In a message dated 7/1/01 6:30:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Astronomical by their standards or ours? If we manage
> to extrapolate our technology another 20 years, the sums
> of money available to do this kinda thing will be difficult
> to imagine.
By extropolation, the value of improved land increases at similar
rates to the wealth of the economy. It will be just as expensive
for Earth of 20 years hence to buy out several large cities, a
huge expanse of farmland, and various historical and biological
assets of 20 years hence as it will be for current Earth to buy the
> If GM works out the way I expect, farmland
> will be cheap indeed. China is going ahead with flooding
> huge tracts of land for a dam. Seems like Mike's Caspian Sea
> notion is workable.
Look at a map. The Three Gorges Dam floods only
a tiny piece of land compared to the Caspian Sea
flood. It's in a series of gorges (duh) and the
north side of the Caspian is pretty flat.
>> A couple of other countries would have
>> non-trivial compensation requests too. Your proposal
>> just points out the huge costs of even small changes
>> in sea level.
>Agreed. There are a lot of countries which would likely
>kick in some gold to buy land from the commies for
>water storage purposes.
I agree it's cheaper than rebuilding every seaport on the
planet, most seafront properties, and a number of low-
>Seems like a far cheaper solution
>than reducing CO2 emissions. spike
That I don't agree with. Buying trillions of Caspian Sea
property seems more expensive to me than nukes and
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:41 MDT