4 ms·

The comparison to a WW2 tank in the Black Forest isn't great though, because the environments live on different timescales. A forest can regrow and thrive afte

The comparison to a WW2 tank in the Black Forest isn't great though, because the environments live on different timescales. A forest can regrow and thrive after a few decades. The same is _not_ true for the deep sea[1]. 'Life on the ocean floor moves at a glacial pace. Sediment accumulates at a rate of 1 millimeter every millennium. With such a slow rate of growth, areas disturbed by deep-sea mining would be unlikely to recover on a reasonable timescale.' [1]: https://news.mit.edu/2019/understanding-impact-deep-sea-mining-1206 https://news.mit.edu/2019/understanding-impact-deep-sea-mini...

seiferteric 5y ago
Are they mining in sensitive areas? Isn't there an equivalent of an underwater deserts with little life/biodiversity? Not to diminish this idea, but the ocean covers >70% of the earth so I would think this could be done somewhere with relatively little impact, but maybe I am wrong.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  This area with nothing in it sounds like the oil spill “outside the environment” in the very excellent comedy skit “The Front Fell Off”. https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM Edit: Linked to official channel. Thank you for the correction.
  - seiferteric 5y ago
    Not really. We already mine on land that covers only 30% of earth, I would think that would have a much bigger impact. Second, and oil spill spreads far and wide contaminating a vast area. All I am saying is mining can in theory be contained to a much smaller area.
  - mcfoobar 5y ago
    Might be nice to link to the official Clarke and Dawe channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM ) rather than some knock off reupload. RIP John Clarke.
- jascii 5y ago
  I'm not sure our knowledge of the ocean is sufficient at this point to designate an area as "non sensitive".
pvaldes 5y ago
And no fish nurseries in deep waters mean not mesopelagic fish. We could distroy it in a week, and the negative consequences over the human famine would be basically permanent. It just does not worth it.

seiferteric 5y ago

Are they mining in sensitive areas? Isn't there an equivalent of an underwater deserts with little life/biodiversity? Not to diminish this idea, but the ocean covers >70% of the earth so I would think this could be done somewhere with relatively little impact, but maybe I am wrong.

lostlogin 5y ago
This area with nothing in it sounds like the oil spill “outside the environment” in the very excellent comedy skit “The Front Fell Off”. https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM Edit: Linked to official channel. Thank you for the correction.
- seiferteric 5y ago
  Not really. We already mine on land that covers only 30% of earth, I would think that would have a much bigger impact. Second, and oil spill spreads far and wide contaminating a vast area. All I am saying is mining can in theory be contained to a much smaller area.
- mcfoobar 5y ago
  Might be nice to link to the official Clarke and Dawe channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM ) rather than some knock off reupload. RIP John Clarke.
jascii 5y ago
I'm not sure our knowledge of the ocean is sufficient at this point to designate an area as "non sensitive".

pvaldes 5y ago

And no fish nurseries in deep waters mean not mesopelagic fish. We could distroy it in a week, and the negative consequences over the human famine would be basically permanent. It just does not worth it.