• 0 Posts
  • 126 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024

help-circle
  • mojo_raisin@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldOlympic Diversity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I mean, they’re on FB, so ya, they probably thought something like that, if their thoughts even went beyond the words themselves.

    It’s like imagining what a lizard thinks about you, it’s easy and fun to project your intelligence on it, this is what you’re doing here. You’re projecting your intelligence and logic on others apparently without that capacity. Those FB people didn’t think about what their words meant any more than a lizard wonders about your nature.




  • mojo_raisin@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldWould be cool
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The only carbon sequestration that makes any sense is small-scale, on-site or local (so you can avoid transport) biochar production via retort.

    –> Biochar if you’re not familiar is similar to charcoal, it’s a form of “carbon black” that is elemental (isn’t going to decompose or oxidize and contribute to climate change) and when added to soil helps plants (by acting as a sponge for water, nutrients, bacteria) while sequestering carbon for millennia in the soil.

    For example, a landscaping company that burns it’s waste to fuel a biochar retort and then using the resulting biochar to amend the soil used in the landscaping operations. (Think in cycles)

    –> A biochar retort is form of furnace or fire pit that uses the flammable gasses produced by pyrolizing organic materials to fuel itself.

    –> Pyrolysis is decomposition of organic material with high heat and no oxygen. It produces gases like methane which are burned in the retort producing particulates, CO2 and water (and that carbon does go back into the cycle) and leaves behind large amounts of elemental carbon black that is not going to contribute to climate change.

    Sequestration by millions of backyard gardeners and little landscaping companies doing a little is better than trying to do it on a large scale because the large scale requires (as you note) resources. Hundreds of engineers and architects and workers driving to work for years so they can design and build a large device made of metal (that had to be mined, smelted, and shipped) and likely has an accompanying parking lot and office building would take years to break even sequestering as much carbon as it took to design and build it.

    Sequestration as I describe here doesn’t require much. For example, I make biochar using coffee cans in my fire pit .

    Q: But won’t burning some of the waste in the retort to heat the biochar contribute to climate change?

    A: Any carbon in landscaping wastes, unless sequestered, is going to decompose into carbon dioxide (e.g. composting). Burning doesn’t add any extra carbon, it’s just that burning is a faster reaction than composting (but both burning and composting are part of the short term carbon cycle, biochar is not) . But because this burning is done to fuel pyrolysis it’s part of an efficient process.

    The real danger from burning the waste is particulate pollution, but that could be controlled with common scrubbers tech.



  • I not sure this is true.

    As I understand, humans have an extremely acidic stomach compared to other animals, even carnivores. Our stomach acid is on the level of scavengers, and this is to kill bacteria and parasites in the food we eat. Humans could be more tolerant of spoiled food than most other species.

    The modern western diet/lifestyle can damage our digestive tract in ways that affect our pH and microbiome making us susceptible to what we should normally be tolerant of. Anyone taking antacids or dealing with heartburn type issues I would expect to more vulnerable to food poisoning since any pathogens can more easily pass deeper into their digestive tract.

    The short digestive tract in a dog is all that is needed to extract nutrients from animal sources, digesting plants requires help from a microbiome and they need somewhere to live and do their work, this is why plant eaters have extensive digestive tracts that are not very acidic so they don’t kill them off. Humans (not sure about other animals) neutralize the “chime” exiting your stomach so that it’s pH is appropriate for the microbiome living in the intestines.

    The human digestive tract suggest sit evolved for adaptability, a healthy human can safely eat anything from carrion (not saying it’s fine, just that we evolved to be able to survive it), be a vegetarian, or eat mostly meat and thrive.








  • I don’t disagree with you, but this is unrealistic.

    But…we don’t have a choice if we are to survive. Continuation with any system like our current system (i.e. exploitation of nature for economic growth) will lead to obvious ecological collapse. Why is certain ecological collapse viewed as the more realistic choice?

    This is akin to a person well on their way to a heart attack saying “well, eating healthy is unrealistic, so let’s switch to diet coke and pretend that’s enough”