3 ms·
I believe he is referencing the fact that "whale falls" (the ecosystem that subsists for decades on the corpse of a whale that died and sank in deep water) move
by kobeya 9y ago
I believe he is referencing the fact that "whale falls" (the ecosystem that subsists for decades on the corpse of a whale that died and sank in deep water) move the mass of the whale to the deep ocean, where it typically doesn't surface except on geologic time.
The obvious counter is that even at pre-human population levels the whales are an insignificant fraction of the shallow ocean biomass, and that artificial algea blooms over deep water could easily replace this carbon transfer in a sustainable way.
Perhaps more interesting is that the lack of whale falls has probably already driven to extinction many of the deep water species that prey on the drop sites. Those that are left are at risk. And at least until we can catalog the genetic diversity of these ecosystems, that could be a tremendous loss. There may be biological processes adapted there that are useful to us, in bio-engineering or medicine.
- chadmalik 9y agoIt's a good measure of the values of our culture that the only argument we can make (that has even a remote change of working) against willfully causing the extinction of great numbers of species is "those species might be useful to us in the future for medicine or engineering".
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- analogic 9y agoAlso their poops keeps nutrients in the system, feeding algae that consume co2 and feeding stuff that eat algae* *citation needed