Tim Tyler’s “Ending the Ice Age” Wednesday, Nov 4 2009
futurism and technology 6:17 pm
I’ve decided to delete my original post on ending the Ice Age because of substantial uncertainty on the transaction costs and the possibility of catastrophic global warming through methane clathrate release. Though I would like to live on a warmer planet, the possible difficulty of the transition strongly suggests that it is something that should be pursued after the Singularity is out of the way, if at all. The issue may even become moot if simulated worlds become the preferred environment of humanity and its offshoots, which seems likely. Still, I made my original comments in the spirit of the third and fourth virtues of rationality — lightness and evenness. I change my mind relatively frequently on a lot of controversial issues due to the lightness thing. One of these issues is the ideal temperature for our planet.
Wow. I’d careful about jumping on this bandwagon if I were you. Even accepting the dubious assertion of advantage from global warming, advocating more carbon emissions is still wildly irresponsible. Ocean acidification could do more than merely bleach coral. We’re talking about the possibility of major ecosystem collapse. The decline of fisheries has already reached a dangerous point across the world. Planet-scale engineering isn’t something to take lightly.
You neglected costs from the redistribution of rainfall, large transition costs for people in poor countries, the extension of tropical diseases northward (diseases that have already been responsible for very many megadeaths so far) and many others.
One long-term existential risk element of increased temperatures is a possible reduction in the chance that industrial civilization would re-emerge after a catastrophe-induced collapse because of increased disease burden and climatic conditions conducive to different social organizations. Germs, Guns, and Steel seems relevant here.
It’s over-the-top to say that you’re “signing on” to something like a pro-warming stance without much more consultation of expert opinion and info. I’m sure that this is substantially tongue-in-cheek, but it seems to be just asking for hostile attention.
I believe Michael is simply expressing a preference for a warmer global climate *all things being equal* (i.e. assuming no unexpected side-effects). This is why he said warming should only be pursued “after the Singularity is out of the way, if at all.”
Yes dhr2102, that’s correct. I am taking it for granted that humanity would very carefully study the question before accelerating warming deliberately. Still, it so happens that the thermal intertia of the oceans means that even if we completely cease CO2 emissions tomorrow, warming will still continue for over a century no matter what.
Thanks for the mention!
Global warming will happen relatively slowly – no matter what. To quote from my article: “The warming process will inevitably be slow. It is estimated that it will take about a thousand years for the Greenland ice sheet to melt. Antarctic will probably take much longer. It is about -37 degrees C down at the pole, and the ice is an average of 2 kilometres thick.”
One rather obvious conclusion from this is that we will have access to superintelligent agents and molecular nanotechnology through the transition – and will therefore most likely be able to do whatever we like (more-or-less) with the climate via geoengineering.
A warmer planet would probably help with recovery from catastrophes – since it would reduce the chance of a genuine catastrophe, reglaciation. There is a known mechanism that might cool the planet dramatically during a catastrophe – nuclear winter. Similar things could happen with a meteorite impacts. The bottom line is that an ice-age is extremely unhealthy for the planet, and its crippling of the Earth’s living systems increases the chances of further catastrophes being fatal.
Extending tropical conditions is good – not bad. The tropics are life-friendly. Yes, that includes some pesky bugs and pathogens – but those are part of life’s rich tapestry – a richer and more fertile earth is good for *all* living systems – and overall, life is better than frozen wastelands.
CO2 is currently at an abnormally low level. Those who think that increasing it will cause ecosystem disasters usually need to look at the history of CO2 levels on the planet. It is actually the low levels – like the current ones – that represent ecosystem disasters – in the form of ice ages.
Everybody always seems to protest about the transition costs. Yes there are some transition costs. Yet, if we don’t end the ice age, reglaciation awaits. Those costs are going to have to be paid sometime – and the longer we leave it, the longer we are at risk, and the more ensconced coastal infrastructure will become.
“change my mind relatively frequently on a lot of controversial issues due to the lightness thing. One of these issues is the ideal temperature for our planet.”
– People who know about these things have pointed out to me that changing your mind lots, too easily, etc is something of an anti-virtue. But it is probably best if I discuss this in a post rather than a comment, as the issues are subtle.
Also, I in particular suffer from this anti-virtue, so if I have any ideas about what to do I’ll tell you.
Roko, obviously, but I suspect that these people are susceptible to social pressure and a stability bias that causes them to change their minds too infrequently. One acquires far more status if they seem artificially confident, but status-seeking behavior and truth-seeking behavior can be enemies.
People who you say know about these things might be completely and utterly wrong.
Lightness is not an anti-virtue… I’ll believe they’re simply incorrect. Of course, the degree of change matters a lot, but in your comment you seem to imply that it’s already done and decided and the general concept of changing one’s mind “often” is a bad one. It isn’t. Aumann’s agreement theorem alone seems to imply multiple mind-changes in each set of interactions with other rationalists.
I see where the judgment to say that evenness is an anti-virtue comes from. It comes from the human inability to update on evidence. If people really did allow evidence to “blow them about as though they were a leaf,” conclusions reached would be chaotic. We’re terrible at Bayesian inference, and some topics have an overabundance of data. Other than that, evenness really should be, and is, a virtue, especially if coupled with ‘perfectionism’ and ‘precision.’
Great article! You can find all kinds of global warming statistics on our site.
Nice post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Very useful info specifically the last part :) I care for such information a lot. I was looking for this particular information for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck.
Great beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a blog web site? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear concept I’m extremely impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a great blog like this one nowadays..