Deep sea mining

[danlightbulb]

just look at how much mining we do on land...and how long we have done it and what mess it has made

What mess? Where do you propose we get our raw materials from? I assume you have a phone which contains gold (mined), lithium (mined), aluminium and steel alloys (mined).

 

[plasmahal]

Well, we need all these resources for the electric revolution, save the planet and all that. Deep sea mining is GRETA approved.

 

[Raymond Lin]

What mess? Where do you propose we get our raw materials from? I assume you have a phone which contains gold (mined), lithium (mined), aluminium and steel alloys (mined).

What mess? Look outside your front door, and by that I don't mean your actual front door, I mean around the world, and I don't mean holiday programs but places like Amazon forest. Look at the micro plastics in the oceans, look at the temperature rises.

Yes I have tech, and if we run out, so be it. You will be long dead before that happens, what do you care? Right?

 

[Freakbro]

I guess getting an asteroid into LEO for mining is technologically still too far away.

Would be preferable though.

 

[Mason-]

What point, you seem to think destruction of the natural world is fine so what is there to add. I think its stupid and im laughing at you because of that.

I think his argument is more pessimistic, rather we are part of the natural world and so it’s just nature doing nature. It’s like when some people say ‘the problem with humans is they’re selfish’ like it’s some profound statement. Yeah they are and if you believe in evolution it’s completely understandable why we, and all other life are selfish.

 

[danlightbulb]

What mess? Look outside your front door, and by that I don't mean your actual front door, I mean around the world, and I don't mean holiday programs but places like Amazon forest. Look at the micro plastics in the oceans, look at the temperature rises.

So you're against our whole industrialisation, not just mining operations?

Plastics littering the ocean is worse than controlled mining.

Deforestation of the Amazon is mostly consequence of animal and crop farming not mining.

 

[Freakbro]

These things don't really matter. So we destroy our environment, so what? The planet will still be here, life in some form will still be here long after we have gone. It may not be humans or whales but something will take its place.

Yea, but it's not surprising that humans care about the Earth's ability to continue to support humans, which is also fundamentaly linked to the rest of the Earth's ecosystem.

 

[Raymond Lin]

So you're against our whole industrialisation, not just mining operations?

Plastics littering the ocean is worse than controlled mining.

Deforestation of the Amazon is mostly consequence of animal and crop farming not mining.

Are you ranking them now? This is okay because there are worse offenders out there?

This isn't about industrialisation, this is about profit.

I am talking about we ruined this place enough already, it needs to set boundaries. What you are saying is, we have started it now, might as well finish the job.

 

[danlightbulb]

Are you ranking them now? This is okay because there are worse offenders out there?

This isn't about industrialisation, this is about profit.

I am talking about we ruined this place enough already, it needs to set boundaries. What you are saying is, we have started it now, might as well finish the job.

It's only the same profit that has been made in the past. As one resource is exhausted we need to find new ones to continue to grow.

That growth by the way, which is helping drive all of our pension schemes.

Nothing happens in isolation.

 

[Raymond Lin]

It's only the same profit that has been made in the past. As one resource is exhausted we need to find new ones to continue to grow.

That growth by the way, which is helping drive all of our pension schemes.

Nothing happens in isolation.

So we are agreement where we both are at then?

 

[Freakbro]

So it's OK to rape the planet leading to the extinction of the human race, because....pensions?

How about another solution of people dying a bit earlier so the species can survive

 

[Mr Jack]

Given how comprehensively we've already stuffed the oceans up, does it really matter?

I saw this graph today:

It's over kids; the environment lost. We may as well live it up while we can.

 

[adam cool dude]

I take it this is simply because of "international waters" and they can get away with things that they wouldn't be able to do on land.

I wouldn't mind if our government were using it as some form of income to put into good use like education, councils, NHS etc but the vast majority of this will go into the top 1% of the world and into private pockets.

 

[danlightbulb]

So it's OK to rape the planet leading to the extinction of the human race, because....pensions?

How about another solution of people dying a bit earlier so the species can survive

You can't have both! You can't say you're against mining whilst continuing to invest /draw from stocks and shares that rely on the profits/growth of industry. That would make you a hypocrite.

Life is trade offs. That's all it is. We are trading off a small part of the natural world for our own development. That isn't inherently bad even if it creates some localised negative effects.

Take the Dinorwig slate quarries in North Wales. You could look at that site (which is essentially a mountain with a chunk of one side missing where it's been quarried out for slate) and say that there should have been a lovely green mountain there with a sheep on it. Or you could look at it and admire the way that humans have changed the landscape and how nature and man have coexisted.

At the time of it's development in the 1800s, that site would have been dirty and polluting of the local water courses. But now it's beautiful in a way that is different from how it would have been naturally.

The bottom of the sea is different of course, no one will ever see it. But when people complain about open quarries on land, we need to get the raw materials from somewhere and the deep sea is a logical place to look if trying to minimise our visual impact on land.

 

[Mr Jack]

You can't have both! You can't say you're against mining whilst continuing to invest /draw from stocks and shares that rely on the profits/growth of industry. That would make you a hypocrite.

Back in the real world; the major driver of growth isn't extraction, it's innovation.

 

[danlightbulb]

I guess getting an asteroid into LEO for mining is technologically still too far away.

Would be preferable though.

Surely the risk is too great? What if we miscalculate the trajectory which causes that asteroid to hit us and wipe us out? Or what if the asteroid contains an inert life form that then deposits itself on the Earth from our mining materials and takes over the planet?

Nope, to be safe we better not do any asteroid mining, no deep sea mining, no land mining, no farming either, no taking water from water courses either, don't burn anything, don't produce anything.

 

[Freakbro]

Life is trade offs. That's all it is. We are trading off a small part of the natural world for our own development. That isn't inherently bad even if it creates some localised negative effects.

When you try and incorrectly frame it that way, then sure, we can see your viewpoint.

Wen look at what's actually happening though, then the negative effects are neither small nor localised

What are the extent and causes of biodiversity loss? - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

Today, biodiversity is in a state of crisis. This Explainer lists the main drivers of biodiversity loss and the impacts they are having.

www.lse.ac.uk

 

[danlightbulb]

Back in the real world; the major driver of growth isn't extraction, it's innovation.

We always need the raw materials though? Unless we can innovate some star trek replicators.

 

[potatolord]

It's being blown out of proportion as usual. A few companies mining the seabed is not going to destroy the planet, even if something bad happens. Just need to introduce some regulations and monitoring rather than it being a free for all (which is already the case as licences have to be issued). The chance of anything serious happening is probably similar to being struck by a whopping asteroid.

The issue is that the impact is unknown. There is no precedent, and little evidence. It may fatally damage food chains in the oceans. It may release large volumes of toxic chemicals. No-one knows.

As it is carried out at considerable depth, monitoring will be difficult, at best. Regulation is entirely new in this area, complicated by this being international waters. Both will be an extremely expensive undertaking, complicated by this being international waters.

It will be a free for all, where the winner will be whoever does it fastest. There is therefore an incentive to do quick and dirty.

 

[Mr Jack]

We always need the raw materials though? Unless we can innovate some star trek replicators.

Raw materials doesn't have to mean continued destructive extraction. Quite apart from the availability of sustainable alternatives, most materials are reusable. Lithium used in a lithium-ion battery is still lithium, copper used in a circuit is still copper, and so on.

The idea that growth is dependent on extraction is fundamentally wrong.