Slashdot Mirror
Bacteria Could Help Stop Desertification
Bridgette Steffen writes "In attempt to slow down desertification, a student at London's Architectural Association has proposed a 6000 km sandstone wall that will not only act as a break across the Sahara Desert, but also serve as refugee shelter. Last fall it won first prize in the Holcim Foundation's Awards for Sustainable Construction, and will use bacteria to solidify the sandstone."
Because humans always assume that the way things are is the best way for them to be.
It's what we do. We interfere with processes all the time.
I'm a big fan of interfering.
why exactly are we to interfer with this process?
Because moving the farmers would require something approaching socialism, and not moving the farmers would require something appraching starvation.
Moving the desert is a better choice.
The most information I could find is here (the full-size images are pretty large) and here.
It's hard to pick through the information, but is this scientifically viable? Or is this the random musings of an architecture student focusing only on the architecture side, and ignoring the biology side?
Nature is not "wise", and it is wrong to personify it or otherwise assume otherwise. All nature does is follow the path of least resistance.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
There is no reason to argue with conservatives
Except it's usually the loopy lefty crunchy hippy types that actually most often anthropomorophize nature, assign it a personality, presume they know what it wants and how it should be, etc. You know it's true.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The vast majority of the sand is traveling very low to the ground. Sure, there's still a nice big dust cloud up high, but that big tall plume represents the least dense of the material, which is why it rises to the top.
You're essentially asking, "why have a sea wall if the very tops of the largest waves might still occasionally break over the top?"
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I was watching a program last night about the evolution of the planet, something about vulcanic activity and the superplume, and other things, as well as the evolution of the first landwalkers (tulogs?) that basically looked like a cross between crocodiles and fish, among all the changes in the environment, as well as mass ocean pollution (millions of years ago) killing a vast number of species.
When someone says nature is wise, they probably are romantizing how much "nature"/god? cares about our survival as a species but also don't want to be at the short end of the evolutionary stick when nature shows it' uncaring side and things change. I'm sure a man-made solutions to various things would be welcomed with open arms then.
Life as a whole survived, sure, but there were changes and extinctions, just as there are now. It's sustainable only in the way that everything is.
I am trolling
Unlike the Ocean, once sand rises up against the wall it isn't going to flow back out later.
Unlike the ocean? Same thing happens there. Actually in some places walls are constructed along coastlines to trap sand for beach nourishment.
When people describe nature as self-correcting, they aren't usually referring to any inherent right or wrong. What gets corrected is imbalance, such as restoring a predator-prey system to equilibrium. It seems to me that discussing natural equilibria doesn't have to involve intent, purpose, morals, or anything else that would make it anthropomorphic to say that nature is self-correcting.
Sandtrout and wind traps, duh.
cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
Right, I understand that (and almost didn't say what I did, how I did..) but then again, what is balance in nature--what does that mean?
I don't think there is any (forgive the term) "natural" state which is the proper and balanced state. Everything in nature is constantly in flux. Sure, to use the common example of the predator-prey equilibrium, that is sometimes the case. Sometimes the predators go extinct, sometimes prey go extinct, sometimes they both do.
It seems to me that it's far easier to look at life on Earth through the lens of evolutionary bubbles and crashes. It only seems self correcting because we want to apply some kind of order to it, when it reality, that's just the way the universe works. When a forest fire burns, it burns everything it can, until it's burned too much and dies out. That seems about the same level of self correcting to me.
Because we _caused_ the desert. Overpopulation, Overgrazing goats, digging for aquifers, using imported fertilizers, etc., helped destroy modest existing ecosystems that stabilized the soil and retained soil at the desert's border. Looked at over thousands of years of geological and archaelogical history, it seems clear that humans created or wildly expanded the deserts. There were amazing small areas that weren't overfarmed and avoided overpopulated, as experiments, and they showed up as remaining green and fertile as the desert grew right past them. It made the cause of desert growth quite clear.
I sometimes wonder why there isn't more effort made to collect genetic material from endangered species.
I consider killing the last of a species similar to burning the very last copy(in any media) of a book. So much information lost.
Because we are the main responsible for desertification.
I live in the south of Europe. It's highly likely that the Sahara crosses the Gibraltar Strait and comes knocking on my door. When that happens we'll all wish we have "interfered" more.
Up to the moment, the unbelievable stupidity (from politicians, companies and common people) in managing land goes to such an extent that makes me wonder if it's not intentional and there's a hidden conspiracy to turn my country into a desert.
Better start thinking about buying a camel.