0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Would it be possible to build some sort of "Earth Dome", or "city dome" to protect us from the effects of climate change? I am assuming that nanotechnology would be used for the construction material.Suppose we did build the dome, could it actually offer protection. or just give some sort of localised, short lived enviroment?
Why should you want to do this. The suggested climate changes are well within the limits of natural changes during the period life has existed on this planet and natural changes that are likely to occur in the future. Evolution means that we have to adapt to whatever changes occur. I just don't know why people are not talking about the real reason for the climate change problem that is there are far too many human beings on this planet and we need to take radical steps (short of mass extermination) to enable our economies to cope with an aging and reducing population and plan for a more practical and sustainable population of human beings on the earth. Without this, evolution shows that we are doomed as a species and will suffer a far worse extermination by starvation and war.
That's where you are totally wrong. The seeds of your fundamental error can be seen in your comments about developed societies considering importing population. Our economic structure is totally fixated on "growth" and until it can find ways of stabilising itself using limited resources more efficiently and making do with an aging population we are headed for that Malthusian cliff like a load of lemmings.Your comments about machines are just a delusion the only purpose of machines is to manufacture goods and services that humans want. They are not alive in their own right.
To return to the concept of an earth dome to protect us from climate change can you imagine the resources needed to protect just one large city in this way. This technology may be available for a select few but could never be for the bulk of the population that is unless the human population of this planet was reduced by a factor of about ten thousand to one not ten As I am suggesting.