skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Forum: Graeme Wood’s "Re-Engineering the Earth"
- Using notes from your critical reading, post a public comment of 50-100 words about Graeme Wood’s "Re-Engineering the Earth," which appeared in the July/August 2009 edition of The Atlantic. Update: also post a response to another writer.
- How to do this: Click "comments" below this post, then compose your comment in the box provided, select "Name/URL" under "Comment as," click "Preview" to proofread your comment, and finally click "Post Comment." Update: since we're practicing commenting on a public forum, rather than selecting a username from an account (such as Google) that might not reflect your real name, please provide at least your first initial and last name under "Name/URL."
- Think of this comment in terms of inquiry: you can question, analyze, interpret, respond, compare, contrast, or elaborate, but try not to engage in outright argument. The comment should also incorporate a paraphrase of, or quotation from, the text it's addressing. In constructing your comment, pay particular attention to the rhetorical situation: has the source text already been introduced? What kind of author tag seems most appropriate? Has another comment already addressed the substance of your comment?
In Graeme Wood's article Re-Engineering The World the issue of global warming is met with a few extreme, if not radical ideas. A small amount of scientists are predicting and planning for certain retaliation forces against the steady exponentially rising climate change. According to some Geo-Engineers, there are options that range anywhere from admitting sulfur aerosol into the atmosphere, to spreading the Atlantic with iron. Geo-Engineers have many different theories to cool down the planet, but not many to stop the actual green gas collection in the atmosphere. Freeman Dyson met early geo-engineering visions central most problem. According to Dyson it is a "daunting, problem: neither sulfur-aerosol injection nor an armada of cloud whiteners nor an array of space-shades would do much to reduce carbon-dioxide levels. As long as Carbon emissions remain constant, the atmosphere will fill with more and more greenhouse gases." So the distressing question arises, do we invest in Geo-Engineering and accept the consequences that follow, or continue down the path that will prove to be ultimately devastating?
ReplyDelete“Re-Engineering the Earth” by Graeme Wood is article about geo-engineering and literally reshaping the world ourselves. Some of the ideas proposed in the article are crazy and outlandish. One example of this is using an army of boats with giant wind turbines attached to the back in order to send the water spray up into the atmosphere so that the clouds are fluffier and repel more of the sun’s rays. It talks about using geo-engineering as a antidote to climate change, which in my books sounds pretty scary since most of the solutions could either work or kill us all.
ReplyDeleteWoods addresses a very real problem in this article that I myself pondered, "is there a way to stop global warming without changing our lifestyles?" The answer to that question is no. Even if we use geo-engineering, “it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the climate that would hit the globe unevenly” explains Woods. The thought of a panacea to global warming is comforting, but still out of our grasps, if we as humans decide to rely on geo-engineering then we will continue to follow Amory Lovins’ “hard path”. We can however apply geo-engineering in small doses, as Woods describes, to buy us time to reduce our carbon emissions.
ReplyDeleteWood's article, "Re-Engineering the Earth" provides a different view that we are used to seeing on climate change. Geo-engineering provided an alternative to reduction of carbon emissions. Wood references the movie "Blade Runner" when bring up one key method of geo-engineering, pumping out sulfur dioxide to counter act the effect of greenhouse gases. This is not necessarily meant to be used as the sole method to combat climate change, but can most certainly supplement it.
ReplyDeleteIn "Re-Engineering the Earth," Graeme Wood uses terrifying imagery of the consequences of geo-engineering to convince the reader that action should be taken now to solve climate change. The drastic solutions to climate change include spewing sulfur dioxide into the air, blocking out the sun with clouds and spreading the oceans with iron. Wood shows that none of these solutions addresses the root of the climate change problem, carbon emissions, and that if one of these solutions were to fail, there would be dire consequences for the earth, such as acid rain and radical climate shifts. Though these solutions sound impossible, Wood assures that, "If this idea sounds unlikely, consider that President Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, said in April that he thought the administration would consider it, 'if we get desperate enough.'" Wood's ultimate effect is to convince the reader, be it through scare tactics, that actions to stop climate change need to be taken now so that we won't even need to consider drastic measures or worry about their possibly catastrophic consequences.
ReplyDeleteThis article by Graeme Wood, talks about ways to change the climate. Graeme introduces the Geo-Engineers as proposing possible solutions to the problem of global warming. But there solutions leave a lot to be desired. Most of their solutions are outlandish and attempt to change the climate in ways that would no doubt completely disrupt life on earth. The most seriously discussed idea, was to dump tons of sulfur aerosol into the sky. There is a lot we do not know about this solution so there is a lot that could go horribly wrong with this plan. It is in our best interests to better research more realistic solutions.
