4 ms·

I feel you're a bit off base, and are just being negative. Roger Bradbury may be trying to get his research funded but he's also trying to make a difference. Yo

I feel you're a bit off base, and are just being negative. Roger Bradbury may be trying to get his research funded but he's also trying to make a difference. You're just trying to out him as some kind of greedy scientist. He's right, we're loosing our reefs. He's also trying to research possible ways to keep a resemblance of what they once were around for future enjoyment. There is nothing wrong with that, and quite frankly it reads at worst like a kickstarter page for science.

javajosh 14y ago
Fine, then make a difference. "Fund research more to study the problem more" is NOT a solution. Give me solutions. Don't say "Big hairy problem, no solutions, but fund me to keep looking at it." If more people had my attitude then maybe we'd not only get to see the pile of shit (the disappearing reef problem) but also some shovels (real ways we can help fix the problem). I'm not interested in getting all into the details of the pile of shit, I just want a shovel, so give me one. Edit: actually a kickstarter page for science is a great idea. Even better would be a kickstarter page for making chemicals that can be dropped into the ocean to safeguard reefs. Or a kickstarter page for lobbying government to tighten regulations on run-off or global warming. Or a kickstarter page for stimulating reef growth with low-level electric impulses (which is a real thing). What about a solar powered bouy that stimulates reef growth? There's a ton of stuff to do other than "study it more".
- dustyreagan 14y ago
  Kickstarter for science: http://www.petridish.org/ http://www.petridish.org/ How do you propose we know what actions to take without first studying the problem? If your car breaks down, you don't immediately start disassembling the car, you troubleshoot (study the problem, if you will), then apply a reasonable solution.
- dbaupp 14y ago
  How do you propose to solve it then? The point of the further study is to work out what solutions are going to be the most effective. Saying "give me solutions" will likely result in a second rate solution that is optimal for neither humans nor the reef.
  - javajosh 14y ago
    I propose to solve the problem by putting pressure on researchers. Researchers are all about looking at things, and they get all excited about something, but their only response is to look more at those things. It's time to motivate researchers to encourage behavior other than looking more at stuff when you see a problem. If you can't even begin to identify possible corrective actions, then you have no basis in which to claim there is a possible problem in the first place. Whatever the problem is, poverty, health, environmental destruction - if the problem cannot be addressed than why even bring it up? Cancer is a good example. It's a problem, it doesn't have a good solution, but we talk about it anyway. Does this explode my theory? No. Because there is no cancer research that is trying to prove that cancer is a problem. We already know that. The only cancer research that goes on is the kind designed to stop cancer. Needless to say, I would not support any research into how cancer is bad, but would support research into how to stop cancer. In the same way, I would not support research into looking further into how coral reef destruction is real and it's bad, but I would support research into how to slow, stop, and reverse coral reef destruction (without causing lots of other problems, of course). Downvote me, I don't care.
    - samfoo 14y ago
      Without exploring/understanding a problem space, how would you propose the formation of solutions occur? Moreover, you're ignoring that to get corrective action against entrenched financial/economic incentives requires overwhelming proof of a problem and public sympathy.
    - swa14 14y ago
      >>if the problem cannot be addressed than why even bring it up? Because an engineer (not a research scientist) somewhere, given the right model, and access to the right information, has a basis on which to start working on a solution. >>Downvote me, I don't care. You have a very serious misunderstanding about the scientific process and its interaction with other disciplines it seems. Or to put it more bluntly. Cancer is a punishment from God, not a "problem", no investigation warranted, case closed. So let's all get back to devising scientific methods for determining who's a witch, a real problem that can at least be addressed directly and is beneficial to society.
- kaybe 14y ago
  And here's where you run into politics. Solutions will be hard - stop emitting CO2 and take better care of the oceans, apparently we get a big do not want on this, or additional measures such as climate engineering which will lead to somewhat unpredictable results because the system is not fully understood and may have unequal results on different regions of the world, creating people who profit and people who get disadvantages. Both ways are not something scientists can just decree, because it affects everyone, and you run into international relations and cultural differences very soon. If you want, have a look at some ideas for solutions that actually were published in scientific literature (slides from a lecture): http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/lehre/Climate_Engineering/ http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/lehr... And before you say it doesn't talk about the ocean - CO2 levels and ocean acidicity are linked very directly. edit: Page 26 in the first file is a long set of reasons why climate engineering might be a bad idea.

