Thread: If people could control the weather, should they?

Exactly what it says on the tin again. Assuming sufficiently advanced technology, should we ever be able to turn the rain on and off?

Here are a couple pros and cons to get this thing started.

Pro: It's the ultimate greenhouse. Imagine sections of the Amazon growing in Maine or Canada, ski resorts in the tropics, a desert turned into one giant oasis, etc. Farmland could be consolidated into a single system, with crops rotated out on a perfectly predictable cycle. No early frosts, and an overall higher yield in crops, possibly lowering the amount of land farms take up as well.

Con: Massive terraforming and loss of natural habitat would be an understatement. Depending on regulation, corporations could eliminate snow completely to make their workers come in on time. Screwing with the seasons could also screw with the body's natural systems.

I'm sure I missed plenty, so join in!

No, for so many reasons.

The mere thought of this frightens me.

Whether they "should" or not is really beside the point, since they (people) already do (control the weather). Humanity doesn't control the weather yet to the extent that it will in the future--given that humanity survives into the future--but it already does. I live in Colorado--for example--where snow is manufactured for ski resorts when the weather is dry.

In my opinion there's really no "pro" or "con" to this question, since, as noted above, it's already taking place for better or worse.

One advantage I could see to the pursuit of terraforming and weather control, however, is that it will enable us earthlings to be able to withstand whatever Space decides to throw at us in the future. It's been awhile since the last disastrous, Earth-changing asteroid collision, for example; for another example, the odds are in favor of some star that's near enough to us to be able to soak us with deadly gamma radiation to turn supernova at some point in the foreseeable future. Science guys observe novas and supernovas all the time out there; fortunately up to this point all of them have been at a safe distance, and we only see the flash.

So all the mechanical and material stuff connected with weather control could conceivably have the beneficial effect of being able to shelter at least part of humanity and the Earth's riches of plants, animals, minerals, etc., from a cosmic disaster.

Other than that, I have no opinion.

Originally Posted by Scarlett_156

In my opinion there's really no "pro" or "con" to this question, since, as noted above, it's already taking place for better or worse.

Not directly.

Originally Posted by DELFIA

Not directly.

This article suggests otherwise, although not on a very large scale:

Scientists Seed Clouds to Make Rain - ABC News

From the article:

"Here's what the researchers found: Rainfall from seeded clouds lasted longer than rain from unseeded clouds, the rainfall covered a larger area, and total precipitation was higher, sometimes even doubled. And in many cases results began just 20 minutes after the seeding."

I am reading a series that involves this very thing. Tell me who is going to be in control of who gets what weather and when. Who gets to bring on the natural disasters, who brings the rain? Then the taxes on wind for your windmill is gonna go up. Think who is going to have this power.
Screwing with mother nature is a very dangerous game imo.
And yeah, it is already happening from what I've heard, just kinda hush hush so far.

^^^ Yes, and rainmaking too. :\ I didn't think that I would have to bring that up, as most people who have been to school and who read the news on a regular basis already know about rain- and snow-making.

And going back to the snow-manufacturing, there are actually several different ways in which the fake snow is created. It's actually really interesting.

Originally Posted by JosephB

This article suggests otherwise, although not on a very large scale:

Scientists Seed Clouds to Make Rain - ABC News

From the article:

"Here's what the researchers found: Rainfall from seeded clouds lasted longer than rain from unseeded clouds, the rainfall covered a larger area, and total precipitation was higher, sometimes even doubled. And in many cases results began just 20 minutes after the seeding."

Didn't know that, interesting. I still wouldn't say that man is controlling the weather yet, but if that is true I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a matter of time.

I was thinking more of the science fiction machines where you throw a lever and the sunny day becomes a flash flood in half an hour. I'm really excited about Scarlett's idea of planet protection or terraforming other planets.

So we've got small scale applications being deployed already, but where should we draw the line? A particularly nasty storm system could be set up on a mountain ridge to quickly erode the area for a condo development.

Seeding clouds to help farmland sounds useful. Where's the part where it gets dangerous?

Originally Posted by Elric Randall

I was thinking more of the science fiction machines where you throw a lever and the sunny day becomes a flash flood in half an hour. I'm really excited about Scarlett's idea of planet protection or terraforming other planets.

So we've got small scale applications being deployed already, but where should we draw the line? A particularly nasty storm system could be set up on a mountain ridge to quickly erode the area for a condo development.

Seeding clouds to help farmland sounds useful. Where's the part where it gets dangerous?

Are you really having problems imagining this, or are you just asking for the sake of response and conversation?

Originally Posted by Elric Randall

Where's the part where it gets dangerous?

When you begin.

Originally Posted by Eluixa

Are you really having problems imagining this, or are you just asking for the sake of response and conversation?

The latter. The disasters spring easily to mind, but what about dropping a thunderstorm over reservoir during a time of drought? Seeding the desert and then claiming it as territory? I'm looking for the line between useful/ethical and destructive.

So we've got small scale applications being deployed already, but where should we draw the line? A particularly nasty storm system could be set up on a mountain ridge to quickly erode the area for a condo development.

I think the human race has really passed the point at which debate on this topic serves any useful purpose. This is the type of question that was popular back in the 50s and 60s--at this point we have already started doing weather control. We create snow and rain, we redirect the courses of rivers and dam giant rivers to control flooding (the Aswan Dam, for example); we create enormous lakes on sites were there was only desert before (Lake Tahoe in the US). These artificial lakes and watercourses of course have an enormous effect on weather and climate.

Like stem cell research, terraforming and weather manipulation are things the human race is already doing. People can debate the moral issues of stem cell research, but no one is going to stop it at this point, regardless of how persuasive the moral argument against it might be--the technology is here, it's being used; the cat is out of the bag.

The "weather control" war that you speculate about in your post has already taken place and is taking place, though on a smaller scale; research the continuing battle for the waters of the Colorado River, which crosses several arid states on its way to the ocean; the controversy over who the water actually belongs to is ongoing for decades now.

That's just one example of many I can think of. How people react to such a resources management (weather is a resource) crises depends largely on the type of society/culture that owns the technology.

Originally Posted by Elric Randall

The latter. The disasters spring easily to mind, but what about dropping a thunderstorm over reservoir during a time of drought? Seeding the desert and then claiming it as territory? I'm looking for the line between useful/ethical and destructive.

Oh, good.

Let's think on pesticide for a bit. Cancer anyone? Agent orange sprinkled liberally over the redwood forests of northern California? Who thought of that. Over and over the first and stupidest idea seems be instituted. Over and over ten to twenty years later the ramifications of our little thought out actions become clearER.
Over and over money is predominant in what will be done regardless of who suffers for it.
Let's think on dams. Lets think of everyone downstream. Person, plant and animal.
Now that the desert is dying without the river, lets seed the clouds, or actually, lets just do it over some populated area, how about a golf course? A farm, you say? Oh good, how about Monsantos farms. God forbid some poor farmer next door catch a few sprinkles. Jaded are we? Yes.
Care must be taken.
I imagine technology will take us there, but our 'smarts' are traveling quite a bit faster than our intelligence.
Biological warfare just popped into my head. So, you design an illness that spreads through a population. HELLO people! We are just across the water and people travel all the time. So how long before we are dying too? Airborn poison? Ever hear of wind?
Of course it would feel good to help with rain. But we cannot after all this time believe we are not going to see consequences.
I try not to think too much on this, because as you see, it angers me. Whatever happened to that really good idea, the one about imagining how our actions might affect our children, some seven generations to come?
Ugh.