ReplyDeleteIn Graeme Wood's "Re-engineering the Earth" the main thing that is being discussed is geo-engineering. The ideas that are posted in this are very prevalent. The two sides are shown very clearly. There are many good points that are presented in this article, like the fact that we can have plankton build-up in the ocean, and we can also have trees that eat carbon in a way. Why wouldn't we do this? Wood goes on to tell of all of the bad effects that could happen and he also tells us that this could actually make the problem worse. We need this to be a sort of emergency plan, which is the only option.
ReplyDeleteIn Graeme Wood’s “Re-Engineering the Earth”, he takes a look at some of the more radical ways to stop global warming. Among them are sulfur emitting zeppelins, propellers pulled by boats that throw water in the atmosphere and Frisbees placed between the Sun and Earth. Wood makes the point that these are considered crazy ideas, but are gaining acceptance by reputable people in the field. Due to the cheapness of thsse compared to more traditional methods, they may cease to be on a small scale and become more common.
ReplyDeleteIn “Re-Engineering the Earth” by Graeme Wood, the assumptions of geo-engineering have been far from shocking. Through the use of imagery and comparison, the idea of “blocking out the sun” is more realistic than ever before. Seriously, are we really considering blocking the sun out? This is an absolutely ridiculous idea. I mean yes, we need a huge change to the climate and way of living fast, but essentially getting rid of the sun just seems stupid. However, as it stands now, we are faced with a double bladed sword. Either we take drastic measures and spend money to cool the earth, or risk what could be next for us and the earth.
ReplyDelete"Re-Engineering the Earth," by Graeme Wood reveals the new and creative concepts of Geo-Engineers as the climate control issue has been drasticly increasing. New, imaginative ideas are beein introduced from blocking out the sun to catching and storing carbon in unique ways. Wood expresses the dangers in these methods though if not deeply researched. But if deeply researched, it seems that although "too crazy," as some think, they could be the perfect solution this planet is looking for. Its taken so long to find the perfect solution for this matter, and the greatest things have come out of this world from imagination and creativity that were never thought of before, which is exactly what this topic needs.
ReplyDelete-Brian Romansik
As I was reading the first few pages of this article, I thought that Wood was almost being sarcastic when he was describing Roger Angel’s plan of putting a giant visor in space in order to block out the sun from heating up the earth too much. I also thought it was a little ridiculous when he also described the geo-engineer’s other plan to “paint the sky white”. If clouds made from salt water block the sun’s rays, wouldn’t a carbon cloud over a city do the same thing? I did think it was a good idea to increase top soil and produce forests with thicker roots.
ReplyDeleteRe-Engineering the Earth by Graeme Wood is an interesting article which offers alternatives to solving the global warming problem. Instead of the traditional recycle and use clean energy method Wood suggests that the technology to block out the sun or clean out the carbon is readily available and cheaper then the traditional methods. However who should be allowed to control such a change, especially if it has the potential to harm others.
ReplyDelete“Re-engineering the Earth” by Greame Wood is an article about the wild and crazy solutions for climate change directed towards anyone who is interested in the possibilities of climate control technology. I believe the purpose of this article is to both inform people of the danger of “geo-engineering” and scare them into lesser tactics. I personally don’t think the Earth is in this dire of a situation, but as an engineer I find some of the cool/scary ideas extremely interesting. I think that the climate has changed slightly, yes, but I don’t believe we are in a situation to put ourselves in such danger as geo-engineering.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Graeme Wood's "Re-Engineering the Earth" I began to feel enlightened and worried all at once. Being informed of such ideas to help fight the war against Climate Change was nice to know about. It allowed me to feel informed on a whole different aspect of trying to help the world. At the same time I couldn't help but wonder how the topic hasn't been deeply researched, and how the effects could be so drastic. I felt so small knowing that anyone could start up a sulfur aerosol emitting system, and I would not be able to do a thing about it! In my opinion we should definitely wait till the absolute last day of being baked until we have to resort to this type of geo-engineering.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of re-engineering the earth is a gloomy thought, but changes must be made to our environment in order for future human survival. Graeme Woods' article "Re-Engineering the Earth" tells the frightening reality of the damage that human gas emissions have made on our planet, and consequently the ozone-changing methods that geo-scientists are beginning to desperately propose before it's too late for change. All of the theories seem so far-fetched and unnatural to me. The idea of blocking out Earth's sunlight with sulfur gas or ceramic disks seems to be terribly wrong, as the beautiful biological diversity on Earth directly arose from the suns rays. I think that before we take huge strides at changing our planet even more to directly fit human needs, I think we first must focus on reducing the problem source itself, unnatural green house gas emissions.
