Slashdot Mirror
Sea Sponges Master Nano-technology
Mick Ohrberg writes "It has been discovered that sea sponges utilizes a biomolecular mechanism to direct nanofabrication of silica to create microscopic glass fibers. It's a protein that acts as a catalyst for the formation of glass from the biomineral. What's it all lead to? Hopefully a way to achieve nanostructural fabrication at low temperatures, instead of in vacuum and at high temperatures as with current technologies."
It's truly amazing what solutions there are in nature. It's a shame that we can't live less destructive and more ecologically balanced societies.
Photos.
"Current trends point to a severe overburdening of resources. If we do wish to rise to the challenge we're going to have to do it soon. That or face a catastrophe."
Not it defeats your point, but I don't agree that the edge to catastrophe is that steep. The way the current economic systems work, running out of resources will mean shortages of supply, and thus an increase in pricing. Oil's a good example of this. If it starts running dry, over a period of time, we'll see prices rise, until one day they're just not affordable at all. People see the warning signs and will move to alternative services. Motor companies will be quite happy to provide cars to fill this new demand. Etc.
(Note: I only meant the above as an oversimplified illustration of the way I see it working, stripped of politics etc.)
"Derp de derp."
Imagine if we could make massive sea-sponges that were capable of producing glass fibres on a massive scale, suitable for industrialized processes ...
All that sea-water. All that glass. Put it together, and you can make one hell of a city. Provide 3rd-World deserts with raw materials for building greenhouses. etc.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Environmental damage is impossible to quantify. There is no challenge to be met other than to try our best to live in a sustainable world. Current trends point to a severe overburdening of resources. If we do wish to rise to the challenge we're going to have to do it soon.
Don't impose your limitations on me. Anyone trying to make an argument who starts that argument claiming that a physical phenomenon cannot be quantified should be banned from any further participation in the discussion. How can you even think about "liv[ing] in a sustainable world" or "a severe overburdening of resources" without first quantifying whatever environmental damage, if any, we are causing? Before one can speak intelligently on these subjects, he must first determine usage rates and the natural replenishment rates of our resources.
If you looked into this a little bit, you'd be surprised. The united states, for example, supposedly recaptures more CO2 than it produces. How is it easy for a bunch of big bad evil fat fedgov americans to do this? Easy: we cut down an insane number of trees, turn them into paper that goes into our vast corporate wastelands, and plant replacement trees. Environmentalism, real environmentalism, isn't about making a pretty countryside, it's about managing our resources and it is fundamentally a quantitative pursuit.
As for these doomsday predictions, they are often based on faulty methods (i.e. not counting newly planted forest but counting the forest area that was cut down before it; wild, untestable estimates of extinction rates that also ignore the creation of new species; the assumption that there will be no future improvements in the productive capacity of a unit of land or labor.). These predictions have been around for more than 200 years (See Malthus, T.R.) and, more than anything else, are created by researchers who ignore facts to push their agenda.
I'm an environmentalist. I'm staunchly opposed to unstainable development. Unlike most environmentalists, though, I don't assume that anything that a corporation does, or anything that is profitable for anyone, is detrimental to the environment. The human effect on the environment is incredibly small, though. Even in areas such as the Amazon rain forest where acre after acre of forest are burned, it's unlikely that a substantial number of "meaningful" species are extinguished. The species that are hurt the most by these activities are the big, furry, marketable ones. The most important species -- the insects that live in the forest and the myriad plants that live on and around the trees -- can and do coexist in the resulting semiagricultural land. Would it be better if the forest weren't burned down? yes. Are we really threatened in any way because we lose 1 obscure, undiscovered new-world monkey species per year? no. Are trees good? yes. will the forest retake the burned area after it loses its usefuless for cattle farming? probably. Should we do something to slow the destruction of the rainforest? yes. Is there a viable alternative for every wouldbe farmer/rancher in the area that would bring equal or better ROI? not that I know of.
Unfortunately the marketing done by the WWF has backfired, and they've been taken over by fake environmentalists, more worried about the real-life versions of their snow leopard beanie babies than studying or protecting the environment. They also have suffered from the mistaken idea that "the environment" is a static thing. Birds of prey are moving into cities and using parks as hunting grounds and skyscrapers as nesting sites. A species of cockroach in NYC has adapted to feed off of the insulation on wires in electronics. Bears, racoons, and skunks regularly venture deep into cities to forage through trashcans. The environment is always changing, but it is this constant change that creates the variation in species that environmentalists should seek to protect and promote.
Are there polutants that should be kept out of th