Anonymous #1 17h

I’m unhinged because I’m not fearmongering dredging and being realistic about stuff.. Okie

-1

Anonymous #2 17h

what an interesting way to frame spreading disinformation

6

Anonymous #1 17h

What’s wrong about anything I’m saying😭

0

Anonymous #2 17h

countless people have spent hours trying to tell you, you’re just not interesting in accepting that you might be wrong on this.

6

Anonymous #1 17h

interested*

3

Anonymous #1 17h

All of the arguments have been along the lines of “critters of varying sorts will be effected and certain environments disrupted” it’s the sea floor guys it’s important but there’s a lot of it and from my pov this is like “we can’t build clean energy here we will need to remove soil for a foundation and cut down a few hundred trees what about the earth worms and flowers and squirrels” like it’s necessary to save the WHOLE ocean we need to reduce carbon emissions is super super important

-1

Anonymous #1 17h

All of your arguments have been surface level and lack understanding of the world and how GLOBAL progress gets done in reality.

-1

Anonymous #2 17h

carbon emissions is not the sole contributor to the anthropogenic climate crisis, and its laughable to claim you care about the ocean’s stability as you advocate to increasing dredging… like I said, you merely do not want to accept that you might be wrong on this. hence why I criticized you for your arrogance and ego.

7

Anonymous #1 17h

Stop using big words to sound smart when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Rising temperatures primarily driven by CO2 emissions are the biggest threat to ocean stability and health

-1

Anonymous #2 17h

Which will worsen if marine populations somehow become destabilized…

8

Anonymous #1 16h

But sure when the AMOK collapses and Europe freezes over, extinction rates skyrocket to levels that make the current ones look cute, natural disasters skyrocket, and human quality of life plummets atleast you made sure that one patch of coral survived as long as possible or whatever 😭

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

I don’t think you know how the food chain and trophic levels work.

6

Anonymous #2 16h

I have to change the way I talk to cater to your limited vocabulary? again, while carbon dioxide emissions are a primary contributor, they are not the sole contributor, and you would know this if you put any effort into researching this topic outside of your geology classes and talking to your preferred GPT model. might I remind you, a geology degree is just that: geology. you’re not studying the depth of what’s covered under environmental science, solely geology. stop acting as if you’re an

3

Anonymous #1 16h

authoritative figure on this topic in any way, rather than the *undergraduate student you are*

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 16h

Do you have any idea just how vast the ocean is??? The amount of sediment disturbed will not destabilize marine populations the way you think they will. It will have negative side effects but I’m not sure what you think they are? Like it will cause dust which will likely cause a localized dead zone around where the dust is for photosynthetic creatures, kill any critters on the sea floor although it will likely be further out then coral is, and displace larger marine life to adjacent areas

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

dude, regardless of adopting the imbecilic positions you advocate for or not, we are still heading towards mass extinction. we have already passed the point of no return in terms of anthropogenic climate change, and fully stopping all carbon dioxide emissions is solely one part of what’s needed to attempt and minimize the eventual devastating impact that is assuredly guaranteed. a major factor is also reducing our collective reliance on extractive resources, which includes cobalt.

2

Anonymous #2 16h

Which will then cause more competition and nutrient stress in adjacent regions but all of that is genuinely worth it to reduce carbon emissions and when the dust clears nature will rebuild incredibly quick as we aren’t polluting or acidifying the water in any measurable way by dredging

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

I asked you this in the last post (where you didn’t answer for some reason): How long does it take for the cobalt to accumulate again? Keep in mind that thousands of species can only survive in this cobalt rich environment.

8

Anonymous #1 16h

The point of no return is based on our knowledge of the climate which is ever evolving no point in giving up when we could find ways to potentially reverse what we’ve done or atleast mitigate it

0

Anonymous #2 16h

You’ve finally said something I agree with. Holy shit.

8

Anonymous #2 16h

did anyone advocate to give up? and there is no reversing it anymore, that is the point. there is only minimizing the eventual damage. anthropogenic climate change is no longer reversible, despite us having over 5 decades to change our ways and indeed reverse the damage. we collectively allowed that damage to continue and pushed it to a point where reversal became impossible.

6

Anonymous #1 16h

this is why I brought up the difference between geology and environmental science, because you do not know what you’re talking about.

6

Anonymous #1 16h

I also agree with this statement. We can’t turn back the clock, but we have to try to alleviate the stress on the ecosystem.

