Anonymous #1 1d

No sustainability in mining operations, no matter how many try, it will never happen. Your AI use is more unsustainable tho

12

Anonymous OP 1d

Imagine being that ignorant lol. I plan to work at the Copperwood Copper Sulfide mine and there are many ways to make it environmentally friendly as a GEOLOGIST.

-3

Anonymous #1 1d

geologist who uses ai? Who believes in propaganda? Good luck, you’ll be radicalized soon. If the cancer doesn’t get you first.

12

Anonymous OP 1d

You okay? Im quite liberal lmao

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

Propoganda? You mean engineering methods to contain/resuse/reduce/refine waste, keep water clean etc is propoganda. Now your just genuinely calling geology pseudo science 💀

-2

Anonymous #1 1d

Not what I said, sustainability efforts are important and work. But you cannot actually believe these companies adhere to them. They don’t, they just do enough to not get fined. Bc the processes are inherently destructive, and the process to make it sustainable is expensive. And there no real regulatory hurdles that prevent companies from not following them. Many sustainability experts notice that, that’s what geologists constantly talk about.

9

Anonymous OP 1d

That’s not my fault as a geologist if I do everything in my power to make it a better industry and field! I hope to even work at one of these cobalt companies to make change from the inside!!!

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

good luck. Hope you don’t mind looking at the bodies of poor people working and slaving away while your company hides all the problems they cause by having you on their staff.

8

Anonymous #1 1d

It is your fault for using AI tho, which makes me believe you don’t really care about sustainability. Anyway

5

Anonymous OP 1d

Your being really dramatic lol

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

Yeah, bc mining is dramatically damaging and non-sustainable. The only sustainable mining is reducing our need for these materials completely.

8

Anonymous OP 1d

I love how you say mining like all kinds of mining are even remotely similar 💀it honestly just shows how uneducated you are imo

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

They are similar, especially the way those industries pollute and damage communities overseas and in country for the goal of making money. Or are you just trying to weasel your way out of being a hypocrite?

5

Anonymous OP 1d

Not even remotely similar honestly.

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

Sure, I trust your hypocritical AI bot ass about what you know.

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Cobalt mining in the ocean would be so much better than in Africa????

-1

Anonymous #1 20h

Do I need to explain to you why ocean life is important to the planet’s survival?

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

I’m incredibly aware but cobalt mining wouldn’t destroy environments if done properly in the ocean

-1

Anonymous #1 20h

Many marine species live specifically in cobalt-rich areas. You cannot get the cobalt without destroying these habitats. Hold on, I’ll pull up some examples.

11

Anonymous #1 20h

This photo was taken on the Davidson Seamount off the coast of California, a site rich in cobalt-rich ferromaganese oxide (information courtesy of Monterey Bay Aquarium). Areas like this host a vast amount of sessile organism who can’t easily relocate if habitat destruction were to occur. Corals, anemones, feather stars, etc. make their homes there. The way water flows through the habitat also releases free floating food particles into the water column, food for the sharks and tunas above.

10

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

So we could damage a few areas which will repopulate after displacement of sediments as that’s how they are getting cobalt by dredging sediments. Or we could send 7 year olds into atrisanal mines which often collapse! Displacement of organisms which will repopulate is not the same as polluting or destroying ecosystems. (Like how you can sustainably log yeah your cutting down trees but the overall forest remains healthy)

-1

Anonymous #1 20h

You’re asking me to choose between destroying marine environments and child labor, why not do fucking neither???

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

They aren’t being permanently destroyed you understand it’s like any ecosystem it will come back it’s not destroying an environment forever nor will it cause ecological collapse

-1

Anonymous #1 20h

And they won’t repopulate quickly enough. If you bothered to do any research you would find that a large amount of the species evolved to live in those conditions are the long-lived/slow-breeding type. They only reproduce one every couple of decades.

8

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Okay trees take decades to grow what’s your point. As long as they leave a good chunk of the ecosystem in tact the parts they mine will likely come back especially if they do it ethically

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Two killer whales altered a marine environment and an economy in South Africa. Literally destroyed tourism for a town by killing every gws in the area and allowing for competing sharks to enter instead. Same thing will happen here new organisms will fill in the gaps and the old ones will also fill in the gaps it’s how ecosystems change and it’s called responsible balancing we can’t just leave everything pristine dude

0

Anonymous #1 20h

you just outed yourself as an ultracrepidarian lmao. please look into how one stray bag of cheetos has completely and permanently altered the cave ecosystem forever. it cannot be undone. it cannot go back and it will never go back. anthropogenic disturbance is a major death sentence to fragile and unique ecosystems globally.

