3 ms·

> It's not written in stone. Check out the story of the Loess plateu Which is why I said "as a whole". You pointed out a single example of when humans did a go

> It's not written in stone. Check out the story of the Loess plateu Which is why I said "as a whole". You pointed out a single example of when humans did a good thing for the environment, but as a whole (meaning all humans for all of history) we have had a net negative impact on the planet. Regarding determining the impact, you can't just outright ban something without knowing the impact. Which is why they're doing these trials. It's not wholesale strip-mining the sea floor, it's a test of technology to see if it can be done sustainably and with minimal negative impact to the environment. edit: formatting

carapace 5y ago
> Which is why I said "as a whole". You pointed out a single example of when humans did a good thing for the environment, but as a whole (meaning all humans for all of history) we have had a net negative impact on the planet. Fair enough. (I'm usually the one pointing that out in these sorts of discussions. I just want to be clear that we can go the other way and foster life instead of just destroying it.) > you can't just outright ban something without knowing the impact. Why not? I mean, setting aside the argument that we already know that the impact will be bad, let's pretend that the last few centuries of examples haven't given us enough information to make informed predictions about how bad the "impact" will be. What are the consequences if we just banned marine mining? - - - - From my POV, you have to make the case that any mining on Earth at all makes economic sense, given that there is only one living planet in the solar system, and there are lots of things to mine in space (where there are no living things, yet), and we have already heavily "impacted" the existing global ecosystem with our mining and agriculture. Look, if we're going to get through all this and become a successful space-faring species we have got to start taking the long view, and value things properly.
- stuff4ben 5y ago
  So you predicate your argument on economic feasibility and then throw up "space mining"?!?! Not sure where to go with that. But look, I do want to get there, but even with all the Elon fanboi-ing in the world, we're not gonna get there in our lifetimes. At least 75-100 years out before it starts to make economic sense given current technology and risk/reward. So if the company behind the deep-sea mining robot didn't think it was economically feasible, they wouldn't have built it. Obviously it does make economic sense and the best way to determine the ecologic impact is to do trials. And I did mention earlier that government regulation should also be in place. I don't see why this is such a hard thing for people to grasp.
  - carapace 5y ago
    > So you predicate your argument on economic feasibility and then throw up "space mining"?!?! Absolutely. I'm a long-term thinker. From the long-term perspective the living Earth is incredibly valuable: the only source of biomass in the known Universe. In contrast, whatever minerals are down there on the sea floor are as common as dirt in our local neighborhood (Sol and its planets and asteroids, etc.) It just doesn't make any sense to burn up our planet for short-term gains. What's the rush? > I do want to get there, but even with all the Elon fanboi-ing in the world, we're not gonna get there in our lifetimes. At least 75-100 years out before it starts to make economic sense given current technology and risk/reward. Okay, but doesn't that make it even more imperative that we take good care of the Earth, since we can't yet leave? > Obviously it does make economic sense... Only in the short-term, and only if the consequences can be ignored by the folks making money from it. > the best way to determine the ecologic impact is to do trials. Strong disagree. Both on principle, and on practical grounds. IANAOceanologist, but it seems to me that we know there will be impacts. This is not a scientific expedition, it's a prelude to destruction. Oklahoma has earthquakes now. Is it due to fracking? We don't actually know in any official or scientific sense. How could we determine that they are a result of fracking or not? The folks doing the fracking insist that it's not them. We know there are going to be impacts that affect the entire planet. The question is "How bad would the destruction be?" And the answer is "Don't destroy life for money."
    - stuff4ben 5y ago
      Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. ALthough I do agree with "Don't destroy life for money". Cheers, have a great rest of your day!
      - carapace 5y ago
        Well met! Have a great day too.

carapace 5y ago

> Which is why I said "as a whole". You pointed out a single example of when humans did a good thing for the environment, but as a whole (meaning all humans for all of history) we have had a net negative impact on the planet. Fair enough. (I'm usually the one pointing that out in these sorts of discussions. I just want to be clear that we can go the other way and foster life instead of just destroying it.) > you can't just outright ban something without knowing the impact. Why not? I mean, setting aside the argument that we already know that the impact will be bad, let's pretend that the last few centuries of examples haven't given us enough information to make informed predictions about how bad the "impact" will be. What are the consequences if we just banned marine mining? - - - - From my POV, you have to make the case that any mining on Earth at all makes economic sense, given that there is only one living planet in the solar system, and there are lots of things to mine in space (where there are no living things, yet), and we have already heavily "impacted" the existing global ecosystem with our mining and agriculture. Look, if we're going to get through all this and become a successful space-faring species we have got to start taking the long view, and value things properly.

stuff4ben 5y ago
So you predicate your argument on economic feasibility and then throw up "space mining"?!?! Not sure where to go with that. But look, I do want to get there, but even with all the Elon fanboi-ing in the world, we're not gonna get there in our lifetimes. At least 75-100 years out before it starts to make economic sense given current technology and risk/reward. So if the company behind the deep-sea mining robot didn't think it was economically feasible, they wouldn't have built it. Obviously it does make economic sense and the best way to determine the ecologic impact is to do trials. And I did mention earlier that government regulation should also be in place. I don't see why this is such a hard thing for people to grasp.
- carapace 5y ago
  > So you predicate your argument on economic feasibility and then throw up "space mining"?!?! Absolutely. I'm a long-term thinker. From the long-term perspective the living Earth is incredibly valuable: the only source of biomass in the known Universe. In contrast, whatever minerals are down there on the sea floor are as common as dirt in our local neighborhood (Sol and its planets and asteroids, etc.) It just doesn't make any sense to burn up our planet for short-term gains. What's the rush? > I do want to get there, but even with all the Elon fanboi-ing in the world, we're not gonna get there in our lifetimes. At least 75-100 years out before it starts to make economic sense given current technology and risk/reward. Okay, but doesn't that make it even more imperative that we take good care of the Earth, since we can't yet leave? > Obviously it does make economic sense... Only in the short-term, and only if the consequences can be ignored by the folks making money from it. > the best way to determine the ecologic impact is to do trials. Strong disagree. Both on principle, and on practical grounds. IANAOceanologist, but it seems to me that we know there will be impacts. This is not a scientific expedition, it's a prelude to destruction. Oklahoma has earthquakes now. Is it due to fracking? We don't actually know in any official or scientific sense. How could we determine that they are a result of fracking or not? The folks doing the fracking insist that it's not them. We know there are going to be impacts that affect the entire planet. The question is "How bad would the destruction be?" And the answer is "Don't destroy life for money."
  - stuff4ben 5y ago
    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. ALthough I do agree with "Don't destroy life for money". Cheers, have a great rest of your day!
    - carapace 5y ago
      Well met! Have a great day too.