4

Anonymous #1 16h

We literally do not know if it can be reversed yet we still don’t understand what dredging will do fully, and we don’t have sources on cobalt accumulation reliably but from basic geology I can tell you it would be very low if any any areas we dredge will no longer get cobalt as they will keep accumulating by the volcanic areas but at a rate slower than we could replenish, but then again these reserves are massive and we wouldn’t tap even close to a fraction of it

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 16h

I entirely agree about alleviating stress on the ecosystem! I hope my comments don’t come off as “all hope is lost, there is no point” because that’s not my intention😬

5

Anonymous #1 16h

Environmental science is a sub branch of Geology. If you think we don’t learn about this stuff we do, you just go more in depth on certain topics than us, but yeah the climate and oceans are a huge part of our major.

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

You literally have not answered my most pinpoint question. If you really know geology as much as you say you do, how long will it take for the accumulation of cobalt to return to levels acceptable the life adapted to it?

4

Anonymous #2 16h

a few years ago I took an “oceans in crisis” course when I was still studying envirosci, and my professor did a great job at detailing the danger and harm of deep sea dredging. I’m gonna see if I can find some of the material to share! (give me some time though I need to parse through old archived school directories🙃)

3

Anonymous #2 16h

environmental science is not a subbranch of geology…🤦 why are you so confident in being wrong?

6

Anonymous #1 16h

It literally is lol do you know what Geology is

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

go ahead and google it then, i’ll wait.

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 16h

It won’t in our lifetime

1

Anonymous #1 16h

As I told you before it’s the study of the earth…..

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

and you wanted to claim you’re not an arrogant twat?

5

Anonymous #2 16h

did you google it and realize you’re wrong yet?

3

Anonymous #1 16h

I’m not wrong did you look at the ai overview or read

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

you’re quite insufferable, and the ai overview doesn’t even support your bullshit delusions.

4

Anonymous #1 16h

The ai is wrong😭. By definition of my major study of earth and environmental science studies the environment which is a part of earth. We study basically the same stuff

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

BUT, I do appreciate you providing clear and direct evidence that you’re incapable of acknowledging when you’re wrong. as I’ve repeatedly criticized of you, your arrogance and egomania will be your downfall.

6

Anonymous #2 16h

“interdisciplinary field that draws on ecology, geology, meteorology, biology, chemistry, engineering, and physics…” you study one subset of what environmental science covers.

4

Anonymous #1 16h

If you knew anything about academia in general you’d know there is constantly new semantics and terms and words they use and new papers. AI says geology and environmental science is subbranch of Earth Science which by definition wrong as geology means study of earth or literally earth science so right now lots of colleges are renaming majors and departments actually to clear up confusion in very similar majors

-1

Anonymous #1 16h

(of course that’s not fully accurate because environmental science does not cover the full depth of each of those degrees within it, but that statement is meant to highlight the hypocrisy of calling environmental science a sub branch of specifically geology. it’s almost laughable)

3

Anonymous #2 16h

I provided the brittanica definition, and I only gave you the ai overview because you asked if I read it, implying that it supported your claim. what a narcissistic fuck.

1

Anonymous #1 16h

I think you don’t understand what geology studies? Meteorology biology chemistry physics ecology and engineering are all taught in my major what do you genuinely think I learn about

-1

Anonymous #1 16h

like I’m sorry but this is genuinely the stupidest thing for you to act this arrogant about. it is not commendable to refuse to accept when you’re wrong, that just causes you to stay stagnant in your life. if you cannot acknowledge when you’re wrong on any given topic, you will never be capable of changing or growing, as you will never see a need to. this isn’t healthy lmfao

1

Anonymous #1 16h

No I asked if you just read the AI overview to prove your point and wanted me to look it up lol I looked it up and said the ai was wrong

0

Anonymous #2 16h

I’m not retyping it lmao.

4

Anonymous #1 16h

You can literally just look up if geology also covers all that you said your major does and you’ll see it does as well lol we just emphasize diferrent fields diferrently in our curriculum

0

Anonymous #1 16h

But your wrong lol

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

the ai is not why I said that💀 did you forget that I’ve studying environmental science and even the geologists who taught the geology-specific courses would not dare to claim that envirosci is a sub branch of geology. additionally, why do you think I provided the Britannica definition? would you like some more? this nonsensical derailing of the conversation does nothing but to demonstrate how arrogant you are, and it’s insane that you can’t recognize that

1

Anonymous #1 16h

like if you’re genuinely not going to acknowledge that you’re wrong, you should be desperately trying to get back on the original topic instead of shooting yourself in the foot like this.

