Minskiev wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: Many of the issues
I pointed out are still there.
If the draft in the OP is not the latest draft, UPDATE YOUR POST.
Someone clearly hasn't seen
my response.
OOC: What good is your response when you're not fixing the problems in the draft?
For example, your "clean after past volcanic eruptions" response - HOW FAR INTO THE PAST? Should we try to remove Deccan Traps (the highlands of the subcontinent of India) to "clean up"? Or destroy Hawaiian Islands (formed by volcanic eruptions) and many other islands for that matter. Most volcanoes that are mountain-shaped, have been formed by volcanic eruptions. Should they be removed to "clean up"? Have fun hitting the lava chamber inside an active one.
What you SHOULD have, is adding the word "recent" or just "when possible" or similar. In many cases it's easier to just build on top of the lava-turned-to-rock than try to mine it away. That's pretty much how RL humans have been dealing with the issue since there's been people constructing shelters. I would very much favour using BOTH "recent" and "when possible" so as not to require a volcanic island to be destroyed because there's no limit to what "past" means. Also, volcanic soil is most fertile that we know of, in RL, so removing that would also remove the environment you care so much, of some of the biodiversity hotspots, as well as very likely destroy or at least greatly hinder the locals' ability to farm crops.
Do you understand the issue now?
And majority of people harping about the good and bad of natural events seem to have missed the bit of my feedback that said
"What you mean is "hazard to society and infrastructure"." Because let's face the facts: WE CANNOT PREVENT VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS with anything similar to RL tech or even most future tech imaginable (if you're so overpowered you can create solar systems, just make a planet without volcanoes!). But
what we can do, is to try and minimize the loss of lives and infrastucture. In some cases lava flows can be redirected (Iceland, you kick ass!) away from cities and airports and whatnot, but you still cannot stop the eruption itself. So, you're talking about hazards to society and infrastructure, not the environment. Volcanoes have been erupting on our RL planet since before life existed.
They're part of how the environment works.Liaise is now partnered with another verb, but it still doesn't mean much. Liaise exactly how? To prepare how? This is where the definition having "hazard to society and infrastructure" would really come handy, as it would give you some idea of what exactly should they be prepared to do. Since it's impossible to stop volcanic eruptions, you could prepare, say, evacuation plans and further plans of where and how you house and feed the displaced people.
How is the WA able to predict volcanic eruptions?
And the "Locate where volcanic eruptions have occurred in the past" - in cases of planets like the RL Earth, the answer is "everywhere" if you go far enough into the past. You realize that our planet was basically molten rock at some point, yes? So, again, you need some restraining word to go with "past". Perhaps "recorded history of volcanic eruptions"? Or maybe "past volcanic eruptions of active volcanoes" or something like that. Because it doesn't help much to know an eruption happened some millions of years ago, because an asteroid hit on the opposite side of the planet and excited a hotspot into massive activity. (Hint: It's largely how non-avian dinosaurs died, Deccan Traps were formed, Indian subcontinent was accelerated northwards so that it created the Himalayas, and why African continent didn't rotate so far counterclockwise that we wouldn't have the Red Sea or Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean Sea would just be a fjord of the Atlantic.
If you think this all isn't true, look it up!)
The "Create scientific modeling of volcanic disaster scenarios to determine what sizes and types of eruptions could endanger the international population" still doesn't make much sense. If the WA committee is doing all this, why are you creating double bureaucracy by also requiring the nations do this (the Liaise clause)? Wouldn't it make more sense if the committee compiled the data the nations provide it with, and identified possible future problems? (Like, I think the committee would raise quite big red flags about the Yellowstone and Gulf of Napoli supervolcanoes, given both are showing signs of growing activity, and would likely tell nations to have some plans how to not end up like the dinosaurs when they go off.)
If you want to fix this nonsense, you could instead give the task to nations to model whatever you want them to model on a national basis, and then give the data to the committee, which could figure out if it's internationally significant.
Random notes: "directs" doesn't sound like a mandate, "fallout" is entirely wrong word to use here, why is clause 3 only a recommendation?, 5.a. is still unnecessary, and
why the heck should any of this apply to nations that do not have volcanoes? EDIT: Beyond what the committee would say after compiling the data nations submit to it. If you make the change.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:24 am
And I am not disputing the fact that natural phenomenons cause negative/horrible effects, that is without question. I was merely defending the viewpoint that just because they cause bad things, they aren't inherently bad themselves. Absolutely, they need to be prevented and their effects mitigated, which is why I support this proposal, but they shouldn't be treated as evil (not that this proposal does that). As I said, it could be a question of interpretation regarding what IA stated.
. However, I now understand some of your concerns. Thank you for clarifying, I shall edit my draft some more.