this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
59 points (95.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

44008 readers
714 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm not proposing this as an actual solution, it's just a dumb idea. But if we dug a huge, wide hole at the bottom of the ocean, or maybe widened the Mariana Trench or something, could that extra space make the sea levels drop enough to keep the land from flooding?

top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Coopr8@kbin.earth 28 points 1 day ago

Possible yes, practical no. Effectively you would need to build a new sub-continant to have an appreciable impact on sea level. That said, you don't need to dredge from the low point in the ocean, all that matters is displacing solid material from below sea level to above sea level, so the best option would be to find a shallow sea with an existing archipelago of islands and build up from there making it a deep sea with the islands connected as a continent. Alternately you could go after reefs, despite the collateral damage, with the great barrier reef being the obvious choice, essentially pump up dredged sand from the surrounding ocean bed onto the reef to make new land, the reef has the advantage of being very shallow and stabilized with lots of surface area, so good for making lots of land if you don't mind being the architect of an ecological apocalypse of unprecedented proportions.

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 43 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The energy required to lift that amount of rock from the seabed to above the surface would be impractical. But good news! It doesn't need to be from the bottom of the sea, just a part below the desired waterline. So we can dig these big holes you want right off the coastline and then, as a bonus, use the materials as landfill to raise or extend the current coastline. Still wildly impractical, but much less so than digging at the bottom.

[–] Demonmariner@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago

Next time I go to the beach I'm bringing a shovel, and will dig a hole just past where my feet get wet.

I'm doing my part.

[–] Gnugit@aussie.zone 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Still more practical than musk rat going to mars though.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 hours ago

but if he went to mars it would be wonderful, if he stayed there

[–] radix@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I say we still do that one, though. As long as he goes, personally.

[–] FurryMemesAccount@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Apepollo11@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

With the failure rate SpaceX is hitting with their Starships, that problem would likely take care of itself.

[–] toothpaste_sandwich@thebrainbin.org 5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like... Dykes. See: The Netherlands.

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It's "dikes" in this case, and yes, you could use the stone for dikes or levees, but since most of it would be sedimentary rock I'm not sure how well it would work for the purpose: most sedimentary rocks are rather porous.

Oh whoops, thanks for the correction!

[–] Snailpope@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (3 children)

To lower the surface of the ocean 1" you would need to move 1.1 billion cubic kilometers of dirt/rock. That's 12 million MT Everests worth of material.

If you spread this evenly across the entire surface of the land, it would raise it by 7".

Is it probable? No Is it possible? Technically yes? But that's purely hypothetical.

Sourse: Duck duck go AI and bad math so take it with a grain of crack

[–] ns1@feddit.uk 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I have a grain of crack here for those who are interested.

You don't need to do many calculations to see that the AI has gone slightly wrong. Since water covers roughly twice as much of the Earth's surface as land does, lowering the oceans 1 inch should raise the land by about 2 inches, assuming that the volume of dirt isn't changed by the process of moving it.

More precisely: Area of the oceans = 361,000,000 km^2^
1 inch = 2.54cm = 0.0000254 km
Volume of dirt = 361000000 * 0.0000254 = 9169.4 km^3^
Area of land on Earth = 149,000,000 km^2^
Height of dirt spread over land = 9169.4 / 149000000 = 0.0000615 km = 6.15 cm = 2.4 inches

Not going to say how many Everests as estimates for the volume of Everest seem to be all over the place. But the point stands that it's a huge amount of material making the idea somewhat impractical.

[–] YoSoySnekBoi@kbin.earth 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

take it with a grain of crack

This is the best thing I've heard in a long time and I will be stealing it

The Irish version would also work here.

"Take it with a grain of craic"

[–] gigachad@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago

1" = 2.54 cm
7" = 17.78 cm

[–] Linsensuppe@feddit.org 16 points 1 day ago

You could dig a hole to the other side and wait till all the water has drained.

[–] Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The big problem is that the bottom of the ocean is a very very very long way down.

Better to take the Dutch solution and build dikes.

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is no reason to build it at the bottom it would be equally effective build anywhere underwater

[–] Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 hours ago

OP specifically used the words "the bottom of the sea" and "the bottom of the ocean".

And I stand by my comment that dikes are superior.

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 1 day ago

I don't see any issues as long as you carted away all of the material that you excavated. You could even build up the land to make it taller and harder to flood.

But unless you did it without burning any fossil fuels, then the additional greenhouse gases would cause more ice to melt. And you'd run the risk of fucking up ocean currents and weather systems which, again, could worsen global heating..

On second thoughts, maybe hold off on that plan for now

[–] Alsjemenou@lemy.nl 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The weight of the removed soil would sink the land.

[–] Coopr8@kbin.earth 2 points 1 day ago

Not if it was deposited on bedrock, or even if it wasn't if it was done in a way that works with the currents. There are many examples of artificial islands being built successfully.

[–] Hello_there@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Another way is to electrolyze the water into h and o. Some hydrogen will escape the atmosphere and not be recombined. Nonreversible process so gl with that.

That's... A lot of added gas. Pre-space-loss, it would probably feel something like Jupiter's atmosphere

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Well yeah, but you'd need to dig a crazy huge hole for that, probably the size of multiple mountains