Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Sperm Whales Offset Their Carbon Footprint

Posted by samzenpus on from the all-natural-solution dept.

Boy Wunda writes "Scientists at Flinders University in South Australia found that in an awesome example of design by Mother Nature, Southern Ocean sperm whales offset their carbon footprint by simply defecating – an action that releases tons of iron a year and stimulates the growth of phytoplankton which absorb and trap carbon dioxide. If only we humans could say the same for our poop, which really doesn't do much more than just sit there." I'm going to do my part by buying some iron supplements and a can of chili, and heading off toward the ocean.

22 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. samzenpus: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    How about you do your part by buying a cheap .22 caliber pistol and blowing your brains out?

    1. Re: samzenpus: by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about you do your part by buying a cheap .22 caliber pistol and blowing your brains out?

      .22's aren't really effective at "blowing your brains out". They often tend to penetrate one side of the skull but bounce off the other end. This results in effective brain scrambling but little to no "blowing out" as the term is classically understood. If you want him to blow his brains out you should suggest that he purchase a .357 or .45 ;)

      And yes, I know, *whoosh*

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re: samzenpus: by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the "morbid topic" department, I've contemplated how I would exit this world if I opted for suicide (and no, I'm not suicidal, it's just a great morbid topic) and I've concluded that firearms are the only real way to go.

      Drowning? That won't do. Takes too long and involves too much panic.
      Burning? Nope, same drawbacks as drowning.
      Pills? Thanks but no thanks. Who the hell wants to commit suicide and then have time to think about the fact that they are going to die? This same drawback applies to leaving the car running in an enclosed space or slitting your wrists in the bathtub.
      Hanging? I could see this one if you had the time and materials to build a real gallows that would snap your neck. But dying via strangulation? Yuck.

      Nope, the firearm is really the only way to go. It requires true commitment (gotta squeeze that trigger) and doesn't provide much room for second guessing yourself. It should also be relatively painless unless you flinch at the last second. Added bonus: Nothing says "fuck you, cruel cruel world" quite like the mess that a headshot leaves behind ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re: samzenpus: by Matt_R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about trains?

      Won't somebody think of the train driver?

    4. Re: samzenpus: by Rhaban · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would not accept suicide advices from someone who never did any successful attempt.

    5. Re: samzenpus: by DinDaddy · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about on more coarse pigs?

  2. I wonder ... by electricprof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how long it will take for someone to suggest dumping raw sewage into the oceans in an effort to reduce our carbon footprint ...

    1. Re:I wonder ... by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or just lots of iron! What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:I wonder ... by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well... It would a bit However there are other disasters to consider from doing such activity that would make carbon footprint seem like a moot point.

      That and the most of the Carbon problem we have isn't from our biology but from our use of fuels. Which is in essence the Carbon Collected by these lifeforms after they died. Basicly we are using the stuff that was collected years ago.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:I wonder ... by Rato+Ruter · · Score: 2, Funny

      2 minutes

  3. Worthless turd! by mgierhart · · Score: 4, Funny

    So basically, according to Mother Nature, we aren't worth our weight in shit?

  4. design by Mother Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sounds almost religiously stupid. I doubt mother nature cares about us or the level of CO2.

    Should we take mother nature at her word and send our untreated sewage into the ocean so we can be like the whales?

    1. Re:design by Mother Nature by Rato+Ruter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This sounds almost religiously stupid. I doubt mother nature cares about us or the level of CO2.

      Should we take mother nature at her word and send our untreated sewage into the ocean so we can be like the whales?

      2 minutes

  5. Carbon Footprint? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anything that doesn't use fossil fuel (directly or indirectly) is already pretty much carbon neutral over its lifespan. .The O2/CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been more or less in balance for millions of years,

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Carbon Footprint? by lupinstel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah... They don't even have feet!

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
    2. Re:Carbon Footprint? by OldOOCoboler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lobiusmoop said "directly or indirectly". Cattle in feedlots eat corn grown with fertilizers made from previously sequestered oil. If you use oil or coal that took millions of years to sequester then you're not neutral. Whale's don't add any previously sequestered carbon to the biosphere (unless they drink straight from the BP wellhead).

    3. Re:Carbon Footprint? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The oil in the ground is from locked up plant/animal matter. So if the O2/CO2 levels have been in balance for millions of years, where in the hell did the additional CO2 come from as the previous amount was being locked up in oil? Space?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  6. Carbon Footprint? by lax-goalie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sperm whales have a carbon footprint? What? From the Hummers they're driving, or all the coal-burning power plants they've built?

    I know this is Idle on Slashdot, but man, that is the dumbest headline I've seen in a while.

  7. Weren't we doing that already? by denzacar · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s#t=2m36s

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  8. Re:Don't be too hard on yourselves by Surt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Define 'good'. It will grow plants. It will smell very, very bad.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  9. Farming by lewiscr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These whales aren't reducing their carbon footprint, they're farming. They're fertilizing the fields of phytoplankton, which works it way back up the food chain.

  10. Newsflash! by c0d3g33k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wow. Organisms that are part of a balanced ecosystem are in fact in balance with their surrounding ecosystem. What's next? The revelation that planets in orbit around the sun do not in fact fly off into space because they follow a curved path centered around the parent body? Must be a slow news day.