ReplyDeleteIn Graeme Wood's article "Re-engineering the Earth", he includes many ways of improving the world's climate change issue with out having to alter the lives of which we live. The ideas range from using a fleet of ships to shoot water into the air, adding moisture to the clouds; to "carbon-eating trees" that suck carbon from the air. However, for each innovative idea there are consequences that could potentially damage the environment even more. David Victor, a Stanford law professor thinks we should combine all the ideas. He states, "perhaps we could start with a few puffs or sulfur in the atmosphere to buy time, then forests of plankton in the ocean, and then genetically engineered carbon hungry trees." No matter what we decide to do, we need to act now to prevent further damage to our environment.
ReplyDeleteGraeme Wood's Re-Engineering the Earth explores ideas that are out of this world. Or as Wood quotes Pierrehumbert; "And it's like taking aspirin for cancer." These potential solutions leave this world even more mad then Roger Angel referred to the planet as being mad. Get serious, shooting disks into space and lines and lines of ships "painting the skies" is beyond what's necessary. Yes, the climate needs re-engineering, but not at the highly potential back-lash of these "geo-engineering" designs. These ideas could leave plants, fish, and even humans dead.
ReplyDeleteGraeme Wood, the author of re-engineering the earth, did not write about going green, instead he poses solutions to circumvent the greenhouse effect at its source: the sun. Wood details various ideas each as outlandish as the next, but still creepily plausible such as the aerosol pumping method mentioned by Chris to firing large disks into space to shield us from the sun’s energy. The latter method obviously would have a pronounced effect on global agriculture making it an even more unrealistic option. It seemed the most realistic option would be those requiring new technologies. Wood calls the threat of some environmentalist billionaire the “scariest thing about geo-engineering,” though the risk of unforeseen consequences seems more daunting to the future of the world.
ReplyDeleteWood’s article “Re-Engineering the Earth” looks at the wild and outlandish ideas that people have come up with to help correct the global warming situation that we have gotten ourselves into. The article itself describes many of the ideas for helping our planet similar to what the movie Blade Runner depicted. While reading the article I felt very skeptical about all the radical innovations that were discussed in this article to help our earth. Is it really our job to play God and potentially do more harm to the world as we try to correct our mistakes?
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Re-Engineering the Earth" by Graeme Wood he talks about a different solution to fighting global warming, which is re-engineering our take on solutions. This suggestion has put many minds at thought, and some have come up with “mad” ideas. However, most of the argument for the re-engineering would come a lot cheaper and a lot faster then by trying to cut carbon-emissions. Wood says “100 billion could reverse anthropogenetic climate change entirely, and some experts suspect that a hundredth of that could sum could suffice…by cutting carbon emissions, would cost on the order of $1 trillion yearly”. However, these solutions are some out right dangerous and potentially catastrophic ideas. Are we willing to take that chance? Or simply change our routines and “go green” to save the plant.
ReplyDeleteIn Graeme Wood's "Re-Engineering the Earth," he discusses the strategies and solutions to our problem with Climate Change today. Many of these projects that Wood emphasized on are very cost effective and considered to be dangerous ideas. From ships churning up seawater, to permanent states of annular eclipses, the sun is the key issue with Climate Change on Earth. Informing us with costs and glitches in these scientific strategies, neither of Raymond Pierrehumbert's or Stephen Salters solutions would help much to reduce Carbon Dioxide levels. Many of these Strategies have the pros and cons, but the idea is to come upon reducing Global Warming one step at a time.
ReplyDeleteIn “Re-Engineering the Earth,” Graeme Wood provides an alternate solution to preventing global warming that many have not heard of or even thought about. He explains that actions such as blocking out the sun by giant visors, planting carbon sucking trees, or even storing carbon in the ocean with plankton. These all seem pretty harmful right? Then why instead of trying to reshape our life styles are we not investing in these cheap efficient methods? Wood follows these ideas with the consequences of changing the world through geo-engineering. He states that these methods are like “fighting obesity with a corset, and diet lard and doughnuts.” It will cover up the problems and issues at hand for the time being, but really it is not solving anything.
