4 ms·

The concept that I took for a ride was this one: > If nothing decomposed, the earth would pile up kilometers-deep with the bodies of animals and plants. I

The concept that I took for a ride was this one: > If nothing decomposed, the earth would pile up kilometers-deep with the bodies of animals and plants. I remember trying to wrap my head around this idea as a child and feeling dizzy: Our lives take place in the space that decomposition leaves behind. Composers make; decomposers unmake. And unless decomposers unmake, there isn’t anything that the composers can make with. Coal was mainly formed during a period of time between trees evolving and fungi evolving the ability to break down lignin inside tree cellulose. In that time period composers (trees) made (grew and died), but decomposers (fungi, bacteria) could not unmake (decompose lignin). So, I imagine trees piling on top of each other as they died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Formation

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
So this means that the often repeated idea that it will take millennia to build up coal supplies once depleted is incorrect because they will not ever be replaced? (not that I care, just find it interesting)
- klyrs 6y ago
  Peat bogs still exist; so the world is still slowly producing (low grade) coal. OTOH peat itself has quite a lot of stored energy and humans gonna exploit... so who knows what the future will hold.
pvaldes 6y ago
> If nothing decomposed, the earth would pile up kilometers-deep with the bodies of animals and plants Hem, not. Much more probably some animal would eat this corpses. Not to mention that life beings are lets say between 60% to 99% water and dried corpses would not take so much space. It is a suggestive idea, but is also wrong.
- nanomonkey 6y ago
  You may want to think about what you are saying. Eating is decomposition; inside of your gut are the same organisms that are in the soil breaking down the cell walls so that you and other animals can absorb a fraction of the available nutrients. This is especially true for ruminants, which have separate guts for fermenting cellulose.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > You may want to think about what you are saying. Eating is decomposition Absolutely Not. Eating is much more sophisticated than decomposition. There is a microbial part... but also a mechanical pre-processing with teeth, cartilaginous spikes, muscles or even rocks, And cells evolved to produce strong acids (that could dissolve this same cells) And a complex enzymatic system in controlled environment and temperatures. Necessary to allow its correct function. And a net of sensors of satiety to avoid the stomach bursting, a gage reflex, a capture reflex, development of complex eyes and noses to hunt and identify food or poison, nerves... A complex absortion of nutrients and water, And compaction, dehydrating, filtration, classification, and release of useless stuff. Is much, much, more than just tiny organisms breaking things.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

So this means that the often repeated idea that it will take millennia to build up coal supplies once depleted is incorrect because they will not ever be replaced? (not that I care, just find it interesting)

klyrs 6y ago
Peat bogs still exist; so the world is still slowly producing (low grade) coal. OTOH peat itself has quite a lot of stored energy and humans gonna exploit... so who knows what the future will hold.

pvaldes 6y ago

> If nothing decomposed, the earth would pile up kilometers-deep with the bodies of animals and plants Hem, not. Much more probably some animal would eat this corpses. Not to mention that life beings are lets say between 60% to 99% water and dried corpses would not take so much space. It is a suggestive idea, but is also wrong.

nanomonkey 6y ago
You may want to think about what you are saying. Eating is decomposition; inside of your gut are the same organisms that are in the soil breaking down the cell walls so that you and other animals can absorb a fraction of the available nutrients. This is especially true for ruminants, which have separate guts for fermenting cellulose.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > You may want to think about what you are saying. Eating is decomposition Absolutely Not. Eating is much more sophisticated than decomposition. There is a microbial part... but also a mechanical pre-processing with teeth, cartilaginous spikes, muscles or even rocks, And cells evolved to produce strong acids (that could dissolve this same cells) And a complex enzymatic system in controlled environment and temperatures. Necessary to allow its correct function. And a net of sensors of satiety to avoid the stomach bursting, a gage reflex, a capture reflex, development of complex eyes and noses to hunt and identify food or poison, nerves... A complex absortion of nutrients and water, And compaction, dehydrating, filtration, classification, and release of useless stuff. Is much, much, more than just tiny organisms breaking things.