"Lovelock cities" named in honor of James Lovelock

danbloom · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 01, 2008 Posts: 58

Sustainable human population retreats in the far north in the far distant future are now being dubbed "Lovelock cities" in honor of James Lovelock, who has said that in the future human populations will likely be reduced greatly by global warming and only "breeding pairs in the Arctic" will keep the human species going.

"Lovelock Cities" might be situated in Colorado, Switzerland and Britain, in fact. New Zealand and Tasmania, too. Patagonia, too. None at the North Pole because the North Pole will be underwater (or is that under water?).

LOVELOCK CITIES. May they help preserve the human spirit and the human species in the far distant future, IF WE NEED THEM. Let's hope we never need them. Remember, this is all a "just in case" scenario. A "what if" scenario.

Here's a timeline for Lovelock Cities:

2008-2050 : business as usual; meetings, conferences, talk talk talk

2050 - 2080 : preparations finally get underway

2100 : first mass migrations to Alaska, Canada, Iceland, Greenland, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Britain, Tasmani, New Zealand, Patagonia begin

2200 : second wave of mass migrations bring more people north from India, Africa, Asia and the Americas -- and south to Tasmania and New Zealand

2300 : World Government Body (WGB) set up first officially sanctioned retreats for breeding pairs in the Arctic, also known as Lovelock Cities

2400 : major climate disasters worldwide with scarce food, fuel, power, and other resources (coupled with overpopulation) begin reducing world population from 9 billion people to 1 billion people

2500 : world population declines to just 200,000 "breeding pairs" in the Arctic (and southern extremes as well, including Antarctica) in 100 to 30 Lovelock Cities situated in those regions and administered and governed by the World Government Body or some such entity, perhaps the IPCC. [Mad Max conditions outside these Lovelock Cities, last for 1000 years... until 3500]

4500 : The human species has made it through the Great Interruption, intact but greatly reduced in numbers. Full recovery possible beginning in 4500. Hope springs eternal.

Note A: children born in Lovelock Cities (aka Polar Cities) are mixed DNA humans of combined Caucasian-Asian-African-Hispanic-Arab stock, creating a new "gene pool" on Earth

Note B: a new religious perspective develops before, during and after the Great Interruption to help humans cope with and understand what has happened to them

What's your take on all this?

danbloom · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 01, 2008 Posts: 58

An astute observer of the ''Lovelock Cities'' concept weighs in with his point of view:

"Initially there may be small migrations into marginal lands to which governments will be indifferent - the survivalist idea. But once governments have recognised the value of the land they will mount much larger schemes and regulate the lesser ones.

Governments with northern lands will try really hard to maintain control - that's what governments do. Polar cities will need food, power, industries, etc. much of which will need new technology development.

This will all have to be done on a war footing - high inflation, massive migration from the tropics, widespread death from starvation and war. etc. [Two of this observer's scenarios address these possibilities.]

Effectively we differ over timescale. I'm thinking of the current century. IF we can preserve our technical civilisation to 2100 AND have many fewer people; then orderly migration seems possible over the following 200 years. Its just those conditions that I doubt."

This same astute observer told me in an earlier email:

"Lovelock cities may be the answer if we can't control warming. My current view is that we will not control it. Mark Lynas has just produced a very pessimistic piece -

http://www.marklynas.org/2008/6/13/climate-chaos-is-inevitable-w .

This seems consistent with Jim Lovelock's position in his RS lecture.

Have you considered the social and political processes that would be needed to get us to Lovelock Cities, for a small minority? I strongly suspect that social breakdown will make the transition impossible."

And he also told me:

"I think most of us still hope that we can limit warming enough to keep most of the earth habitable. There are obvious psychological reasons for that and I think optimism is still, just,a defensible position. Even if we can't keep emissions down we may be able to use one of the large-scale bio-engineering schemes.

Given that starting point your stuff about centuries ahead must seem like a distraction and, by admitting defeat, likely to make defeat more likely. Defeat implies many millions of premature deaths. (To finish the century with, say, 2B people rather than the UN's forecast 9M implies (very crudely) at least 7B premature deaths. That's 70M pa for the next century.

The planet needs a Climate Threat Planning Commission which would examine the options for prevention and adaptation. In my view the order of preference should be:

Reduce emissions through improved carbon efficiency, forest conservation, fewer births, etc.
Reduce emissions through reduced activity.
Reduce GHG load by absorption from atmosphere
Other bio-engineering, eg sunshades in space.

Adaptation must go in parallel with these measures since some change is happening and more is inevitable.

Perhaps what you might do is to think about the options for adaptation appropriate to various degrees of warming and international co-operation.

Lovelock cities will not be needed or even possible at all soon.

I think studying design, still less governance, of Lovelock cities is premature.

Incidentally, I think we can be sure that some of this planning is already happening in secret. (Remember Herman Kahn 'thinking the unthinkable'?) I'd like to see it in public - partly because it would show just how bad these options are. There are university departments who specialise in disaster planning. One of them might be a good starting point."

[All his points are well taken. I agree with everything he says.
-- Danny B. ]

What;s your POV on all this?

Ainan · Heavy Crude Joined: Feb 18, 2008 Posts: 309

Have you consulted James Lovelock on this? He believes the SHTF in 20 years or less. You better adjust your timeline.

danbloom · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 01, 2008 Posts: 58

danbloom · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 01, 2008 Posts: 58

A friend involved in these discussions emailed me today, too:

mos6507

I think essays like this of the "Plan B" variety are good intellectual exercises in science fiction idealism, but are of little practical value. I'm all for fighting the good fight, but we can't even get every country to ratify Kyoto which is now too little too late. And what good did Live Earth really do? Maybe it makes soccer moms feel a little guiltier when they pick up their kids in their Hummers?

This is probably where we are headed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck#Humans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
_________________
As long as I am around, there are no worries we have reached "Peak Words"

--ReverseEngineer

danbloom · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 01, 2008 Posts: 58

danbloom · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 01, 2008 Posts: 58

I just got a note from a reporter at CNN:

"Hi Dan,

Thank you for this - good stuff and an intriguing idea. I wonder how
sustainable it will be. There's also the theory that global warming will
ultimately make the poles colder. But it is a great looking site and is
far from the nuttiest idea I have seen..."

lorenzo · Fission Joined: Jan 01, 2005 Posts: 2210

Sadly, the interesting Mr Lovelock has become senile. It's so sad to see people age so quickly and lose their brains so rapidly.

In any case, he was an interesting man once.
_________________
The Beginning is Near!

danbloom · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 01, 2008 Posts: 58