Terraforming earth

Lamo, Eisenhower wanted to give Nasser support to do it so they could settle Palestinians there. I mean that's certainly something…

How about we just not do that? There's no need to terraform the Earth away from how it was before the industrial revolution, we should just be trying to return to that state. Deserts are important ecological zones, it's like bulldozing a rainforest. Sure it's not a great place for humans to live but there are enough of those.

It would be much more sensible to just cover a tiny part of the Sahara in solar panels and power half the world that way.

it'll be a interesting experiment, dont knock it till you try it.

You literally can't, tho. The only way forward is creating a new nature or going to hell.

Attached: spook.jpg (192x192, 6.48K)

wrong, it is possible to grow some kinds of moss, fungus, and trees, and to reduce wind on the dunes by setting up tiny bamboo/straw fences everywhere. Look up China's comparable efforts to re-forest the Gobi desert. We can use ecological science to literally re-build the soil out of the sands.

Attached: 4b5c5022-576b-4fce-8246-42c244dd6b3c.jpg (500x287, 171.89K)

Why can't we? We can geoengineer the world to be whatever we want, eventually. But we shouldn't be trying to make huge changes, IMO. The preindustrial world was the cradle of mankind, the animals that existed then grew up with us. It's the perfect place for man. I agree it's a bit spooky but trying to greenify the whole Earth is equally spooky if not more so. We should be trying to impact nature less, not more.

We should reverse the effects of climate change, regrow the amazon, et cetera, and not go crazy all over the map. All life should be sacred. We should just leave nature alone as much as possible, other than fixing our own mistakes.

A single canal would be tough to make, a better idea would be to make a canal going out and then following the coast (say 200km in) and then have parts branching out.

It's a big assumption to make, that we may be able to just do whatever we want with the earth before our extinction, rather than striving to continue to exist within a certain series of parameters that permits our existence, maybe altering our requirements slightly, just like we have been doing since entering the 'cradle of mankind'. The biggest problem with nature and the reproduction of our existence is that the latter presupposes the consumption and therefore the irreparable destruction/transformation/alteration/whatever you wanna call it of individual regions and eventually of the larger global ecosystem. I believe this is the case even if you remove humans from the equation, even if the process would be vastly decelerated, the attempts of individual animals to reproduce their own existence might eventually, after several millions of years, impact the state of nature that allows them to exist negatively and prevent their own reproduction as well. The project to put back all that we use into nature, 'leaving it alone' and allowing it to perpetuate our existence, is in itself a project against nature. To try to stop it's movement is going to impact it more and take more energy than letting it annihilate everything will. Rather than feeling some form of guilt at being the prime influence in Earth, only openly accepting and maneuvering through that position allows for any protection of life.

The Sahara has actually been green at many times in the past. It alternates between grassy and savanna on a 40,000 year interval because of cyclical changes in the Earth's axial precession. In about 15,000 years after humanity is extinct the African monsoon will shift north again and bring rains to the Sahara. Until then, have a look at Egypt to see how well surrounding water actually affects the climate. Everything several kilometers away from the Nile remains arid desert.

What?