I thought the article was reasonably upfront about the limitations of the use of total biomass as a measure of ecological value. But the subtitle, unfortunately

I thought the article was reasonably upfront about the limitations of the use of total biomass as a measure of ecological value. But the subtitle, unfortunately, omits those details. There is a bit of "until next time" in all of this: nickel only covers a small part of the ocean floor, and humanity is not normally interested in exploitation down there, meaning that the vast majority of the seabed will remain intact. But we have to be aware as a society that the first time we extract a resource somewhere is almost never the last.