In early November, the Xia Kingdom's parliament convened ahead of schedule.
After discussing routine matters, they focused on a new agenda: whether to construct weather weapons for climate control.
"This report, jointly submitted by the meteorological, energy, and research departments, infers through big data that the climate may be unstable for the next few decades. The blueprints for weather weapons were roughly developed years ago, but due to unresolved energy issues, they could not be realized. Fengda Novel Network.
Now, the energy problem has been solved.
This means weather weapons are theoretically achievable.
However, if weather weapons go out of control, or if there are operational errors or inaccuracies in data extrapolation, it could lead to extremely severe consequences, even catastrophic natural disasters.
These are all detailed in the report, so please review it and share your views!"
After the presenter finished reading, the report was distributed.
While most attendees could not grasp the detailed data and theories, they understood the potential benefits, the severe consequences of operational errors, and the gravity of the situation.
Many fell into contemplation after reading.
The subsequent discussion segment excluded ordinary personnel, or rather, non-technical staff. They were only required to listen as professionals detailed the pros and cons, and then weigh in with their votes.
"I believe the idiom 'do not abandon food for fear of choking' sufficiently represents my viewpoint. Were there no dangers in developing fission power plants? Were there no dangers in undertaking millennia-long hydraulic projects? All endeavors carry risks, but we can overcome them, mitigate them, and approach them with caution.
Instead of outright rejection, we should strive to address them.
Weather weapons, as they are called, are not entirely accurate. What we are developing should be termed climate regulators, not for aggression, but for artificial weather control.
We aim to achieve years of favorable weather, or at least ensure certain regions experience favorable conditions for normal cultivation and harvest.
I doubt any of us wish to see our descendants living solely in underground bases, subsisting on nutrient paste to survive, becoming troglodytes with atrophied digestive systems.
Therefore, climate regulators are indeed essential for the long-term future of humanity."
Thus spoke the supervisor of the Nutrient Paste Research Department.
The supervisor of the Ecological Environment Research Department immediately voiced his opposition:
"I do not agree, in fact, I strongly object!
Do you not feel that creating climate regulators is provoking nature, provoking the entire world? We have always said that man can conquer nature, but now, facts prove we cannot. Even slight changes in nature pose an existential crisis for us.
'Man can conquer nature' is merely a joke.
Decades ago, we spoke of transforming nature. If mountains blocked us, we blasted and dug them. If rivers obstructed us, we filled them. If land was insufficient, we reclaimed it from the sea and drained lakes for cultivation, feeling invincible.
Now, nature's retribution has arrived.
The consequences of actions taken years ago are surfacing.
Is constructing these climate regulators not a continuation of our attempts to transform nature, to prove that man can conquer nature? Humanity's understanding of the global environment and ecosystem remains superficial. Even the extreme weather phenomena of recent years, while some have scientific explanations, others remain unknown or uncertain.
Can big data extrapolation always be accurate?
Are computer simulations always infallible?
Our current situation is already perilous; a single misstep could lead to extinction. Once a climate regulator is activated, who can guarantee it won't trigger adverse effects? Even if someone dares to provide assurances, and something goes wrong, will their solitary death suffice as recompense?
Therefore, I suggest we proceed with caution.
Let's take it slow; we shouldn't aim for immediate success or overnight leaps, believing we can solve environmental problems in one fell swoop. Environmental issues were not created in a day, and they cannot be resolved in a day. Hence, I firmly oppose this proposal."
"I also disagree, as we have very little room for error in this matter. Moreover, we are not truly cornered to the point of desperation where we must gamble everything on building weather weapons and altering the world.
Setting aside the environmental risks associated with building weather weapons, the mere construction of such weapons could provoke apprehension from other major powers.
We know in our hearts that we seek peace.
We have no intention of using these weather weapons for any aggressive purpose or to threaten anyone; we merely hope to mitigate the current extreme weather. But will others believe us?
They already fear us and seek to impose sanctions even when we do nothing. What if we take action?
Do you believe the other major powers would allow us to build weather weapons without concern?
This world can no longer withstand turmoil, or rather, humanity can no longer withstand it. Often, it is a matter of 'hesitation due to fear of consequences.' We must consider all angles!"
The supervisor of the International Relations Department also quickly chimed in.
Many matters require consideration beyond their immediate implications; their profound downstream effects must also be assessed.
This is why one must "think thrice before acting."
Soon, the discussion deepened on this point. Ding Yun waited until everyone had largely concluded their arguments before standing up, connecting to the network to distribute research findings, and then presenting her plan:
"I have taken all your concerns into consideration.
I now have a proposal that might be considered a compromise. Let's hear it and see if it's acceptable.
The original weather weapon plan will be renamed.
It will be renamed the Mars Terraforming Plan.
We can publicly announce that due to severe environmental degradation, we plan to gradually implement agricultural colonization on Mars and the Moon, and construct celestial weapons around Mars and the Moon to terraform them.
Would that not be logical?
Since Mars and the Moon currently have negligible ecosystems, modifying them will not cause significant butterfly effects or lead to species extinction due to errors in the process.
While transforming these two planets into habitable worlds might be challenging even with abundant energy, establishing agricultural bases there is certainly feasible. Colonization also presents fewer issues.
We can use these two planets as experimental grounds first.
Failure would have no severe repercussions, but success would yield immense benefits. We would gain two more fallback options, potentially even initiating interstellar colonization.
I have already charted the course for the necessary technological advancements.
Furthermore, by constructing weather weapons on Mars, other countries would have no grounds to interfere, nor would it incite major wars. If the plan succeeds, we could then transfer the Martian weather weapons back to our home planet.
Once this plan is approved,
I am willing to take full responsibility for its execution!"