leicsmac

6bn + the military action surcharge. Bargain.

It might be one of the very few things that finally spur enough Repub Congress members into that kind of action. The area of Greenland is 2.166 trillion sq m.

Denmark should offer Greenland to the US for sale. At $1 per square metre. Bargain, right?

The French have their own capability, and the UK are practically there in terms of independent capability besides the warheads themselves. I don't think that it would be too difficult to develop that further. And to think a few years ago I argued for non proliferation and said that game theory on this one made it clear that just two parties having such weapons would likely be enough. How wrong I was.

The degree of change that will make those resources easily exploitable will also cause enough world upheaval to (probably) render their availability utterly moot. Trump and his lackeys either don't understand that or simply don't care and are happy with seeing the world burn anyway.

An issue that Trump himself agreed with and signed off on not long ago. I can't quite believe that both Badenoch and Farage are so daft as to think Trump's viewpoint is in any way trustworthy, other than the conclusion that their "distrust" of him on other matters is in fact a smokescreen and they are both in fact totally fine with all of the foreign policy decisions he's currently making, they just know they can't say it out loud.

Oh, yes, it would be extremely tricky in practice. The question just remains whether there's a better option out there than having to commit to this economic escalation. I can't think of one, perhaps some smart person can.

Then it comes down to whether or not that's in fact the best bad option when it appears all the other options are worse.

And now the current US administration is weighing in on the Chagos Islands. Gods save us from people so arrogant as to treat human life and land like a game of Risk. Particularly when they have the power to cause so much suffering because of that belief.

So... just another day at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave then?

Driven by the unshakeable faith that the Earth is ours, huh? Perhaps it will just be "limited" (and I use that word very, very loosely considering it's still allowing for completely unnecessary human suffering) to what is described here. Perhaps it won't. The key thing about the "doom-mongers", as it is put here, is that they only have to be right once. And, with respect to the wider picture, I would like to see humanity become a species not just of thousands of years, but of millions. And the only way that happens is by adaptation and prevention. The latter mostly because in that miniscule fraction of time that humanity has existed, the Earth has barely even scratched the surface of what consequences it can mete out to a species that does not adapt and puts short term self interest first.

I believe this to be rather missing the point. There have been wars over vital resources before. There will be again. The resource balance is "fine" (for a very given value of) now. It may not be in a couple of decades unless action is taken. While desalination or regrowing projects have a chance, it remains that - just a chance. They are just part of a suite of solutions needed, or there will come a time when a lot of the equatorial regions become simply uninhabitable due to lack of sourcing fresh water. Such a lack of such a scale will mean a humanitarian crisis of monumental proportions. The warfare over those vital spots that still have fresh water would just be one part of it.

There will be more examples of extreme weather as the overall trend goes upwards. Whether that's interrupted by singular disastrous events causing short-term disruption in that way is something that should be considered, but only as a possibility to plan for, rather than the certainty of the effects of increased average global temperatures. Like you, I have faith that humanity can overcome thanks to their tech development. Whether they will, however, will come down to how many people and nations are willing to "plant trees they will never sit in the shade of". Long term thinking, planning and execution of infrastructure, to prevent, prepare and mitigate, is vital. WRT the last paragraph, really speaking, the only option is for those with that farsight to at least try to bring enough people and resources onside across the world. If not, failure is the only option. And future generations, living in the vastly reduced circumstances that they will be living in, will curse and blame everyone for not doing enough. And they'll be right to.

I believe I've heard it said that humanity is three missed meals from reverting to barbarism. Once there's a lot of pressure on arable land and potable water sources as they become more sparse...

It's all very baffling and all very unpredictable in terms of actual outcomes right now. Which, given the levels of consequence being dealt with, is a bit scary.

It's not really helpful either to refer to something that the scientific community is well aware of and has also been referenced on here before, too. By a conversation between the two of us, come to that. To wit from a later interaction: Yes, the Earth was significantly hotter in the past, yes, life still flourished there - the difference here is in the degree of change, the speed at which it is happening, and our own ability to adapt (or not) to it. Contrary to the post above, we do in fact have a pretty good idea of the speed of such trends in the past, and this one is far faster than any of them. Complacency through ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics will only bring us very, very bad outcomes. But then I think a lot of people supposedly ignorant actually know that, they just choose not to think it won't spin on them and their lives before they end.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if this was satire and not 100% genuine? But it is, and enough Americans voted for it. Twice, the second after a coup attempt and two impeachment hearings.

I think the tech advances are necessary to guarantee our future, but at the same time they do massively multiply all the human flaws, which has a lot of connected negative effects. Definite dilemma.

Sometimes I wish that the poll at the top of this thread wasn't anonymous. That being said, as has been said before, it does actually match polling data on the matter for the broader UK population. Perhaps two of the five main parties in the UK might consider that before crafting policy on the matter designed with the 8% in mind, rather than the 71.54%.

Oh, right, yes, it should have been "colt".

Interesting. He could easily have said the same things as Tice did with not much blowback, I think. Not sure of the angle there, if there is one.

It's entirely possible that should Trump be removed from power, the whole thing will fall like Barad-Dur in the final act of Return of the King. Here's hoping so and if that's the case, it happens before any more real, lasting damage to the future is caused.

You could be right, but I guess only time is going to tell. If that happens (and it might), that will only be because the support base currently calling the shots will have been politically neutralised, rather than by any change of mind or heart on their part. Like I said, they cannot be reasoned with.

It will be interesting to see what both Tice and Speaker Johnson say live on camera about all this today.

From what I can tell his current line of thought is "steady on old chum, I like you and what you're doing but what you're doing right now doesn't make it easy for my popularity".