7 ms·

Scientists have discovered a sea of fresh water under the ocean

109 points by bushido 7y ago

jsilence 7y ago
"Oh cool, a new natural resource! Let's exploit it!"
- nightwing 7y ago
  Do you suggest that leaving it as is until it is destroyed by tectonic plate movement or sun exploding is better than using it to support lives of more people?
  - jplayer01 7y ago
    Depending on the potential environmental impacts of exploiting said resource, of course. I don't understand why this mindset of exploiting anything and everything without regard for human life and environment is allowed to persist.
    - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
      Left unchecked, capitalism reproduces itself.
    - nightwing 7y ago
      Sure if in the process of using a resource you destroy more important things it is bad. Most of the time using library for heating is a stupid thing, and unfortunately that's a good analogy for what we do with rainforests now. But the sentiment of "do not touch any resource!" is irrational, and brings more harm than good, to the cause of using the resources we have wisely.
      - jplayer01 7y ago
        > But the sentiment of "do not touch any resource!" is irrational, and brings more harm than good, to the cause of using the resources we have wisely. The point is that we should be assessing the impacts before we blindly use it and then later figure out "oh, this is bad". It's fucking 2019. We need to evolve as a species, not keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over. We're garbage creating garbage. How about we make a measured analysis first before running in and wrecking everything? And why am I being downvoted for not wanting to turn our world into shit? In any case, fuck all of you who think it's okay to ruin our environment just because.
        ramblerman 7y ago
        > We're garbage creating garbage There I disagree. I think intelligent life capable of reflecting on it's being here is not garbage. We want to live in harmony with nature, but seeing us as the disease, and just trying to save nature for the sake of nature is equally idiotic imo. If there is no one there to witness it, that would be pretty pointless.
        bburinanan 7y ago
        Its insane that you think there is no point of other living creatures if a human can't witness it.
        nightwing 7y ago
        Much more thoughtful comments are being downvoted too for instance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20257728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20257728, so it's mostly luck i guess). No one suggests to destroy environment just because. As said above, i agree that we should be assessing the impacts before doing things, but here people are simply suggesting to use water, and you are falling into inadequate emotional insults.
    - chillacy 7y ago
      Looking at human history, that is so far the most human attribute I know of. Given that, we’re more likely to trash earth and try to move on to trash other planets than live in equilibrium here.
tomglynch 7y ago
And what are the consequences to the environment from doing this? Sounds similar enough to fracking.
- foobar1962 7y ago
  Not fracking, more like the draining of the terrestrial mineral water resources. Impacts include the failure of natural springs, land subsidence, and huge profits to the companies that get to them first.
  - tomglynch 7y ago
    Fair enough - all pretty substantial risks. The issue with new discoveries like these is that precise regulation is unlikely to exist so companies have the potential to act with a focus on profit over sustainability or safety.
    - hn23 7y ago
      As soneone else said: It is 2019. We have learned nothing. Why should a fucking company be allowed to do potential irreparable harm at global scale. Even if these are in US territory - we only have one planet for all of us. Such caverns could collapse. You cannot press saltwater into them like it is done into oil caverns.
  - FrozenVoid 7y ago
    Not really, it requires huge investment to drill underwater and associated infrastructure to transport water. Besides it still requires desalination, on which it will compete with on-shore desalination plants and continental aquifers(until they run out, the cheapest option).
  - nightwing 7y ago
    > failure of natural springs this can't happen if aquifer is already under the sea. > land subsidence in this case it will be seafloor subsidence, which will have much smaller impact than land subsidence has. > huge profits to the companies that get to them first also huge profits for the governments taxing these companies, and for people buying the resource cheaper.
baybal2 7y ago
What about nuclear desalination?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
lambdasquirrel 7y ago
If the source was glacial run-off, not sure if there’d be any in the places where it’s warmest and driest. Still a pretty nifty discovery though.
xfactor973 7y ago
Fossil water
bsenftner 7y ago
Call me a cynical anti-capitalist, but this turns the recent wealth fad of buying up the world's fresh water aquifers into a poor investment, as that resource is not nearly as rare as it was before this discovery. https://agorafinancial.com/2015/04/24/why-did-george-bush-buy-nearly-300000-acres-in-paraguay/ https://agorafinancial.com/2015/04/24/why-did-george-bush-bu... https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-water-barons-wall-street-mega-banks-are-buying-up-the-worlds-water/5383274 https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-water-barons-wall-stre...

