4 ms·

Carbon dioxide is good for trees. This will continue the planetary greening which has been occurring over the past few decades thanks to human activity. Trees a

Carbon dioxide is good for trees. This will continue the planetary greening which has been occurring over the past few decades thanks to human activity. Trees are very good at adapting to and compensating for additional carbon dioxide. I look forward to further decentralization of forests and an overall greener planet. BTW, the science behind planetary greening is that higher carbon dioxide helps plants to be more water-efficient. This allows them to grow in areas which would otherwise have been too dry for them. https://theconversation.com/rising-carbon-dioxide-is-making-the-worlds-plants-more-water-wise-79427 https://theconversation.com/rising-carbon-dioxide-is-making-... "Evolution is cleverer than you are" - Leslie Orgel

helen___keller 5y ago
> I look forward to further decentralization of forests This sounds like something that you would read in a whitepaper for TreeCoin
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lm28469 5y ago
I think the trees are good dude: https://ourworldindata.org/exports/global-co2-concentration-ppm_v6_850x600.svg https://ourworldindata.org/exports/global-co2-concentration-... Water is also good for you, yet you don't live at the bottom of the atlantic ocean.
redpiller 5y ago
People who are downvoting this are selfish tree killers. Collecting carbon offset money in exchange for planting trees in suboptimal locations is pointless when nature already handles this by itself much faster and more efficiently than all humanity ever could... Also, unlike people, nature does it free of charge... No hidden motives. Humans are the most wasteful and most arrogant species in existence. Look at any other species in existence, they consume very few natural resources by comparison. Why then do humans exist? Maybe nature needed us to increase CO2 levels to maintain the balance. It's arrogant to see ourselves as the center when in fact nature has always been at the center and will always be. We are mere pawns serving nature's intended purpose of balancing the ecosystem. First, humans thought they were at the center of the universe and solar system, now they think they're at the center of the planet. Science will force us to keep conceding to how pathetic we are... Most people can't even control themselves, why are they trying to control the planet?
imtringued 5y ago
You're assuming that trees can always grow faster than humans can destroy them. That may be true for 8 billion humans at current living standards but if the population grows or the living standards improve humans will figure out a way to destroy those trees very quickly.
- redpiller 5y ago
  Even NASA concedes that the last 20 years has seen the planet become greener. Humans planting trees for reforestation have almost nothing to do with that trend. People are trying to claim credit for things they have nothing to do with. The surface area of the earth is absolutely massive. Humans likely occupy less than 2% of it. Even if all humanity was mobilozed to planting trees 24/7 with the most advanced machines imaginable, our labor would mean nothing compared to what birds could do on their own by merely shitting on new pieces of fertile soil and thus inadvertantly planting the plant seeds that they consumed a few hours earlier. Birds do more for nature using only their assholes than humanity could do with their entire beings... The birds don't even need to think about it.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    > Even NASA concedes that the last 20 years has seen the planet become greener. Humans planting trees for reforestation have almost nothing to do with that trend. Are you sure, from nasa.gov itself: > which is thought to be due to intensive agriculture to feed growing populations and ambitious tree-planting programs https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates... > Birds do more for nature using only their assholes than humanity could do with their entire beings.. And what do humans do to birds ? > Human activity is the greatest cause of bird extinction around the world. The top human causes of bird extinction involve: the increased human population, destruction of habitat (through development for habitation, logging, animal and single-crop agriculture, and invasive plants), ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_extinction
    - redpiller 5y ago
bonzini 5y ago
In the immortal words of George Carlin, "The Planet is fine, the people are fucked".
- travisjungroth 5y ago
  To me, the idea that Mother Earth is giving birth to something is very clear. I just don't know how that birth is going to end up. Will the child kill the mother? Will they both die? And what is being born? Maybe it's a space-fairing race of humans. Or maybe humans are just the eggshell that machine consciousness will break on its way out.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > In the immortal words of George Carlin, "The Planet is fine, the people are fucked" It is well within humanity's capacity to, potentially permanently but at least for tens of millions of years, end the Earth's ability to host macroscopic life. Within a few decades, we'll likely have the ability to end the Earth's life-supporting ability period. I get the message behind the meme. But unfortunately, our actions have consequences beyond our selves. It's easier to think we're just fucking our own when in fact we're doing much worse.
  - rimliu 5y ago
    We could not end Earth's ability to support life even if we tried our best at it.
    - pritambaral 5y ago
      Not even with all-out nuclear warfare?
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > Not even with all-out nuclear warfare? We don't even have enough nukes to wipe out the human race, let alone the biosphere. Building enough to would likely need more uranium than we can access with known technology.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
That's the theory, but forests won't grow if they've been cut down and the ground is used to grow soy. There are big re-greening projects going on in China and Africa to try and stop the encroaching of the deserts there though (due to deforestation and agriculture). They HAVE to add forests, else they'll get the same thing that happened in the US early 1900's, the Dust Bowl where a lot of fertile ground just blew away because there was nothing holding it down.
smallerfish 5y ago
> "Evolution is cleverer than you are" - Leslie Orgel Evolution also works at longer timescales than we do. Sure we may end up with 60 foot ferns again 10k years from now as plant life rebounds in the carbon rich atmosphere, but that doesn't help your grandkids.
- redpiller 5y ago
  This is nonsense. Evolution can radically change a species in just one generation if the selective pressures are strong enough. For example, if the world governments sterilized every human on the planet except dwarves, in just 1 generation the average human would be half as tall. With strong selective pressure, 1 generation is all it takes for the species to change radically. Evolution doesn't care about your timelines. Again, it's cleverer than you are.
bouncycastle 5y ago
CO2 may be good for plants, but plants cannot grow if the temperature gets too hot or their soil gets flooded by sea water.
titzer 5y ago
> Carbon dioxide is good for trees. Literally the first hit on Google for this phrase is exactly about this [1]. [1] https://theconversation.com/yes-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-helps-plants-grow-but-its-no-excuse-to-downplay-climate-change-130603 https://theconversation.com/yes-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-a... You're repeating easily debunked denialist talking points and claiming insight when people have studied this problem for decades and discovered that no, on balance, abrupt changes in CO2 are not good for our biosphere.
- redpiller 5y ago
  Every single point in that article reinforces my point... Aside from some hand-wavy warnings which try to appeal to people's emotions that it's not a reason to be complacent. I don't know how you can read that article and come up with the conclusion that it's 'debunked denialist talking points' - That is 100% emotional appeal. There is no logic behind it. There are financial incentives on both sides. At the end of the day, you have to look at the facts.

