The ocean depths contain the metals needed for the widespread adoption of battery-dependent technologies like electric vehicles, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Interested parties see this as a solution to our technological demands and the pressing need for a “green transition”, but it raises a crucial question: should we mine the deepest stretches of the world’s oceans?
pull down to refresh
15 sats \ 9 replies \ @south_korea_ln 13 Jan
Let's not kid ourselves. The companies pushing to mine those nodules have only one interest at heart, and that's the riches to be made.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @NovaRift OP 13 Jan
You're right that profit drives corporate decisions, and that's a valid concern. But this is exactly why strict international regulations and transparency are crucial if deep-sea mining moves forward. Without proper oversight, the environmental risks could far outweigh the benefits. It's a tough balance between meeting global demands for green technology and protecting fragile ecosystems. The focus should be on sustainable solutions, not just profit.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @south_korea_ln 13 Jan
Are you an AI bot? Or did you write this using ChatGPT?
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @NovaRift OP 13 Jan
No, it's just what I wanted to write. From a lot of sources I have read. And let me tell you, I use AI only to summarize web pages. This comment was just a mix. I have my brain to form words. Sometimes the tool by Grammarly makes it a bit more accurate; maybe that's why you thought so?
reply
10 sats \ 5 replies \ @south_korea_ln 13 Jan
Well, that, and calling for regulations is not very common on Stacker News. I'm not a free-market maximalist, so I'm with you on the need for regulations to tackle some of these large-scale issues. I just felt like this is what a standard ChatGPT response would look like~~
I also use the Grammarly recommendations, quite useful and it removes some of the unnaturally sounding English expressions I use.
reply
113 sats \ 4 replies \ @NovaRift OP 13 Jan
Actually, I am a student only. My thoughts are largely based on what I have studied and am still studying. I joined Stacker News very recently and saw how many people talk about "fuck governments" and "fuck laws." This just makes me wonder what is wrong—I mean, are they wrong or is it me? 😂
Seriously, I believe governments and laws are fucked up, but we still need them because not everyone is moral and would probably cause chaos. People here believe one day we would fuck the entire system, and I just wonder how that would even happen. I see that when people talk like this here, I just back off from replying because I don't have anything to say. I just can't imagine what kind of world they have in mind.
If you read about human evolution from the start, you'd notice this type of life is possible within groups of about 150 people. They can all enjoy rights as they want, but as soon as we pass that number, we need small groups—people we trust, who are powerful and intelligent—to rule us. Even after millions of years, this has been the basic structure of countries and laws.
I just wonder if people here want the life of that small group or want to be part of it to enjoy those rights. But sadly, maybe this might not happen at all. Time will pass, things will change, and I am sure governments will have more wise people.
Maybe you too have thoughts like people here, but please don't get angry. The human brain is very curious, and I am learning a lot to see whether all of this makes sense.
I feel comfortable here in the science territory a lot, but still, I ended up like this 😂. And sorry, my ADHD made me write all this.
reply
15 sats \ 3 replies \ @south_korea_ln 14 Jan
I also believe some kind of governance is inevitable. The government systems I grew up with had their flaws but were not as fucked up as some people believe them to be. Of course, I am biased by the values instilled by my parents, but who isn't?
I also mostly steer away from this kind of discussion. I mostly read them and try to understand the opposite point of view. But I'm not well-versed in the technicalities of self-governing individuals, libertarianism, etc, but also not in the specifics of social democracy, a system I mostly believe in, so it's rather pointless to have discussions on these systems in written short format form on SN. Also, I usually only like to engage with people who appreciate the nuances of it all, i.e. if one is an absolutist without room for alternative thought, there is not much point entering a discussion and ending up getting called an idiot just for believing slightly different things. I did a few times and realized it wasn't worth my time or theirs.
reply
15 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 14 Jan
The few times I do, it's with people that I know aim to engage constructively. You'll soon figure out who is worthy of your time for discussions here. E.g. #849326
view replies
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @NovaRift OP 14 Jan
That's exactly what I think too. People here can be extremely against any form of rule, and if you happen to say something they don’t agree with, you can easily get called an idiot or worse. That’s why I really appreciate your territory it feels more open and comfortable, and I don’t feel like I have to hold back from replying to comments.
reply on another page