Can We Save Earth For Humans? In 1989 Isaac Asimov was asked this question and delivered the following answer.
Listening to his talk he sounds rather prophetic in retrospective.
Asimov was of course a prolific author, and wrote hundreds of Science Fiction and Science books on dozens of subjects.
He calls for a totally human solution, with an international scope. He names off a large number of "dangers" that face "humanity" and hence it is "humanity" that has to come together to face these problems.
Hence he talks about some sort of world government, and asks how do we do that? Today a "world government" is rather alarming to people in the U.S. The mechanism he talks about is to have some kind of threat of world destruction. By way of example he explains potential for world government in terms of the formation of the United States. The U.S. is a conglomerate of semi-independent states.
The U.S. found it's unity in a gigantic project that included all the states, and made the differences between the states look small in comparison.
Hence for effective world government we need a gigantic project that all governments cooperate together on. He proposes space exploration as that gigantic project, speaking glowingly of solar power satellites beaming down power from outer space so that energy doesn't have to be tied to geography (e.g. who has coal, who has oil).
While poking around YouTube I found several other videos where he spoke on similar subjects.
As a teenager I of course read many of his books. It's nice to know he was concerned about these things. What do you think? Let me know below.
Can We Save Earth For Humans? In 1989 Isaac Asimov was asked this question and delivered the following answer.
Listening to his talk he sounds rather prophetic in retrospective.
Asimov was of course a prolific author, and wrote hundreds of Science Fiction and Science books on dozens of subjects.
He calls for a totally human solution, with an international scope. He names off a large number of "dangers" that face "humanity" and hence it is "humanity" that has to come together to face these problems.
Hence he talks about some sort of world government, and asks how do we do that? Today a "world government" is rather alarming to people in the U.S. The mechanism he talks about is to have some kind of threat of world destruction. By way of example he explains potential for world government in terms of the formation of the United States. The U.S. is a conglomerate of semi-independent states.
The U.S. found it's unity in a gigantic project that included all the states, and made the differences between the states look small in comparison.
Hence for effective world government we need a gigantic project that all governments cooperate together on. He proposes space exploration as that gigantic project, speaking glowingly of solar power satellites beaming down power from outer space so that energy doesn't have to be tied to geography (e.g. who has coal, who has oil).
While poking around YouTube I found several other videos where he spoke on similar subjects.
As a teenager I of course read many of his books. It's nice to know he was concerned about these things. What do you think? Let me know below.
In the rush to cover information about the nuclear meltdown disaster following Japans recent earthquake and Tsunami, it's easy to forget about the other disaster there. The vast and widespread devastation caused by the Tsunami, many fishing villages wiped away, etc. The 10+ thousands dead were from the Tsunami, not from the nuclear accident (those deaths remain in our future).
The video below was filmed by someone on top of a building next to a river in Japan. It shows in essence a reverse flood, where the ocean rose and became a flood. The devastation is amazing beginning first with cars tumbling around like toys, but as the water rose and rose buildings were knocked off their foundation and tossed around. A warehouse on the water was pushed off its foundation and shoved up against the building next to it, the building disintegrating and the contents (boxes) tumbling out into the water. Later another larger building eventually succumbed to the water and also fell off its foundation crumbling into the water.
As I wrote earlier (Higher Purpose: Japans earthquake and nuclear crisis asks us what we really want) -- "We" build stuff, towns and highways and nuclear plants, then the planet yawns and stretches and destroys those things. By having those things taken away from us, it presents an opportunity to take a step back and look from a broader perspective. Are those things we really want anyway? Is the cost of having those things greater than the benefit we get from them? Is there a better place to put those things than a spot that's prone to earthquakes?
Yesterday a powerful earthquake struck Japan (8.9 on the Richtor Scale), the fifth most powerful earthquake ever recorded. It's causing some to revisit doom scenarios with strings of earthquakes causing massive earth changes and the pole shift. It would make some sense that shaking the planet in one place would cause weak places elsewhere to shake and trigger earthquakes elsewhere. But, just because something seems like it would make sense doesn't make it correct. So, let's take a look at what evidence exists about this question.
The first video below is an example of someone drawing together questionable evidence and coming to the conclusion of a looming major earthquake. The thing is she posted that video on March 9, and the earthquake occurred on March 11. I'm sure she's patting herself on the back about giving such a prescient warning, even though the information she gives has little credibility. She included a clip of physicist Michio Kaku predicting that "within our lifetime" one of a list of major cities (all of them on tectonic plates) will be destroyed. She took that as proof that "they" were giving "us" a veiled warning, but in truth that warning was akin to predicting the sun will rise in the morning.
Chile Earthquake Altered Earth Axis, Shortened Day and NASA Details Earthquake Effects on the Earth describe some details to the effects massive earthquakes have had on the earths axis, and on the rate of rotation of the planet. The articles are concerned with the large earthquake in Chile last year, and another large earthquake in Indonesia in 2005. In both cases the earthquakes were strong enough to reduce the length of the day and change the axis of the planet.
Ah.. okay, one could suppose that with a more massive earthquake that the axis of the planet could change enough to induce a pole shift. Maybe. Depends on what mechanism it is that causes pole shift. The shifting of the poles was discovered (so far as I know) in the 1950's by scientists taking core samples across the ocean floors. They found bands of the earths crust had different magnetic orientation, giving evidence that the north pole had not always been at the north pole, but sometimes is at the south pole. I recently found a video by a scientist talking about variations in the magnetic field: Tracking Variations in the Earth's Magnetic Field
Another concern is whether geothermal drilling or hydraulic fracturing can cause earthquakes. How Does Geothermal Drilling Trigger Earthquakes? Goes over evidence from a mine in Switzerland (which was shut down after it triggered earthquakes) and a mine in the Geysers area of Northern California that's routinely triggering small earthquakes. The method discussed is pumping water underground into rock that's been heated by magma intrusions (e.g. from "failed volcanos"), the water is heated by the hot rocks, becomes steam, and drives a turbine to generate electricity. Geothermal power is one of the cleaner ways to generate electricity. At some installations they fracture the underground rock and the human induced activity "changes the stress field" underground, causing a change in the rate of earthquakes.
It turns out there is a lot of scientific evidence suggesting large earthquakes can trigger other earthquakes, or even volcanos. The next question is whether the fault zone I live in (the famous San Andreas fault is just a couple miles from me) is likely to be triggered by the Japan earthquake.
Fortunately the US Geological Survey runs a nice website showing earthquake data in real time. It indicates there are small earthquakes occurring in California, but that's normal. What stands out on the earthquake map is it looks very quiet with fewer earthquakes than normal. The articles referenced earlier indicate there can be triggering of small earthquakes elsewhere. And sure enough there are a few 1-2 scale earthquakes which have happened. But it doesn't look like an abnormal rate of them, and they've occurred in the most likely places. For example near Mammoth Lakes, in the Geysers area, and in the mountains south of Gilroy.
