4 ms·
It would be awesome if we could unleash something like this in our oceans without doing harm to the ecosystem (would be hard to do more harm that what we are al
by k_ 8y ago
It would be awesome if we could unleash something like this in our oceans without doing harm to the ecosystem (would be hard to do more harm that what we are already doing with plastic, but still).
- spodek 8y agoIt would be awesome if we ourselves could interact with the ocean without doing harm to the ecosystem.
- uhhyeahdude 8y agoYes, yes it would. Systems thinking is hard. (Eco)Systems thinking is nearly maddening. Even if one could account for many variables (for an acceptable value of many), one would still have to deal with everything else, which often includes stupidity, irrationality, politics, emotion, villains... Nature makes many errors, but at least it isn't stupid; those errors result in the adaptations that make the world work. This process involves a lot of death, but it works. Or, it did. I am somewhat familiar with ecosystems and environmental restoration, and I don't mean to discourage anyone from positive thinking; in this case, however, I really think people need to try to comprehend the mechanisms before experimenting. I reiterate: systems thinking is hard.
- meric 8y agoThe best way to unleash it in our system without doing harm to the ecosystem is to be patient. There is energy content in the plastic and over 100-200 million years the chance is extremely high Earth’s ecosystem will adapt to the abundance of plastic.
- jon_richards 8y agoThe issue has never been whether the ecosystem will adapt. It has been how well we will. If plastic in the ocean kills/renders toxic all the fish, that will be an issue for us. The ecosystem? It will be fine.
- kjjw 8y agoThe idea that ecosystems are self balacning and always bounce back is discredited science. It’s still a popular idea in mainstream discussion, though.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 3chelon 8y agoIs it really discredited? What are your sources? I tend to believe (with no actual evidence, since there is none), that the ecosystem will adapt to whatever damage we do to it using the tried-and-tested method of natural selection. Most mainstream conversations about this are entirely anthropocentric and assume we have to be part of that equation. They always assume we're the top of the food chain. But whereas most of us will never be eaten by a tiger, pretty much all of us will be eaten by bacteria one day. Microbial life has been around for far longer, and is far more abundant than we can ever hope to be. I don't think much we can do will fundamentally alter that balance.
- foota 8y agoIt's a hyperbolic example, but I doubt life on Earth would adapt to being engulfed by the sun, for one
- 3chelon 8y agoSure, but that's not the debate.
- NoGravitas 8y agoWe tend to imagine that the ecosystem that will bounce back is the current one, or something much like the current one. Of course it's possible that the current ecosystem could be completely destabilized and die off, to be replaced by something radically different. It's happened many times in Earth's history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#List_of_extinction_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#List_of_extin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin...
- quickthrower2 8y ago> over 100-200 million years Wow that is patient!
- endymi0n 8y agoI had the same exciting thought before it dawned on me that we usually choose plastics for a reason. Imagine water bottles breaking down in the store. Imagine protective coatings of ships breaking down. While I'd be happy for the mess we created in the oceans, I'm unsure if this would just trigger another arms race for more indestructible materials — that would clog the oceans once again.
- chiefalchemist 8y agoWe chose plastics because it was cheaper. Yes, there are other benefits. Unfortunately, no one asked, "If this stuff doesn't decompose, then what?" to assess that risk vs the benefits. Without that answer the use of plastics should have been mitigated a la nuclear fission. Instead, micro bits of plastics are everywhere; the oceans and their ecoayatem are compromised. Etc. For what? Convenience and a few cents?
- acdanger 8y agoI ask myself the same question about our current techno-commercial landscape.
- spodek 8y agoThe main reason is not having to account for externalities. As long as someone else has to pay for cleaning up, why bother thinking about it when you can keep the short-term profits?
- fredley 8y agoMy favourite what if: What if we engineer such bacteria to survive in our gut?
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoManufacturers don't really choose plastic for longevity, they choose it because it's cheap and easy to work with (ie plastic [adjective]). There are already biodegradable alternatives for almost everything but they add a few pence to the cost of a happy meal, say, and aren't a strong enough differentiator at the point of sale for profit-driven companies to care about it. The alternatives don't instantaneously degrade, they usually need proper composting to quickly degrade (high temperatures, aerobic). We've used compostable nappies that when properly composted can degrade fully in a year - they're similar in use (save not releasing "gel balls"), don't appear to have a significantly depleted shelf-life. I don't know why such things aren't mandated TBH.
- Orphis 8y agoAbout 20 years ago, I did a one week internship as a teenager in some lab that worked exactly on this. They were trying to grow and select enzymes that could process different types of oil that frequently occurred in spills. The tricky part was to make sure they only targeted what was in the ocean. You didn't want them to start propagating into the oil tanks in boats, or start processing all the random plastics that make up boats or various infrastructure. I remember on my last day, they had some really good results with some samples that processed some oil really well and were quite excited. I then left, and have no idea if they managed to reproduce the results or not.
- JulianMorrison 8y agoMeh, make them eat all the oil. Civilization could use the kick in the ass to switch to electrics.
- majewsky 8y agoWhen they eat the oil, how do they metabolize it? If they end up producing CO2 like ICEs do, that would not be a productive measure against climate change at all.
- JulianMorrison 8y agoGiven it was going to be burned, that's six of one and half a dozen of the other, except that if the bugs eat it, the humans have to change their behaviour.
- simias 8y agoPlastic pollution has tons of drawbacks but at least it doesn't contribute to global warming since it effectively stores carbon. Having all the plastic in the world start rotting away and releasing carbon into the atmosphere might to a lot of harm. Especially if other petrol byproducts like the bitumen of our roads are concerned. You're right however that if these products start becoming effectively unusable (or less usable) because they now rot it would make alternative solutions a lot more attractive, but we already have so much petrol byproducts in the wild that the transition would be pretty nasty.
- neolefty 8y agoThe organisms would probably need micronutrients as well, such as iron or copper. Advantage: We can control their spread—target them at the Garbage Patches Disadvantage: More expensive to deploy, since you have to also sprinkle fertilizer for the cleanup to be effective.