ReplyDeleteGraeme Woods in the article, "Re-Engineering the Earth," suggests that geo-engineering could be the solution to the world's global warming problem. The supposed plus side to many of these ideas is that it will reduce the affects of global warming while costing only a fraction of the cost of alternative methods. Unfortunately there is a pretty substantial down side. If scientists get it wrong the impacts could be catastrophic. Scientists would have one chance to get it right, and if, god forbid, they get it wrong, the climate will be thrown completely out of whack. But perhaps the most dangerous part of geo-engineering is that it underscores any attempts to reduce our carbon emissions. It allows people to take pollution off their conscience.
ReplyDelete"Re-Engineering the Earth," is an article by Graeme Wood about some of the more radical ways we could attempt to reverse climate change. Everyone has heard the conventional ideas about how we can possible reverse what we have done. Drive more fuel efficient cars, even planting a garden is supposed to be enough. The ideas proposed in this article may seem foolish, but some scientists believe that they are our only hope. Although I do not think that putting up mile long guns to shoot millions of frisbees at the sun is feasible, I do agree that we need to do something more drastic than trying to get seven billion people to pollute less, as it is becoming more and more clear that this is not working.
ReplyDeleteIn "Re-Engineering the Earth", Graeme Wood discusses geo-engineering and its pros and cons. I found this article really interesting because I had never heard anything about "geo-engineering" and the concept seems really interesting. Although, some of the geo-engineering ideas just seem a little ridiculous, like the giant visor in space to block the sun. Even though some of the ideas have some negative side effects, I think we could come up with ways to prevent these side effects and we could turn climate change around fairly easily as long as everyone continues being "green" and trying to reduce their own carbon emmissions.
ReplyDeleteIn Graeme Wood’s article “Re-Engineering the Earth”, “geo-engineering”, an alternative to “going green” is discussed weighing the benefits and cost. The idea Wood touched on the most was to pump carbon into the air to block out some of the sun and in return cool down the earth. To me this sounds like purposely trying to pollute the world. I agree that the geo- engineering should be an option but I think that the world should still be working on making our environment more “green” instead of taking the easy way out.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Re-Engineering the Earth”, Graeme Wood speaks of an alternative method of solving the global warming issue: bioengineering. Instead of changing our lifestyles, like so many of the methods today suggest, bio-engineering is a field that focuses on the direct change of the environment to do such things as cooling the Earth and harvesting carbon. There are many opinions of this solution, most of which deal with the negative affects of the method, and I would have to agree with those opinions. There are certain mechanisms in nature that cannot be messed with, and if they are dire consequences may result.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Re-Engineering the Earth” by Gram Wood, Wood gives multiple was we could reverse climate change with the new technology we have in current time. The problem is that all the ways he describes there could be a disastrous problem that follows the fix of climate change. Geo-engineering is one of the main was to help global warming but all of their ways could be good for a little but if it broke or didn’t work the earth would be in worse shape than it was. For example he talks about plankton and trees sucking up carbon and whiter clouds and even a huge thing in space to block the sun. I don’t think any of these ideas would work and personally think it would make the earth worse. I think we could come up with better ideas that would really help us in the future.
ReplyDelete"Re-Engineering the Earth," by Graeme Wood reveals the new and creative concepts of Geo-Engineers as the climate control issue has been drasticly increasing. New, imaginative ideas are beein introduced from blocking out the sun to catching and storing carbon in unique ways. Wood expresses the dangers in these methods though if not deeply researched. But if deeply researched, it seems that although "too crazy," as some think, they could be the perfect solution this planet is looking for. Its taken so long to find the perfect solution for this matter, and the greatest things have come out of this world from imagination and creativity that were never thought of before, which is exactly what this topic needs.
ReplyDelete-Brian Romansik
In the article “Re-Engineering the Earth” Wood discussed the dramatic difference between cutting carbon emissions and geo-engineering. Throughout the entire paper, the fact the “geo-engineering” would work for now, but as soon as we quit it we would be hit with the full force of what we have been trying to stop and it would be completely catastrophic was presented numerous times. The most disturbing piece Wood pointed out is that “the technology necessary to reshape the climate is so powerful, and so easily implemented, the world must decide how to govern its use before the wrong nation-or even the wrong individual-starts to change the climate all on its own.” Now that’s a scary thought.