helen___keller 5y ago

> I look forward to further decentralization of forests This sounds like something that you would read in a whitepaper for TreeCoin

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lm28469 5y ago

I think the trees are good dude: https://ourworldindata.org/exports/global-co2-concentration-ppm_v6_850x600.svg https://ourworldindata.org/exports/global-co2-concentration-... Water is also good for you, yet you don't live at the bottom of the atlantic ocean.

redpiller 5y ago

People who are downvoting this are selfish tree killers. Collecting carbon offset money in exchange for planting trees in suboptimal locations is pointless when nature already handles this by itself much faster and more efficiently than all humanity ever could... Also, unlike people, nature does it free of charge... No hidden motives. Humans are the most wasteful and most arrogant species in existence. Look at any other species in existence, they consume very few natural resources by comparison. Why then do humans exist? Maybe nature needed us to increase CO2 levels to maintain the balance. It's arrogant to see ourselves as the center when in fact nature has always been at the center and will always be. We are mere pawns serving nature's intended purpose of balancing the ecosystem. First, humans thought they were at the center of the universe and solar system, now they think they're at the center of the planet. Science will force us to keep conceding to how pathetic we are... Most people can't even control themselves, why are they trying to control the planet?

imtringued 5y ago

You're assuming that trees can always grow faster than humans can destroy them. That may be true for 8 billion humans at current living standards but if the population grows or the living standards improve humans will figure out a way to destroy those trees very quickly.