javajosh 14y ago

Fine, then make a difference. "Fund research more to study the problem more" is NOT a solution. Give me solutions. Don't say "Big hairy problem, no solutions, but fund me to keep looking at it." If more people had my attitude then maybe we'd not only get to see the pile of shit (the disappearing reef problem) but also some shovels (real ways we can help fix the problem). I'm not interested in getting all into the details of the pile of shit, I just want a shovel, so give me one. Edit: actually a kickstarter page for science is a great idea. Even better would be a kickstarter page for making chemicals that can be dropped into the ocean to safeguard reefs. Or a kickstarter page for lobbying government to tighten regulations on run-off or global warming. Or a kickstarter page for stimulating reef growth with low-level electric impulses (which is a real thing). What about a solar powered bouy that stimulates reef growth? There's a ton of stuff to do other than "study it more".

dustyreagan 14y ago
Kickstarter for science: http://www.petridish.org/ http://www.petridish.org/ How do you propose we know what actions to take without first studying the problem? If your car breaks down, you don't immediately start disassembling the car, you troubleshoot (study the problem, if you will), then apply a reasonable solution.
dbaupp 14y ago
How do you propose to solve it then? The point of the further study is to work out what solutions are going to be the most effective. Saying "give me solutions" will likely result in a second rate solution that is optimal for neither humans nor the reef.
- javajosh 14y ago
  I propose to solve the problem by putting pressure on researchers. Researchers are all about looking at things, and they get all excited about something, but their only response is to look more at those things. It's time to motivate researchers to encourage behavior other than looking more at stuff when you see a problem. If you can't even begin to identify possible corrective actions, then you have no basis in which to claim there is a possible problem in the first place. Whatever the problem is, poverty, health, environmental destruction - if the problem cannot be addressed than why even bring it up? Cancer is a good example. It's a problem, it doesn't have a good solution, but we talk about it anyway. Does this explode my theory? No. Because there is no cancer research that is trying to prove that cancer is a problem. We already know that. The only cancer research that goes on is the kind designed to stop cancer. Needless to say, I would not support any research into how cancer is bad, but would support research into how to stop cancer. In the same way, I would not support research into looking further into how coral reef destruction is real and it's bad, but I would support research into how to slow, stop, and reverse coral reef destruction (without causing lots of other problems, of course). Downvote me, I don't care.
  - samfoo 14y ago
    Without exploring/understanding a problem space, how would you propose the formation of solutions occur? Moreover, you're ignoring that to get corrective action against entrenched financial/economic incentives requires overwhelming proof of a problem and public sympathy.
  - swa14 14y ago
    >>if the problem cannot be addressed than why even bring it up? Because an engineer (not a research scientist) somewhere, given the right model, and access to the right information, has a basis on which to start working on a solution. >>Downvote me, I don't care. You have a very serious misunderstanding about the scientific process and its interaction with other disciplines it seems. Or to put it more bluntly. Cancer is a punishment from God, not a "problem", no investigation warranted, case closed. So let's all get back to devising scientific methods for determining who's a witch, a real problem that can at least be addressed directly and is beneficial to society.
kaybe 14y ago
And here's where you run into politics. Solutions will be hard - stop emitting CO2 and take better care of the oceans, apparently we get a big do not want on this, or additional measures such as climate engineering which will lead to somewhat unpredictable results because the system is not fully understood and may have unequal results on different regions of the world, creating people who profit and people who get disadvantages. Both ways are not something scientists can just decree, because it affects everyone, and you run into international relations and cultural differences very soon. If you want, have a look at some ideas for solutions that actually were published in scientific literature (slides from a lecture): http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/lehre/Climate_Engineering/ http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/lehr... And before you say it doesn't talk about the ocean - CO2 levels and ocean acidicity are linked very directly. edit: Page 26 in the first file is a long set of reasons why climate engineering might be a bad idea.