3 ms·

The metaphor seems apt. FTA: > On land, life tends to spring from the ploughed lines of a field, but in the deep sea the trenches are relatively barren. The cr

by pygy_ 6y ago

The metaphor seems apt. FTA: > On land, life tends to spring from the ploughed lines of a field, but in the deep sea the trenches are relatively barren. The creatures that relied on the nodules, now removed, cannot re-colonise. And others, which require soft sediment to burrow and find mobilised food, cannot live on the artificially compacted surfaces. The nodules were harvested 30+ years ago on a small scale and local life still hasn't recovered. Given the time scale required for them to build up (millions of years) they are effectively non-renewable. There's a tipping point at which the global ecosystem will be too screwed up to bounce back to a point where it can sustain us. We won't know where that point is until we're past it. I'd rather avoid going that far.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
For better or worse, we have already outstripped the ability of the earth to sustain us without massive tech input. If we had to farm like we did a few hundred years ago, civilization would collapse and billions would die. For better or worse, we are committed to either becoming a multi planetary species able to make planets suit us, including Earth, and collapsing into something worse than the Stone Age given we have used up all the easily accessible mineral and fossil fuel deposits. So, I think worrying about stuff that can happen centuries later is a waste of time. A few centuries ago people could not imagine we would be able to instantly communicate across the world, cross the Atlantic Ocean in less than a day, or walk on the moon. The best thing we can do is maximize human potential.
- pygy_ 6y ago
  Massive tech will not prevent billions from dying. The point where tech is able to sustain itself without human input is in sight now. I still can't see why an automated economy would waste resources on useless meat bags.

by pygy_ 6y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

For better or worse, we have already outstripped the ability of the earth to sustain us without massive tech input. If we had to farm like we did a few hundred years ago, civilization would collapse and billions would die. For better or worse, we are committed to either becoming a multi planetary species able to make planets suit us, including Earth, and collapsing into something worse than the Stone Age given we have used up all the easily accessible mineral and fossil fuel deposits. So, I think worrying about stuff that can happen centuries later is a waste of time. A few centuries ago people could not imagine we would be able to instantly communicate across the world, cross the Atlantic Ocean in less than a day, or walk on the moon. The best thing we can do is maximize human potential.

pygy_ 6y ago
Massive tech will not prevent billions from dying. The point where tech is able to sustain itself without human input is in sight now. I still can't see why an automated economy would waste resources on useless meat bags.