9

Anonymous #2 20h

well *a cave ecosystem.

9

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

No matter how much I wish we could we need minerals to be mined and doing it in the best way possible for us and the environment.

0

Anonymous #1 20h

Remember what I said about the water column? I’ve read the proposals for how marine cobalt mining could be done. This won’t just affect the cobalt-rich sites. Many of the creatures that live *above* the cobalt habitats will find food shortages, low visibility, and other catastrophic conditions in the wake of mining. Even if you argue that some will stay unaffected, you’re suggesting creating massive ecological dead zones that will require constant maintenance to keep from spreading.

4

Anonymous #2 20h

I’m absolutely aware of stuff like this like the mine that drilled to high and emptied an entire lake into the mine. Aral Sea destruction I could go on and on. My point is THIS ISNT THAT

-1

Anonymous #1 20h

We actually don’t, there’s research being done working towards cobalt alternatives for THE REASONS ABOVE.

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Yeah but until we find alternatives it’s an incredibly important mineral

-1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

There’s already natural ecological dead zones caused by currents in the ocean. Nature can heal if it isn’t dredged irresponsibly

0

Anonymous #1 20h

Important enough to upend thousands of species so you could get a new electric car?

6

Anonymous #1 20h

and what exact benthic marine science research journals have you based that conclusion on?

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

No to replace kids as old as 7 being force at gun point to work for little to no pay in mines with collapse often

0

Anonymous #1 20h

You don’t have to destroy ocean life to do that!

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Sorry I love the environment and all but I understand the diferrence between disruption and destruction to an environment and also value human life more than cool corals and some little sea floor critters which live EVERYWHERE (I’m taking whole labs on sedimentary ichnofossils please trust me there isn’t a shortage of them)

-2

Anonymous #1 20h

You do realize that cobalt mining in the ocean would also DESTROY any fossils that occurred in the sediment there? Also, what is your point trying to argue this is disruption rather than destruction? Lemme say this slowly: SESSILE. species. live. ON. the. cobalt.

10

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

I’m arguing with a wall here. Science is finding new better alternatives so for now this is def better than kids mining. We will keep looking for solutions in new mining methods or cobalt alternatives as you mentioned

-1

Anonymous #1 20h

Maybe try punishing the people holding kids at gunpoint rather than calling it a necessary evil in lieu of permanent ecological devastation?

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Yes, you won’t find large form fossils on the ocean bed just mainly tiny fish bones and invertebrate fossils which are used to dating as they are everywhere basically so you can date by seeing which kind of invertebrate fossils you have

0

Anonymous #1 20h

loving the environment doesn’t equate to knowing about the profound impacts of anthropogenic disturbance via a biological research lab. you genuinely are outing yourself as just someone who likes nature but are not an actual naturalist, biologist, or any sort of scientist. 🙃 PLEASE stop having strong opinions on something which you have no knowledge or expertise within. That’s the definition of ultracrepidarian. Don’t be like that. You’re smarter than that, I can tell.

11

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

I don’t think you understand how common fossils are they are everywhere you look man

1

Anonymous #2 20h

I am genuinely a geology major who is gonna pursue grad school but okay? With a minor in planetary science

0

Anonymous #1 20h

You said you’re studying ichnofossils yet you’re saying the mining is fine because you “won’t find large form fossils”. You’re either lying through your teeth or you’re making a bad faith argument.

7

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Ichnofossils are trace fossils left from tiny burrows in sediment that solidify

-1

Anonymous #1 20h

That’s kinda sad, all things considered.

11

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Well technically ichnofossils are any trace fossils left but in this context in my seds class

0

Anonymous #1 20h

I know, so they’re important for your work. Wouldn’t that mean you’d benefit from not mining in those areas?

9

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Nah not rlly im aware of actual earth impacts and diferrence between stopping irreversible climate change with displacing creatures temporarily! You can’t do everything I’m gonna prioritize our atmosphere and human life over cool fossils and I wanna literally do paleontology expeditions in my spare time while working

-2

Anonymous #1 20h

Fun fact, a majority of the oxygen in our atmosphere comes for marine plant life. But sure, you definitely love the atmosphere.

