Is it really necessary to send humans to those places just to get the knock-on benefits? Couldn’t we do those things directly, without going there?
It seems to me that, today, those who have the money to spend on these endeavors would only do so if there were perceived short-term benefits to themselves. That means they plan to exploit the resources, or increase their own power somehow.
I know the good engineers that make this happen are doing it for the challenge and in the pursuit of knowledge, and I know that’s why we poors support it, but that doesn’t “pay the bills.” What is the motivation behind the money? Why are they really doing this?
Bye-bye is probably a bit of an overstatement. Yes plants need phosphorous, and some more than others, but I don’t think the Amazon would disappear without the phosphorous influx from the Sahara. Change - sure, probably - but there’s still plenty of nutrients and water for vast forests to continue existing there.
The soil itself is pretty barren in the Amazon. The vast majority of the nutrients and minerals in that biome are in the trees and plants themselves. Without the continual topping-up from the Sahara, the Amazon is on a ticking clock.
Gaze upon the Amazon River:
Consider its breadth and depth. A titanic quantity of water, enough to drain a continent, emptying in endless torrent into the abyss of the sea. Except it’s not just water. Look at the color of it. It’s not blue; it’s brown. Consider the amount of water in that river. Then think of how much soil and dead plant matter must be flowing with it in order to turn it to such a rich chocolate brown.
That is where the Amazon’s phosphorous ultimately ends up. Nothing lives forever. Every plant and animal eventually dies. When it does, much of what it was gets recycled back into the plants and animals of the Amazon, but some doesn’t. A lot doesn’t.
Without the Sahara, the Amazon is on borrowed time.
Let’s say that if the nutrients of the Sahara were consumed by plants and animals in the Sahara, then the Amazon would be deprived. Let’s say the Amazon would disappear.
In turn, we’d get a forest in the Sahara that would be about 30% bigger than the Amazon. So a net win I guess?
Anyway, it’s not the point. I’m just saying it’s moronic to belive that we can terraform fucking Mars.
I would say that you should have more faith in your fellow human beings. We would have never accomplished anything if our ancestors had your poor misanthropic attitude.
Haha okay, I’m the misanthropic one for pointing out the normal course for allocating resources for scientofic efforts? I want science to continue to be directed toward tangible goals, with an emphasis on things that help people. That’s how it’s normally done. It has worked very well in the past and I see no evidence that we need some tween boy fantasy to improve upon a proven concept.
We could use Brawndo, it has electrolytes.
It’s what plants crave.