this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Science

10 readers
1 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on scientific discoveries, research, and theories across various fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and more. Whether you are a scientist, a science enthusiast, or simply curious about the world around us, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on a wide range of scientific topics. From the latest breakthroughs to historical discoveries and ongoing research, this category covers a wide range of topics related to science.

founded 2 years ago
 

Phytoplankton absorbs carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, and there's a relatively easy way to boost the world's populations.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] osarusan@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How is it that people are always coming up with zany untested solutions like "dump a fuckton of iron in the sea and see what happens" instead of doing the one thing we actually know how to do -- move to clean energy??? It's not like we don't have the solution. We just have to actually implement it.

[–] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If we stop all carbon production tomorrow, the earth will still continue heating up and be heated for the next 1000+ years.

We must take steps to geoengineer or not only will we be uncomfortable, but we'll lose significant areas to desertification, lose many species to extinction, and lose many people to water and food shortages.

[–] rustyfish@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Buesseler doesn't believe adding iron to the world's oceans on a mass scale to increase phytoplankton levels would cause any harm to global ecosystems. However, he does stress that more research is needed to investigate the effects.

Yes, please!?

[–] readbeanicecream@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

doesn’t believe

A far cry from "knows".

[–] Itty53@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

At this point doing something that you're unsure whether it will make things better or worse is literally a better option than just nothing. I mean really what's the worst thing that happens? The equivalent of an oil spill? Like that's ever stopped us from doing things for profit? Why should we hold ourselves to these "better be entirely certain" standards when we never held ourselves to that standard on the way here?

This is a legitimate train of thought. "This might hurt things but I'm not sure how" simply isn't good enough. Give me a reason to be afraid to use this. Cause we're not afraid of using oil yet. Fuck it let's put a bunch of iron in the oceans. Really can't hurt things any worse than we have, can it?

[–] Gutotito@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Like that's ever stopped us from doing things for profit?

Honestly, that's what's holding us back. Make climate repair profitable, and the climate will be fixed inside of a decade.

[–] Itty53@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No that's what got us here. Profit above all else brought us where we are, it can't bring us back. Apologies for being blunt but that's a stupid thought you shared.

[–] Gutotito@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not debating the finer points of morality; just the reality of the situation.

[–] Itty53@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

By positing it as the reality and not just a reality that we can actually change, you're playing defense for em. You're using their talking points.

BTW You don't have to be debating the finer points of morality to be doing something immoral. Corporatists don't debate morality either. Because they know they lose, every time. Hint hint.