Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#101

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 12:27 AM UTC

gajjanag wrote: post #85

bamboozled wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is flying really that bad compared to ocean pollution? I feel like flying is overall a pretty efficient means of transport, everything is geared towards efficiency. Plastic in the oceans, now that’s a mess.

The impact of flying has been very nicely estimated in the freely available book "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" by the late Prof. David MacKay FRS: http://withouthotair.com/c5/page_35.shtml and http://withouthotair.com/cC/page_269.shtml if you are interested in how he arrives at the estimate. The book also remarks upon how a (theoretical) revival of ocean liners would actually be worse.

[deleted]

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#102

Post by staunch » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 1:01 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #41

noiv wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, considering most of the atmospheric oxygen is produced by phytoplankton in the ocean that's a receipt for suffocation.

In a nutshell it is a very nice illustration of how easy misguided attempts to repair things can be worse than the original problem.

Actually, it's a very nice illustration of creative problem solving.

Your totally unnecessary commentary added nothing.

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#103

Post by CapitalistCartr » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 1:24 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #98

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have many more points of dependency. So a malfunction in the machinery of life is more likely to be disastrous the further up the pyramid one lives. At the apex of the pyramid, we are dependent on the entire pyramid being structurally sound. And consider: we are already in the midst of the worst die-off of species since the dinosaurs. So the pyramid is already crumbling.

> We have many more points of dependency. So a malfunction in the machinery of life is more likely to be disastrous the further up the pyramid one lives. You're just repeating the claim, and again, I do not follow the logic. Again, my question is: why would it be less disastrous if we were lower in the food chain? It would help to give an example of a species at a lower position in our food web and explain why, if we…

I'm not "just repeating the claim". If you're at the bottom of the pyramid, you only need sunlight and water. If half the animals die off, you're fine. The higher up you are, the more species below on which you are dependent. You're only dependent on what's below, not what's above. With us at the top, a 50% die-off would be catastrophic.

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#104

Post by mehrdadn » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 1:35 AM UTC

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #103

mehrdadn wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have many more points of dependency. So a malfunction in the machinery of life is more likely to be disastrous the further up the pyramid one lives. You're just repeating the claim, and again, I do not follow the logic. Again, my question is: why would it be less disastrous if we were lower in the food chain? It would help to give an example of a species at a lower position in our food web and explain why, if we…

I'm not "just repeating the claim". If you're at the bottom of the pyramid, you only need sunlight and water. If half the animals die off, you're fine. The higher up you are, the more species below on which you are dependent. You're only dependent on what's below, not what's above. With us at the top, a 50% die-off would be catastrophic.

In that case I believe you're saying something else, not answering the question I had asked. The sentence I replied to was this:

> as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly

Again, I repeat my question: if we were lower in the food web, wouldn't we still depend on branches of the food web lower than you? That seems to be true regardless of where you are on the food web. In fact, wouldn't we be more susceptible to harm if we had fewer possible sources of food? One would expect that the fewer alternatives we have, the worse off we would be, right?