Science Memes

12351 readers

3436 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

398

Entropy? Never heard of it. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

154 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Ok, but how about we do more than trees? Why are you on the internet when pre-linguistic grunting works just fine?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

If you can find a more efficient, less expensive way to physically sequester carbon from the atmosphere than letting forests grow, I'm sure there's a lot of awards you could win

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why does it have to be cheaper? Why not both?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because if it isn't cheaper than simply growing trees, the money would be better spent simply growing trees

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And places trees don't grow?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Try thinking for a second.

Places where trees don't grow are probably not the best places for carbon sequestration if you can't sequester carbon there cheaper or easier than sequestering carbon in trees elsewhere

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

You could cause a massive death event in the West/developed nations plus China and India which would slow things a lot though I'd argue killing billions isn't the ideal solution.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

The point of my comment is that if trees wouldn't exist, they would seem like some futuristic sci-fi solution too good to be true. Just because something is shiny new tech, it isn't automatically better. Sure, just planting trees won't save us if we release all the carbon that is already captured in the form of fossil fuels, but how about we stop releasing all the carbon that is already captured in the form of fossil fuels?