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

No because just like a forest if you don’t remove the entire forest or here an entire lithological layer your not gonna lose out on being able to study it, and unlike terrestrial mining where you can disrupt large fossils much easier that don’t really happen in oceans so your really not losing much stuff, a pit mine in the gobi or Utah deserts would be muchhhhhh more devastating as small invertebrates we use for dating are used as their wide spread and evolve and go extinct quickly

0

Anonymous #1 20h

You say the effects of this would be temporary, but keep in mind many coral species live on the cobalt crusts. I desperately hope I don’t have to explain to you why putting more stress on the coral population could snowball into irreversible damage.

10

Anonymous #1 20h

It’s much harder for like dinosaurs mosasaurs or large animals to fossilize and you don’t find the fossils at the sea floor and so as I said if they don’t literally destroy most of the environment it will recover

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

I hate to break this to you but we are past the point of no return on majority of corals :/

-2

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

But that’s current reefs with right conditions new ones can form we just aren’t giving our planet good conditions for coral growth rn

-1

Anonymous #1 20h

I knew you would say that.

7

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

To clarify corals won’t stop existing just most major reefs will die

-1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

I mean it’s true though sadly if ocean conditions get right we have plenty of coral in aquaculture we could introduce

-2

Anonymous #1 20h

I’m so incredibly aware, which is why I’m very much introducing MORE threats to coral populations.

9

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

Very much against* Typo

10

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 20h

We wouldn’t really dredge corals anyways it happens deeper where corals don’t grow I just checked so don’t worry

-2

Anonymous #1 19h

You’re not getting it. The dredging for cobalt’s true threat to wider marine biodiversity is the dust. The machinery used for the process would kick up so much sediment into the water column, photosynthetic organisms far from the actual mining area would be blocked from the sun’s rays. An example being the photosynthetic symbiosis that facilitates coral growth. Not to mention all the noise pollution.

9

Anonymous _orangutan 19h

I don’t agree with some of your points. But when you hit, you HIT.

5

Anonymous _orangutan 19h

sustainable cobalt mining solutions: reducing human reliance on devices planned to fail after certain thresholds, encouraging the further consumption of devices dependent upon cobalt, coltan, lithium, etc.

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 19h

That’s temporary once they stop dredging it’s much less harmful to global ocean health than carbon emissions one area hurting for a bit is a lot better than an entire ocean collapse causing a much greater mass extinction then we are already causing do you realize the permafrost is melting which releases co2 trapped inside of it warming further causing more melt more warming etc it’s a positive feedback loop

-2

Anonymous _orangutan 19h

sustainable cobalt mining solutions: bicycles and trains instead of shitty electric vehicles with the same planned obsolescence features of the equally as shitty iPhones mentioned previously

4

Anonymous _orangutan 19h

the point being, we should mine less cobalt. no ocean mining, no more Africa mining, and if you suggest asteroid mining, i hope they send you there first 🫶

4

Anonymous #1 19h

Okay, I’m gonna ask you a question, and I’m gonna expect an answer with some receipts. How long would it take for the damaged ecosystems to recover after you dredge for cobalt, for the cobalt to accumulate again, for the organisms to reproduce?

11

Anonymous _orangutan 19h

Okay so let’s not transition to clean energy and kill our climate forever! Your so righttt

-1

Anonymous #1 19h

Orangutan didn’t say anything about clean energy. Are you feeling okay?

1

Anonymous #1 19h

we could recycle the trillions of dollars in minerals locked up in global militaries, that would allow us to preserve remaining habitats rather than driving more species into extinction

8

Anonymous #2 19h

the journal of “feels”

3

Anonymous _orangutan 19h

be realistic yes let’s just stop war and recycle all weapons yes and everyone will eat lobster and have their own luxury high rise to right? Lmao

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 19h

they’re referencing the amount of rare earth minerals are needed to fully electrify the planet and to do so without fossil fuels. it is quite steep, but would be much less so if the imperial core was less wasteful and actually focused its resources towards sustainable solutions. unfortunately, they’d rather war with Russia and China, so the minerals we already have that could be deployed to combat climate change will instead be used to bomb children with ai assisted drones

6

Anonymous #1 19h

i explicitly advocate for eating less meat, so idk why you brought up lobster

6

Anonymous #1 19h

oh my god it’s this person. They’re literally getting their degree with chatGPT doing their homework, as they appeal to their studies.

