this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
65 points (100.0% liked)

chat

8202 readers
505 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
InsidiousTrackers@hexbear.net
Sulvor@hexbear.net
PaX@hexbear.net
65
Apparently some people think most or all crude petroleum isn't biological in origin? (hexbear.net)
submitted 10 hours ago by axont@hexbear.net to c/chat@hexbear.net
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So apparently a large-ish contingent of American reactionaries don't think crude oil is a finite resource. They believe the Earth regenerates it at a faster pace than it can be drilled, and this isn't a niche conspiracy theory either. I mentioned it off-hand at work after seeing a random tweet about it, then like 5 of my coworkers all nodded and agreed. One even used the term "abiotic oil."

Is this just cope or what? One of my coworkers literally said, "Well oil is like water, it goes through a cycle and gets replenished." Something about how crude oil is actually made through some kind of geological process, rather than decomposed algae/animal matter from millions of years ago. I think maybe there's evidence of abiotic hydrocarbon gasses existing from various chemical reactions with minerals, but I believe there's never been a convincing source of abiotic petroleum that couldn't also be explained as biological in origin.

They don't actually believe this, do they? It's just a thin kind of security blanket so they don't have to consider the reality of what fossil fuels truly are?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2812481591@hexbear.net 14 points 7 hours ago

this is probably insanely harmful, at least far worse than flat-earthers, but It's still whimsical when reactionaries revive theories of 16th century natural philsophers like this and telegony and stuff compared to the normal social Darwinism shit.