ReplyDeleteWoods' article, "Re-Engineering the Earth", takes a bit of an oddly new and different approach to the subject of the climate and what we can do to change it. He gives examples of new solutions to correcting our atmosphere. This includes blocking out the sun and new forms of balancing out the chemical composition of it. The ideas are very intrigueing but as Woods makes clear, there could be very harsh consequences if it is not researched in great detail. But an idea as crazy as some of these sound, could be just what this crazy planet needs as a solution.
ReplyDeleteI am the author of this article, and I thank you for your interest in it. Unfortunately I do not have time to respond individually to your comments, but I do want to let you know I am reading and enjoying them.
ReplyDeleteWith all best wishes,
Graeme Wood
http://gcaw.net
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/graeme_wood
Dear Mr. Wood:
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for writing. Some of my students have already told me they appreciate knowing that the author behind one of the texts we're studying this fall is tuning in to our conversation. We look forward to following your work.
Regards,
Raul Moreno
http://www.rbmoreno.com
As we have all summarized Wood's article, I would like to put forth a question. Who is going to regulate these geo-engineering solutions? Each can have a dire effect on the entire world, if excercised wrongly. Is it right to make geo-engineering research illegal here in the US? and as Mr. Wood points out with the controversial issue of cloning, if we, meaning the US, aren't doing it, who says that a less responsible coutry can't? It seems that with this new technology, we are creating an entirely new set of problems that parallels those of nuclear weapons. Wood advocates a way to "prevent others from deploying it, through diplomatic and military means". Could this be feasible?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sean's questions:
ReplyDeleteNo one can regulate geo-engineering. As Wood shows, if one nation tried to regulate these solutions, they would either end up exploiting other nations by not allowing them to use them or other nations will simply do what they please with these technologies without regard to regulations. The U.S. probably shouldn't make researching these solutions illegal. If there ever comes a time that we actually need to use these, we should have a good understanding of them and know how to use them properly instead of having to use possibly fatal trial and error because we don't know anything about them when the time comes. As for the nuclear weapons scenario, I think these technologies would pan out the same way. We haven't been effective at all, through diplomicy or war, with stopping anyone from aquiring nuclear weapons and we wouldn't be effective at stopping anyone from using these technologies if they really wanted to. And now a question of my own. Why have we not responded to climate change and allowed the situation to get so bad that we even had to think of these radical, dangerous solutions in the first place?
In concurrence with Jack Harries I feel that all the geo-engineering solutions are not really solutions. I believe that the ideas they give are like Band-Aids- meaning that it covers up the wound, but it does not fix anything. Like Harries I think that the geo-engineered proposals are distracting the worlds view from reducing carbon emissions.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jillian Hall’s comment to Woods article, “Re-Engineering the Earth”, the reason why government does not want to get into this so quickly is because of the high dangers that it can cause. All of these solutions that Wood points out seem very effective and cheap, but doing these things could lead us away from our efforts to eliminate carbon emissions. He also exaggerates how cheap it can be. The earth can be cooled in a matter of months with the investments of just a few people. This will only empower the wrong people. I believe it needs to be thoroughly tested and debated before we act. I agree that this is to be used as an emergency plan but the question is: How will we know that climate change is an emergency?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jesse I would have to completely agree, the ideas may sound somewhat "out there" but a little imagination has created so many great things in this world. Something that may come off a little "crazy," if thoroughly researched and maybe perfected, could be exactly what this planet needs. Just because something is a little far off our main stream ideas doesn’t make it wrong and unthinkable does it? No, we can’t be afraid of change and new ideas because sitting on the same old solutions that aren’t working just isn’t getting us anywhere.
ReplyDeleteAs an engineer, I wanted to discuss why I believe these "geo-engineering" ideas seem so crazy and, in some cases, ridiculous, because everyone in the above comments seems to be mentioning it. In order to come up with a good solution to any problem, engineers are encouraged to "think outside the box". It is a cliche, but basically it means say literally any wacky idea that you can think of whether you believe in it or think its a possible solution. The idea behind this is to possible spark genuine ideas or possibly get other engineers to start refining the wacky ones to work. The point is...I believe that it is possible some of the geo-engineering ideas presented may possibly come from the brainstorming process, but not actually investigated as an actual solution. I think the ideas are scary, but also pretty cool and maybe they lead to a solution that will produce great results for our world.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Senite Tewahade's comment, I agree that their are certain mechanisms in nature that should not be messed with. Since humans are the one's destroying the earth, I think we need to be the one's to fix it by changing our lifestyle. If everyone does their part and contributes a little each day, our situation should improve immensely.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Michael W.'s comment, I as well believe that more drastic measures need to be taken for the world to begin pounding out the dent we have put into our earth. The ideas in Wood's piece are outlandish, and maybe even impeccable, but something larger than eco-friendly vehicles and houses needs to come into action. Sooner rather than later, it is necessary for a solution to arise. The longer we wait while we keep talking about it, the more damage is being done. The solution, whatever is may be, should be a happy-medium between Wood's suggestions put forth and Pollan's gardening ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mark and Jack's opinion of geo-engineering in the article, Re-engineering The Earth, i also concur that its only a means to the end. Focusing on geo-engineering tactics only distracts us from finding a real and clean solution. We as human beings have the power to reason and therefore have the capabilities to reconstruct and reform how our carbon foot print impacts the world around us. If geo-engineering should ever be implemented it should be because its an absolute last result to human survival, not simply a cover-up for our dirty mistakes. We arent the only ones on this planet!