4

Anonymous #5 19h

No I’m not? Your just making shit up lmao I used AI for infographics for social media not college lmao

-1

Anonymous #1 19h

“You’re”* forgive me for not taking your word for it lmao

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 19h

Yeah I wish we could do that I’m not a lawyer or pursuing politics my job is science and in reality that means weighing pros and cons nothing comes with rainbows and sunshine. If we want to stop a climate collapse we need clean energy

1

Anonymous #5 19h

It’s to much work switching to type the ‘ ngl

-1

Anonymous #1 19h

you didn’t spell it as “youre” though, which is the correct form without the apostrophe; you specifically and repeatedly used the possessive form. it’s okay to acknowledge you used the wrong form or didn’t know the distinction, and if I’m being honest it’s far more common than you’d think. don’t even get me started on “there”, “their”, and “they’re”, because oh my goodness (this is all semantic bs that’s unrelated to the topic at hand, but yk)

6

Anonymous #5 19h

Here is what yall are basically saying

-1

Anonymous #1 19h

You think destroying(yes, destroying) marine habitats is an acceptable cost, hypocrite.

7

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 19h

“Chemotherapy destroys your cells and your health is that a fair price to possibly kill the tumor” THINK MARK THINK

0

Anonymous #1 19h

“i~deaalist” kid cant defend his own positions, so they has a sycophantic generative ai model create a half-assed graphic to coddle their ego. you do all of your own coursework though, right?

8

Anonymous #1 18h

Yes because having more cobalt batteries is going to save the planet. There aren’t any elements or ions that are EV-capable along with being more abundant and easier to gath- OH WAIT

8

Anonymous #1 18h

your arrogance will be your downfall. I even clarified that I was primarily discussing a semantic argument, and you’re seemingly too egotistical to accept nor reflect on any form of criticism.

8

Anonymous #1 18h

if you had half a braincell, you’d comprehend that your imbecilic graphic had nothing to do with what I was criticizing it makes sense you couldn’t recognize the abundance of spelling issues within it though.

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 18h

Your right I can’t, and thats OBVIOUSLY the bigger issue than carbon emissions and irreversible climate change yes indeed I’ll stop advocating for actual realistic change and just give up and help companies with petroleum and stuff since trying to make positive change is like arguing with egotistical idealists like genuinely get your priorities in line man

-1

Anonymous #5 18h

“Semantically speaking” Dude idgaf about grammar on here nor semantics in general atm THE PLANET IS DYING

-1

Anonymous #1 18h

It happens on yikayak too, evidently

7

Anonymous #1 18h

And you’re advocating for the use of the final bullet.

3

Anonymous #1 18h

this dumb fuck immediately went back to using the possessive adjective “your” in place of “you’re”, right after I criticized them for it? as plainly as possible: “your” = you have “you’re” = you are what are you doinggggg

4

Anonymous #1 18h

LMAOO don’t act like you give a fuck about anthropogenic climate change as you advocate to further harm the environment. you’re a clown dude, and yes, we can tell you do not give the slightest fuck about being educated nor factual.

6

Anonymous #5 18h

You’re actually so unintelligent it makes me angry. Like genuinely what’s your idea then?

-1

Anonymous #1 18h

I can tell you’re ignoring me because I asked a point-blank question above.

3

Anonymous #5 18h

You genuinely think I’m gonna type properly on yik yak because you told me to holy cringe

-1

Anonymous #1 18h

projection? that’s what you’re resorting to? you can’t even tell the difference between “your” and “you’re”, and you have the nerve to try and call me unintelligent? truly deranged.

5

Anonymous #5 18h

My decision to type your as it’s easier and quicker is not an absence of my understanding of the difference in meaning how dense are you

-1

Anonymous #1 18h

It’s 2 extra buttons. 1 if you’re using autocorrect.

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 18h

True but if I told you to change a typing habit during an argument would you be very inclined to do so? I don’t add periods at the end of my sentences unless it’s for something professional or educational this is social media ppl use abbreviations and slang all the time dude

-1

Anonymous #1 18h

it’s anti-intellectual and fundamentally incorrect usage of the word. you’re trying to hide your ignorance behind a guise of “intent”, when it’s clear that you did not know the difference between the two, and you’re too arrogant to acknowledge that. as I said, if it was about the apostrophe, you’d type “youre”, as that’s the proper spelling without the additional effort of adding the apostrophe. you’re explicitly using the possessive adjective “your” in place of the contraction of “you are”

1

Anonymous #5 18h

your egotistical mania attempting to mask your ignorance is not working as you intended, and it’s in fact actively working against your favor.

1

Anonymous #1 18h

True, though I’d recommend you’d extend the courtesy to when you’re discussing scientific phenomena over social media. If you actually care about educating people, you’d make it as easy as possible for the reader to understand what you’re saying.

