169
Race is on to produce a super-coral to survive world’s warming seas
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
169 points (97.7% liked)
News
23266 readers
3555 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wild species are extremely good at adapting to evolving conditions. Their ability in this is many more times more powerful than any developments these searchers will produce.
On the other hand, researchers are very good at convincing themselves that they should have more money ... well, sometimes they are right.
Actively breeding is much faster than evolution, and the current rate of change is too fast for evolution to keep up. Eventually something new will fill the niche, but that doesn't help humanity.
Thanks for your reply. You are probably right and I was commenting in frustration about researchers not giving enough credit to nature's capabilities.
Evolution is famously slow though. And there is a deadline here, so to speak... Human technological advancement on the other hand is famously fast, and constantly accelerates.
In other words, even if this is an overly optimistic plan today, it wouldn't be overly optimistic in 5 years or so. And if it would be feasible in five years, then now is a great time to start working on it.
This reminds me of the human genome project, the effort to sequence the entire human genome. This was an international program started in 1984, sequencing really started in earnest in 1990, and by 1999, after fifteen years, they had only 10% of the genome sequenced. But just four years later they declared the project "complete" with 92% of the genome sequenced. Comparing those final four years to the previous nine years, you get a 1800% increase in speed.
i like your explanation and i even see one more way you are right about this (and i was wrong) : while it might be a long shot investing in this research, the cost of this is minimal compared to the benefit. So, it's worth the shot (even if the chances of success are ... hum ... unknowable for now)