8 ms·

The argument I've seen is that the amount of seabed that has the required minerals is not big and the surface of the earth is predominantly covered by water so

by t43562 3y ago

The argument I've seen is that the amount of seabed that has the required minerals is not big and the surface of the earth is predominantly covered by water so as a percentage of what's there the mined area is small. I would like to know how bad mining that area is compared that to the damage we will do continuing with internal combustion engines if we don't solve the climate issue, or mining the same things on land. To me it seems we're entering a time when no choice is a nice one.

CyanBird 3y ago
And the counter argument to the "amount of area '' not being big ''" is that the zones that will be mined are precisely the richest in ecological interactions and less understood ones, they are the zones with underwater volcanic chimneys If someone came and said that they want to drag mine/open pit mine the Yellowstone geysers bc of how rich they are with minerals and said as an argument "hey it is just a small part of the park!" I don't believe that many people would be inclined to accept that "argument"....
- t43562 3y ago
  Yellowstone is precious because land without people on it is precious. The sea covers 71 percent of the earths surface and has no humans on it anywhere. The areas with nodules containing the the right stuff is very small from my memory - haven't got a reference. So is the damage going to spread wider than that area? I can see why people want to study it. I just don't reject the idea as I think the climate situation is a lot more critical than people like to imagine and we should have options.
_heimdall 3y ago
There still one good choice, just use less power. We're collectively running in circles trying to find a replacement for oil that allows us to continue to increase our energy use. That's an extremely difficult challenge and one that paints us into a corner. The underlying problem is that energy use and GDP are directly correlated, and modern economics don't allow for a possibility of decreasing GDP. As long as we refuse to change that assumption we're left only with a future of using more energy from a different source. I don't really think its a meaningful difference long term where we cause the environmental damage. If we really want to make a change we collectively need to embrace a future where energy isn't limitless and growth isn't the goal in and of itself.
- t43562 3y ago
  That could require people to die. Also you cannot make people who are poor not want to better their lives even if it costs in the long term. How would you force them? They are going to try one way or another and all we can do is find a better way.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Any solution could lead to some deaths, as could doing nothing. There's plenty of power use that isn't necessary and could be cut with little or no meaningful impact. More so for the poor, they likely aren't part of the wasted power consumption that would even be the low hanging fruit. In the US particularly, we seem to strive to build large single family homes. Those are a massive waste of resources, from the materials to build and maintain the structure to the power it takes to run the home. We don't have to travel nearly as much as we chose to. We don't need LLMs, technology with 2-3 year lifespans, or "fast fashion" cloths that fall apart in a season. We don't need vacations that include flying to some far away place, cruise boats, or roller coasters. Sure there are sacrifices in giving up any of these, but any risk of deaths would be second or third order effects related to economic impact. There's just so many things we could easily give up if we cared to without risking serious impacts before we have to worry about risking leaving the poor behind or directly requiring deaths in some way.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      The fact that those things are not given up shows that people, at least for now, care about having them. Going back to societies that were very prescriptive of what everyone can or cannot have because of some central decision on "need" were not necessarily the nicest places to live in - not sure we should attempt to go there again.
      - kiba 3y ago
        It could just easily shows that people don't have choice. After all, state and local authorities decreed how much parking there should be and how zoning works. Meanwhile, the feds provided funding for an interstate system in which highways destroyed whole neighborhoods in the process. Our choices are shaped by the available options people have, sometime very little choices at all. Given that some countries are richer or poorer than other, and some countries are better at public transits than other, I find it hard to believe that the status quo can be justified by people merely making 'choices'.
chii 3y ago
i've heard that clouding up the seabed has some bad effects that will be difficult to restore or prevent. Such as long acting changes to the sea food cycle which affects fish stocks etc. I personally prefer that we mine asteroids...

by t43562 3y ago

CyanBird 3y ago

And the counter argument to the "amount of area '' not being big ''" is that the zones that will be mined are precisely the richest in ecological interactions and less understood ones, they are the zones with underwater volcanic chimneys If someone came and said that they want to drag mine/open pit mine the Yellowstone geysers bc of how rich they are with minerals and said as an argument "hey it is just a small part of the park!" I don't believe that many people would be inclined to accept that "argument"....

t43562 3y ago
Yellowstone is precious because land without people on it is precious. The sea covers 71 percent of the earths surface and has no humans on it anywhere. The areas with nodules containing the the right stuff is very small from my memory - haven't got a reference. So is the damage going to spread wider than that area? I can see why people want to study it. I just don't reject the idea as I think the climate situation is a lot more critical than people like to imagine and we should have options.

_heimdall 3y ago

There still one good choice, just use less power. We're collectively running in circles trying to find a replacement for oil that allows us to continue to increase our energy use. That's an extremely difficult challenge and one that paints us into a corner. The underlying problem is that energy use and GDP are directly correlated, and modern economics don't allow for a possibility of decreasing GDP. As long as we refuse to change that assumption we're left only with a future of using more energy from a different source. I don't really think its a meaningful difference long term where we cause the environmental damage. If we really want to make a change we collectively need to embrace a future where energy isn't limitless and growth isn't the goal in and of itself.

t43562 3y ago
That could require people to die. Also you cannot make people who are poor not want to better their lives even if it costs in the long term. How would you force them? They are going to try one way or another and all we can do is find a better way.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Any solution could lead to some deaths, as could doing nothing. There's plenty of power use that isn't necessary and could be cut with little or no meaningful impact. More so for the poor, they likely aren't part of the wasted power consumption that would even be the low hanging fruit. In the US particularly, we seem to strive to build large single family homes. Those are a massive waste of resources, from the materials to build and maintain the structure to the power it takes to run the home. We don't have to travel nearly as much as we chose to. We don't need LLMs, technology with 2-3 year lifespans, or "fast fashion" cloths that fall apart in a season. We don't need vacations that include flying to some far away place, cruise boats, or roller coasters. Sure there are sacrifices in giving up any of these, but any risk of deaths would be second or third order effects related to economic impact. There's just so many things we could easily give up if we cared to without risking serious impacts before we have to worry about risking leaving the poor behind or directly requiring deaths in some way.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    The fact that those things are not given up shows that people, at least for now, care about having them. Going back to societies that were very prescriptive of what everyone can or cannot have because of some central decision on "need" were not necessarily the nicest places to live in - not sure we should attempt to go there again.
    - kiba 3y ago
      It could just easily shows that people don't have choice. After all, state and local authorities decreed how much parking there should be and how zoning works. Meanwhile, the feds provided funding for an interstate system in which highways destroyed whole neighborhoods in the process. Our choices are shaped by the available options people have, sometime very little choices at all. Given that some countries are richer or poorer than other, and some countries are better at public transits than other, I find it hard to believe that the status quo can be justified by people merely making 'choices'.

chii 3y ago

i've heard that clouding up the seabed has some bad effects that will be difficult to restore or prevent. Such as long acting changes to the sea food cycle which affects fish stocks etc. I personally prefer that we mine asteroids...