5

Anonymous #1 18h

people would be more willing to consider your positions if you were not an arrogant twat. when you’re incapable of accepting and acknowledging when you’re wrong, then why the fuck should any of us give you the time of day, or give you any sort of genuine interaction? you’re displaying that even if we are factually correct, you will not acknowledge that. just some food for thought.

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Do you realize that ocean life absorbs a massive fraction of the atmosphere’s CO2, and your proposed mining “solution” would release a vast amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere, making climate change dramatically worse? Or did you forget that part of your college curriculum?

6

Anonymous #5 18h

You honestly sound incredibly conceited. I believe everyone on here wants the best for the planet and I myself want a beautiful clean planet. You’re pretentious as you believe anyone who does not share your line of thinking must be a morally or intellectually inferior individual. You are the egotistical one. You resort to primal ad hominem attacks instead of actually arguing against my points. You wreak of hubris. Now, please make an actual point against my argument instead of name calling.

1

Anonymous #1 18h

how can you have such a strong opinion about how marine animals such as coral will withstand things and how their survival will be affected if you have done zero studying into marine science and oceanography? you’re completely mischaracterizing what this type of mining can and will do to these environments and not only that, but completely dismissing it entirely as unimportant on a global ecological scale… it’s both fascinating and terrifying at the same time like wtf is this, cognitive dualism?

7

Anonymous #2 18h

So you genuinely believe dredging for cobalt to transition to clean energy is worse than our entire planets ecosystem collapsing?

1

Anonymous #1 18h

when did I ever claim that anyone who does not share my line of thinking is morally or intellectually inferior? I do not believe that, nor have I implied that; and I think you know that. I specifically acknowledged that my argument was inherently semantic in nature, and my criticisms of you are not based on merely insults, they’re based on your demonstrated behavior.

1

Anonymous #5 18h

it could be argued that my initial comment regarding using ai to complete coursework could be seen as ad hominem, which I’d accept and acknowledge as those were pretty rooted in ad hom, but my critiques of your arrogance were in fact not ad hominem.

1

Anonymous #1 18h

We have cobalt on land. We can stop doing slavery and child labor to get it. we can stop exploitation via capital. we can protect fragile and unique habitats instead of decimating them for their resources as if we are automatically entitled to them because they exist and we want them. 😒 like i just watched the U.S. bulldoze a beautiful 250 year old tree for some impractical border related construction… totally unnecessary.

4

Anonymous #5 18h

I think you know your arguments are disingenuous though, because you know what I was criticizing was factually correct; we did not need to extend this argument this long lmao. the only reason I continued is because you tried to deflect with that graphic and defended your misuse of “your” in place of “you’re”, when you just corrected that behavior in your most recent response

4

Anonymous #5 18h

(thank you for that btw, in all seriousness. the thing that was getting me wasn’t the semantic mistake as much as it was the arrogance in insisting that there was no mistake, if that makes sense)

1

Anonymous #5 18h

“Your ego will be your downfall” or whatever you said you were def insulting me instead of attacking my points logically

0

Anonymous #5 18h

But they genuinely aren’t? I’d rather have one area of the ocean be impacted than the entire ocean collapse

1

Anonymous #1 18h

ad hominem is not merely the presence of insults, I think this is where the confusion is coming from. ad hominem is the reliance on insults as the primary defense for an argument or claim. for example: if I claimed that you are wrong on claim 1 because of point A, B, and C (assuming points a, b, and c are relating to claim 1, and not insults), that is not ad hominem even if I were to attach an entire wave of insults afterwards.

1

Anonymous #5 18h

however, if I claimed that you are wrong on claim 1 because “you are stupid, and therefore your claim must be wrong”, that’s absolutely ad hominem ad hom is when you’re using personal attacks as the defense of your claim, not merely the presence of personal attacks

1

Anonymous #5 18h

This is also ad hominem

1

Anonymous #1 18h

mate I’m not arguing your other claims, I was merely here talking about semantics lmfao.

1

Anonymous #5 18h

Oh….

0

Anonymous #5 18h

(also if im mistaken, i welcome other commenters to please correct me; but as far as im aware ad hominem is not merely the presence of personal attacks, but the reliance upon personal attacks as the defense for an argument/claim)

1

Anonymous #5 18h

Your right but like claiming I have ego and it will be my downfall is technically an argument as well as “if you had half brain cell your understand” as those are bother because a then b

1

Anonymous #1 18h

*though

1