109 points by bushido 7y ago

jsilence 7y ago

"Oh cool, a new natural resource! Let's exploit it!"

nightwing 7y ago
Do you suggest that leaving it as is until it is destroyed by tectonic plate movement or sun exploding is better than using it to support lives of more people?
- jplayer01 7y ago
  Depending on the potential environmental impacts of exploiting said resource, of course. I don't understand why this mindset of exploiting anything and everything without regard for human life and environment is allowed to persist.
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    Left unchecked, capitalism reproduces itself.
  - nightwing 7y ago
    Sure if in the process of using a resource you destroy more important things it is bad. Most of the time using library for heating is a stupid thing, and unfortunately that's a good analogy for what we do with rainforests now. But the sentiment of "do not touch any resource!" is irrational, and brings more harm than good, to the cause of using the resources we have wisely.
    - jplayer01 7y ago
      > But the sentiment of "do not touch any resource!" is irrational, and brings more harm than good, to the cause of using the resources we have wisely. The point is that we should be assessing the impacts before we blindly use it and then later figure out "oh, this is bad". It's fucking 2019. We need to evolve as a species, not keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over. We're garbage creating garbage. How about we make a measured analysis first before running in and wrecking everything? And why am I being downvoted for not wanting to turn our world into shit? In any case, fuck all of you who think it's okay to ruin our environment just because.
      - ramblerman 7y ago
        > We're garbage creating garbage There I disagree. I think intelligent life capable of reflecting on it's being here is not garbage. We want to live in harmony with nature, but seeing us as the disease, and just trying to save nature for the sake of nature is equally idiotic imo. If there is no one there to witness it, that would be pretty pointless.
        bburinanan 7y ago
        Its insane that you think there is no point of other living creatures if a human can't witness it.
      - nightwing 7y ago
        Much more thoughtful comments are being downvoted too for instance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20257728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20257728, so it's mostly luck i guess). No one suggests to destroy environment just because. As said above, i agree that we should be assessing the impacts before doing things, but here people are simply suggesting to use water, and you are falling into inadequate emotional insults.
  - chillacy 7y ago
    Looking at human history, that is so far the most human attribute I know of. Given that, we’re more likely to trash earth and try to move on to trash other planets than live in equilibrium here.

tomglynch 7y ago

And what are the consequences to the environment from doing this? Sounds similar enough to fracking.

foobar1962 7y ago
Not fracking, more like the draining of the terrestrial mineral water resources. Impacts include the failure of natural springs, land subsidence, and huge profits to the companies that get to them first.
- tomglynch 7y ago
  Fair enough - all pretty substantial risks. The issue with new discoveries like these is that precise regulation is unlikely to exist so companies have the potential to act with a focus on profit over sustainability or safety.
  - hn23 7y ago
    As soneone else said: It is 2019. We have learned nothing. Why should a fucking company be allowed to do potential irreparable harm at global scale. Even if these are in US territory - we only have one planet for all of us. Such caverns could collapse. You cannot press saltwater into them like it is done into oil caverns.
- FrozenVoid 7y ago
  Not really, it requires huge investment to drill underwater and associated infrastructure to transport water. Besides it still requires desalination, on which it will compete with on-shore desalination plants and continental aquifers(until they run out, the cheapest option).
- nightwing 7y ago
  > failure of natural springs this can't happen if aquifer is already under the sea. > land subsidence in this case it will be seafloor subsidence, which will have much smaller impact than land subsidence has. > huge profits to the companies that get to them first also huge profits for the governments taxing these companies, and for people buying the resource cheaper.

baybal2 7y ago

What about nuclear desalination?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

lambdasquirrel 7y ago

If the source was glacial run-off, not sure if there’d be any in the places where it’s warmest and driest. Still a pretty nifty discovery though.

xfactor973 7y ago

Fossil water

bsenftner 7y ago

Call me a cynical anti-capitalist, but this turns the recent wealth fad of buying up the world's fresh water aquifers into a poor investment, as that resource is not nearly as rare as it was before this discovery. https://agorafinancial.com/2015/04/24/why-did-george-bush-buy-nearly-300000-acres-in-paraguay/ https://agorafinancial.com/2015/04/24/why-did-george-bush-bu... https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-water-barons-wall-street-mega-banks-are-buying-up-the-worlds-water/5383274 https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-water-barons-wall-stre...