this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
987 points (96.5% liked)
Memes
45728 readers
189 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Better to leave it with just the environmental changes we made without intent right?
I mean, sort of?
We created a big problem by injecting a lot of shit where it shouldn't be. If we stop that, some pieces will bounce back.
Injecting more shit in another place means we have one big problem, that we haven't stopped, and now a new problem that we don't know the repurcussions of or how to reverse.
So uh, yeah, I'll stick with the one beast we know over one we know and also another we don't.
It's okay to say you don't understand marine chemistry, there is no shame in it.
The whole "seed the oceans with ferrous oxide" idea isn't mine. In fact many better minds came up with it. You can check it out if you want, no pressure.
You are being very pretentious.
Yup.
It's funny, because your own ignorance is showing. There's plenty of research to suggest that iron fertilization is controversial, which directly contradicts your (very condescending) assertion.
Again, not my assertion but go on about my ignorance. Of course not all scientific papers agree. That's why we have field testing and peer review.
I aquaculture cnidaria and get paid for algae abatement so maybe you could trust me a bit.
My point is that you're being dismissive of very reasonable concerns that are supported by published scientific literature. Further, rather than address those concerns directly, you chose to deflect with condescension and belittlement.
So no, I'm not going to trust you, because the only thing that you've done to prove your point is be an ass.
K
It is much easier to destroy something than it is to repair it. This applies to the original changes we made through exploitation, pollution, etc. But also to the radical change you propose, it is much easier for it to have a destructive effect compared to having a positive effect.
I agree on the first part of what you said.
But we aren't fixing the problem either way so what's really at stake?