> But you can't just deride people for being concerned about industry since industry, or more generally, the immense energy requirements needed for (and wasted

> But you can't just deride people for being concerned about industry since industry, or more generally, the immense energy requirements needed for (and wasted by) an (increasingly less) western lifestyle, is is the source of the problem in the first place. The point is that seaweed is actually less intensive than other forms of agriculture, though, so replacing other industrial agriculture with seaweed agriculture is a net decrease in intensity. It's similar to EV's: you still need to damage the environment to produce and operate them, but they cause less damage than ICE vehicles, so substitution is a net win. Another comparison would be when people complain about building tall apartment/condo towers "hurting the environment". Sure, it probably does hurt compared to doing nothing, but the alternative isn't nothing, it's lower density sprawl that hurts nature far more. This is why being opposed to urban density is a fundamentally anti-environmental position. Same deal for seaweed scaling. If you're opposed to scaling up the thing that hurts the environment less, then you're in favor of hurting the environment.