3 ms·

Scaled up at the continental level, like say, the Amazonian basin?

moffkalast 4y ago
Scaled beyond a single tree-sized entity I mean. Sure you can put a lot of trees together to do more, but each tree has to do its own small scale sourcing of water, sun, air, etc. You can take each part of that and make a sizable facility that's dedicated to only handling a specific part very efficiently. As an example, if the process needs electricity you could set up small self contained solar panel units, or you can produce a few magnitudes more with one nuclear powerplant. No point in digging a hole with a thousand spoons when an excavator can do it in one swoop.
- dopidopHN 4y ago
  I see, thanks for expanding on your point. Just a detail: forest are not tree next to each other’s. The relationship between organisms change the energy efficiency and life outcome of most of the participants.
- sidpatil 4y ago
  > Scaled beyond a single tree-sized entity I mean. Sure you can put a lot of trees together to do more, but each tree has to do its own small scale sourcing of water, sun, air, etc. Vertical versus horizontal scaling. > You can take each part of that and make a sizable facility that's dedicated to only handling a specific part very efficiently. As an example, if the process needs electricity you could set up small self contained solar panel units, or you can produce a few magnitudes more with one nuclear powerplant. No point in digging a hole with a thousand spoons when an excavator can do it in one swoop. Microservices versus monoliths.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Why use a sand blaster when you could polish something by hitting it with one huge rock? Why have thousands of individual car fuelling stations when everyone could drive to one giant one in the middle of the country? Why have a steam turbine in your nuclear plant with many small blades? If your thousand spoons work pretty much untended and cost half a million each, then an excavator that requires a crew of a thousand which costs ten billion is just as stupid as all of the above.

Scaled beyond a single tree-sized entity I mean. Sure you can put a lot of trees together to do more, but each tree has to do its own small scale sourcing of water, sun, air, etc. You can take each part of that and make a sizable facility that's dedicated to only handling a specific part very efficiently. As an example, if the process needs electricity you could set up small self contained solar panel units, or you can produce a few magnitudes more with one nuclear powerplant. No point in digging a hole with a thousand spoons when an excavator can do it in one swoop.

dopidopHN 4y ago
I see, thanks for expanding on your point. Just a detail: forest are not tree next to each other’s. The relationship between organisms change the energy efficiency and life outcome of most of the participants.
sidpatil 4y ago
> Scaled beyond a single tree-sized entity I mean. Sure you can put a lot of trees together to do more, but each tree has to do its own small scale sourcing of water, sun, air, etc. Vertical versus horizontal scaling. > You can take each part of that and make a sizable facility that's dedicated to only handling a specific part very efficiently. As an example, if the process needs electricity you could set up small self contained solar panel units, or you can produce a few magnitudes more with one nuclear powerplant. No point in digging a hole with a thousand spoons when an excavator can do it in one swoop. Microservices versus monoliths.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Why use a sand blaster when you could polish something by hitting it with one huge rock? Why have thousands of individual car fuelling stations when everyone could drive to one giant one in the middle of the country? Why have a steam turbine in your nuclear plant with many small blades? If your thousand spoons work pretty much untended and cost half a million each, then an excavator that requires a crew of a thousand which costs ten billion is just as stupid as all of the above.