1

Anonymous #2 16h

do I need to explain the difference between “your” and “you’re” again? you did not ask whether it was a subbranch, you asked whether geology integrated those other sciences. it’s disingenuous to act as if one implies the other, and you know that, but you don’t care. go ahead, ask it directly: “is environmental science a subbranch of geology”, and share the exact response with your prompt in the picture. I know you won’t though.

5

Anonymous #1 16h

I think that’s your majors weakness your a geology major that doesn’t study physical geology, just all the other stuff so when I tell you our majors are similar your in disbelief, we spend so much more time with soil rivers climate atmosphere biology than you would probably assume.

0

Anonymous #2 16h

you’re*** oh my god I might have to log off bc this narcissist is killing me here

1

Anonymous #2 16h

overlapping topics does not make one major a subbranch of another🤦

1

Anonymous #1 16h

Technically yes and no, earth science is the overlying branch and some colleges do just call earth science geology, as the fields are actually the same thing and split only occurred due to lack of enrollment of geologists bc of stigma with mining

0

Anonymous #1 16h

And Env Sci is confirmed a sub branch of earth science and if some institutions just treat Geology as earth science it really is semantics

0

Anonymous #2 15h

you do understand that solely because you believe something to be true, does not mean it makes it factually true, right? you do understand that you’re sometimes wrong, right? regardless of how much you seethe and cope, you’re wrong on this lmao, and I’d *love* to see you go ask one of your geology professors this, because they’d laugh in your face.

1

Anonymous #1 15h

(especially if you told them what you said in that comment)

1

Anonymous #2 15h

as I recognized in the other post, you are an anti-intellectual; and I’m also starting to think a narcissist after this exchange.

1

Anonymous #1 15h

You do realize in science most terms are not universal and not all methods identical. One of my geology professors is Swiss and my curriculum in that class told us she teaches us her class the European way not American way (based honestly their methods are more thorough) so if there are two diff ways to do same thing neither is wrong. My college calls earth science geology so technically I’m wrong but it is a growing movement in the field to merge the two into one major

1

Anonymous #1 15h

As I said it’s more nuanced as my curriculum is the same as an earth science curriculum at any other college but my college calls my major Geology which I agree with as that means literally “study of earth” most people see geology and think study or rocks/under the earth when 75% of our curriculum is based above the earths surface I guess other geology programs at some schools don’t focus on that as much I don’t know

1

Anonymous #1 15h

So by recognizing science is a constantly evolving field and semantics change overtime earth science was geology then it split into study of rocks/inside earth and to earth science which was surface and climate mainly. My college does both but calls it geology does this make sense?

1

Anonymous #1 15h

I genuinely hate myself and do not think highly of my abilities as I clearly can not articulate my points well enough lmao bc you seem to misunderstand what I’m saying. AI takes majority scientific consensus lots of “majority” scientific consensus are small majorities in heavily debated fields and I’d argue as my college is merging the two majors I can argue that Earth Science is Geology but rebranded and it’s a common theme in real life of interchangeable majors for jobs.

1

Anonymous #1 15h

Did you know that employers actually prefer my major for about 70% of jobs typically known as “env sci” so my previous estimate was actually spot on our curriculums are about 70% the same…

1

Anonymous #1 15h

Seems to me from a real world POV env sci is a specialized sub branch…

0

Anonymous #1 15h

I’m honestly kinda giggly after further research, geez does your major suck, it literally is geology lite with policy and law classes and stuff. In real life your job market is smaller and lower paying than mine and employers prefer MY major in 70% of your job market implying you’re just a specialized subbranch of geology. I get a higher salary more job opportunities and can actually make change through designing new sustainable methods for stuff while you pencil push for corporations or sample

1

Anonymous #2 15h

lmao you got so pressed about this shit that you’re still responding after almost an hour, despite no responses. my little narcissistic friend, keep screaming into the void if you wish.

1

Anonymous #1 14h

Nah I just found it funny finding out your major barely learns about anything earth related compared to mine. Like you genuinely barely understand the concepts you advocate for it’s sad and cringe no wonder your all so pretentious and it’s obvious that’s why employers prefer my major

1