redpiller 5y ago
Even NASA concedes that the last 20 years has seen the planet become greener. Humans planting trees for reforestation have almost nothing to do with that trend. People are trying to claim credit for things they have nothing to do with. The surface area of the earth is absolutely massive. Humans likely occupy less than 2% of it. Even if all humanity was mobilozed to planting trees 24/7 with the most advanced machines imaginable, our labor would mean nothing compared to what birds could do on their own by merely shitting on new pieces of fertile soil and thus inadvertantly planting the plant seeds that they consumed a few hours earlier. Birds do more for nature using only their assholes than humanity could do with their entire beings... The birds don't even need to think about it.
- lm28469 5y ago
  > Even NASA concedes that the last 20 years has seen the planet become greener. Humans planting trees for reforestation have almost nothing to do with that trend. Are you sure, from nasa.gov itself: > which is thought to be due to intensive agriculture to feed growing populations and ambitious tree-planting programs https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates... > Birds do more for nature using only their assholes than humanity could do with their entire beings.. And what do humans do to birds ? > Human activity is the greatest cause of bird extinction around the world. The top human causes of bird extinction involve: the increased human population, destruction of habitat (through development for habitation, logging, animal and single-crop agriculture, and invasive plants), ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_extinction
  - redpiller 5y ago

bonzini 5y ago

In the immortal words of George Carlin, "The Planet is fine, the people are fucked".

travisjungroth 5y ago
To me, the idea that Mother Earth is giving birth to something is very clear. I just don't know how that birth is going to end up. Will the child kill the mother? Will they both die? And what is being born? Maybe it's a space-fairing race of humans. Or maybe humans are just the eggshell that machine consciousness will break on its way out.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> In the immortal words of George Carlin, "The Planet is fine, the people are fucked" It is well within humanity's capacity to, potentially permanently but at least for tens of millions of years, end the Earth's ability to host macroscopic life. Within a few decades, we'll likely have the ability to end the Earth's life-supporting ability period. I get the message behind the meme. But unfortunately, our actions have consequences beyond our selves. It's easier to think we're just fucking our own when in fact we're doing much worse.
- rimliu 5y ago
  We could not end Earth's ability to support life even if we tried our best at it.
  - pritambaral 5y ago
    Not even with all-out nuclear warfare?
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > Not even with all-out nuclear warfare? We don't even have enough nukes to wipe out the human race, let alone the biosphere. Building enough to would likely need more uranium than we can access with known technology.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

That's the theory, but forests won't grow if they've been cut down and the ground is used to grow soy. There are big re-greening projects going on in China and Africa to try and stop the encroaching of the deserts there though (due to deforestation and agriculture). They HAVE to add forests, else they'll get the same thing that happened in the US early 1900's, the Dust Bowl where a lot of fertile ground just blew away because there was nothing holding it down.

smallerfish 5y ago

> "Evolution is cleverer than you are" - Leslie Orgel Evolution also works at longer timescales than we do. Sure we may end up with 60 foot ferns again 10k years from now as plant life rebounds in the carbon rich atmosphere, but that doesn't help your grandkids.

redpiller 5y ago
This is nonsense. Evolution can radically change a species in just one generation if the selective pressures are strong enough. For example, if the world governments sterilized every human on the planet except dwarves, in just 1 generation the average human would be half as tall. With strong selective pressure, 1 generation is all it takes for the species to change radically. Evolution doesn't care about your timelines. Again, it's cleverer than you are.

bouncycastle 5y ago

CO2 may be good for plants, but plants cannot grow if the temperature gets too hot or their soil gets flooded by sea water.

titzer 5y ago

> Carbon dioxide is good for trees. Literally the first hit on Google for this phrase is exactly about this [1]. [1] https://theconversation.com/yes-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-helps-plants-grow-but-its-no-excuse-to-downplay-climate-change-130603 https://theconversation.com/yes-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-a... You're repeating easily debunked denialist talking points and claiming insight when people have studied this problem for decades and discovered that no, on balance, abrupt changes in CO2 are not good for our biosphere.

redpiller 5y ago
Every single point in that article reinforces my point... Aside from some hand-wavy warnings which try to appeal to people's emotions that it's not a reason to be complacent. I don't know how you can read that article and come up with the conclusion that it's 'debunked denialist talking points' - That is 100% emotional appeal. There is no logic behind it. There are financial incentives on both sides. At the end of the day, you have to look at the facts.