important to have a plateau area large enough to then farm on, or have forrestry industry, fishing in artificial lakes. You would create rivers, and most importantly "Water".
By the way, once the terraformed mountain range reaches 1500 meters in height I would then propose to build a steep gradient ridge which would rise a s high as one nation could build it..to about 2000meters even to a loftly height of 2500-4000meters in sections. This would stop the high clouds which would have to precipate their water. You would have high lands which would be snow covered which would feed the murray darling basin and all majors southern river systems. I would propose a mountain range to go east west in design, with areas of mountain blocking the west hot summer sun to favour growth of tall wet forrests. In summer the city of Melbourne where i live would be cooler. As The hot northernly winds which come over central australia would be blocked or rise over the mountain range therefore reducing summer days to below 40 degrees in summer. So we may well have a more "european' climate where summers may be wetter and have maximum temps between 27- 33 degrees. In the mountains themselves more likelt summer temperatures around 25- 27 degrees. Much better than 45 + degrees! (in desserts) now. The snow would create world premier skiing industry which doesn't really exist in Australia. We would have more spring melt. We wouldn't have any water restrictions and gardens trees in cities such as melbourne would become lush.
If massive mountain ranges were strategically created in Australia then Australia would decades to centuries later, have a more favcourable climate. Australia would be able to sustain a bigger population, have morer natural resources and have a bigger more robust economy..as more humans will be able to prosper. We may be able to sustain a population of 100 million as opposed to the 21 million we have now. Therefore any short sightedness now will be offset in the near to far future generation of australians which will be able to live and thrive in cities and areas which were once desserts or too dry to live. Most of australians live along a thin and fragile belt of greenery which is the great dividing range which is along all of eastern australia. We dont have that must fertile land, however the continent of Australia is very large and if we had more mountains therefore a more favourable climate in general, populated areas would be able to move more westerly in current dessert areas.
It would create massive employment. It would help australia sustain bigger population therefore better economy. We would not be crippled with so many droughts. We would prosper and show the world that technology can also be use to help humans on a climatic level to change local climate conditions. If we can destroy so much, why not use our brain power and creativity to create several strategically placed mountain ranges to put the climate in our favour. especially with green house emissions this would make sense.
A mountain is the "Best" desalination plant that human kind can ever have in my opinion. It creates rain and water, grows forests, and supoorts life with no power input from us and works 24/7. It doesn't break down or need solar, coal or even nuclear power once built ofcourse. It would continue to help and serve man kind for many many centuries to come. Once the massive construction has been completed and people see the rewards, people wont laugh at the idea and maybe even think why did it take so long to build a big pile of dirt. I agree that it is scientifically challenging..infact if you are going to propose terrforming mars for eg, then why not terreform the places where we could thrive right now at our doorstep. ( I am not against mars colonising though)
The funny thing is that we have the technology to build mountains in australia and anywhere in the world right now. There are vast areas which have oxygen and you dont need a spacesuit which can benefit. I see a distant future where one day desserts will have mountains and will be terraformed to better support human life in the near future. After that we will have the capability and the right attitudes to do the impossible in space on much more hostile terrains and vastly more expensive scale than on earth. But terraforming earth in my opinion will have the the most rewards in the nearest future than mars. However it is inevitable in my opinion that humans will believe in and want to rise to the future challenges of making new planets more hspitable aswell.
These are my opinions only.
Martin
Offline
inflatable mountains.
Offline
I have often thought about the idea of governments constructing large scale mountain building programs in areas which have low rainfall or in areas which can tweak the climate to produce a cooler more favorable climate...
Martin
Hi Martin, everyone.
I agree with you totally on this subject. Oz would be a much more productive land if it had a few mountain ranges to cause rainfall. Out of curiosity, I looked up the cost for cheap land fill. Gravel costs range from $10.00 to $16.00 to $23.50 per tonne currently at a couple of web sites (Jan 2008). (Much of this variation is how far the material is expected to be shipped. I'll use the higher price below.)
If we assume that the mountain range is 2000 meters high, 100 km long and has a base of 5000 meters (with a triangular cross section) this is:
volume = 0.5 ( 5,000m * 2,000m ) * 100,000m = 5E8 cubic meters.
Multiplying this by $23.50 gives us a very rough cost of: ~$1.2 E 10 or $12,000,000,000. However, the cost is likely going to be at least 10 times that since we will want stronger materials than gravel, it will have to be dug up from somewhere and shipped to the correct location up hill.
Call it about half a trillion dollars if you include landscaping and some cement to hold it all together. This does not include the price to buy all that land in the first place.
It would be nice if we had some way to get volcanoes to erupt where we want them. Oz has quite poor soil, volcanic rock would bring up more Potassium, Phosphorus and other useful soil components.
I don't see this happening now but with fusion or fission there might be enough wealth to consider it.
Warm regards, Rick.
Offline
Land fill, hmm. thats given me an idea...
What would be the cost of getting ll the rubbish humans make, incinerating it (in closed incinerators so no pollution escapes) then dumping the ash down for hills and mountains and turfing it over? It's what Singapore does. They've built artificial islands with biomes out of rubbish.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2571
INFLATABLE mountains!
Put their foundations into the sea so they to utilize the highest induced possible atmospheric humidity.
It is NOT necessary to sculpture rock in order to provide the desired shaping of the terrain needed for best management of the planetary fluo-spheres` flows. With membranes / pneumathic, i.e. = kinetic structures / one could even separate the atmo- , hydro- etc. -spheres into independant chemically, pressure, etc, realms.
... so the chemicals to flow where and when we need them.
Offline
Offline
I don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader, how does he intend to keep the closed loop up at 50.3 km?
And inflatable mountains go pop.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
50 to 300 meters.
Offline
Bolonkin is a genius. You could fund the domes by using them to grow biofuel crops (e.g., switchgrass) on otherwise unusable land. We should do this.
Fan of [url=http://www.red-oasis.com/]Red Oasis[/url]
Offline