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brian's thoughts on "Re-Engineering The Earth," I also agree that "crazy" is very ideal as to what our planet needs. Not only does the climate control increase as time goes by, but as Brian mentioned, the creativity behind these crazy solutions will be thought of by many people. Wood cautions us about the dangers of these crazy solutions and how they can affect our Earth. Constructing these solutions will take time, but dangerous or not we may find it hard to avoid complications with the aftermath of these strategies to solve our long-term problem of global warming. I believe that no matter what method we use in preparation to eliminating climate change, we need to take it slowly.
ReplyDeleteIn response to everyone: It seems pretty obvious that there is agreement among most of us that this geo-engineering is not the ideal solution. But should we at least spend time researching these ideas? If we do decide to think of it as the “insurance policy we never want to use,” then we still need to research it, right? And if we do decide to continue researching it, then are we through our research legitimizing it as a solution? We all know that if the American public finds out that there is a solution to global warming that does not involve reducing the use fossil fuels, and it’s cheap, there will be no turning back. What is the right move, putting faith in our ability to change our ways, and in effect not taking time to research geo-technology; or decide we need the insurance policy, and inevitably make the use of geo-technology all the more likely. I just don’t know!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe group consensus seems to be that geo engineering is too dangerous at its present point, but should still be researched and investigated. I, however, believe that some of the ideas are practical and could be of great use in combination with the green movement, specifically the CO2 removing buildings. Shielding the problem with gases and disks truly is the wrong way to approach the issue. When a mess is made it is not covered up and forgotten, it is cleaned up and removed. Only the methods that remove the greenhouse gases are true solutions and not stopgaps. Obviously the article mentions the need for more research. I would say the general agreement throughout the class is the need for more research into forms of geo-engineering coupled with more environmentally friendly policies and living habits.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Eric Soehngen. I too am going into Engineering and I believe that you've shed a new light on the topic of these ideas being a starting point instead of a means. However, Wood describes these geo-engineering feats as a means to possibly stop global warming. Maybe what we should collect from this article is that we have to be weary of "Greenfingers" who interpret these experiments as solutions and plan to destroy the world with righteous intentions. Also, we can say that Engineers of the world should kick it up a notch, so that we have better solutions for people to choose from.
ReplyDeleteIn "Re-engineering", Wood tells the reader of a almost post-apocalyptic world which seems like a fantasy. He goes on to explain that this could be an all too true future for the Earth. In his paper, he explains of hw we already have the resources and the money to change the world competely, but he goes on to say that it is imperative to govern such power before it falls into the wrong hands.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with the point that Rachel makes in her response. It is modern human activity that is harming our delicate planet, and by trying to create suitable living conditions, like once naturally occurred, through geo-engineering methods, we are setting ourselves up for an even greater disaster than what is already coming. In order to keep our planet healthy, I believe that change must be made through individual lifestyle reform of people who are big pollutors, like nearly all Americans. The Earth has limited resources and we must accept and understand this to stop the rapid environmental destruction.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jesse's comment is a crazy idea like this really what we need. Isn't the world in enough trouble already. I think that it is really cool that we get to see these new ideas that we have never heard about before, but thats just it, we've never heard abot them before. It is clear that a lot more research needs to be done before we can actually use one of these techniques.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Justin Simmons response to the article “Re-Engineering the Earth.” It is simply ridiculous that we now have become so desperate that we are willing to block out the sun? Instead of us putting forth effort to cut back our use of fossil fuels and change our lifestyles we are looking for easy fixes. It just makes us seem lazy and selfish that we would rather see the sun get blocked out of our world just so we can keep going with our usual day and polluting the atmosphere.
ReplyDelete