this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
1150 points (97.8% liked)

Science Memes

14462 readers
3024 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 minutes ago (1 children)

Alternative in what sense?

[–] scala@lemmy.ml 2 points 15 minutes ago (1 children)

Pretty sure some cities have about zero areas for a tree to grow. Algae produces a much larger percentage of oxygen compared to any tree.

[–] quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 minutes ago (1 children)

Pretty sure trees in cities aren't there to produce oxygen or capture carbon.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 1 minute ago

Mostly they're there either for decoration or to lower street temperature. Depending on how long ago they were planted.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

These algae also produce biogas that can be used for heating or producing electricity.

[–] BottleCaptain@lemmy.pt 0 points 16 minutes ago

Damn if only trees created something gaseous that was useful

[–] VampirePenguin@midwest.social 1 points 32 minutes ago (1 children)

Welp, all the trees are gone but at least there are these cloudy stinking tanks of goo everywhere. Does anything not dystopian happen anymore? Like these things are a set piece from Blade Runner FFS.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 46 seconds ago

It's a pretty bad example in this case because the picture is literally on a street with trees. What these are probably for is putting in places where no one's going to look at them but places where you can't put trees, like industrial estates and the rooftops of buildings. Aesthetics aren't important if no one is ever going to look at them aesthetically, and anyway they kind of look cool.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 22 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can't adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.

So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now "liquid trees".

Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can't face that.

[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago

I would be fine with changing my ways if changing my anything didn’t require endless paperwork. How is it fair that some guy invents agriculture and now I have to have a credit score

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

trees take don't come with actual requirement lists. An algae pool can and will come with explicit instructions that are able to be met and won't destroy the sidewalk for no reason.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 13 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Few things about trees in cities: (1) tree roots ruin sidewalks because they upend that stuff; (2) tree roots get into and ruin infrastructure, (3) not every curb can sustain a tree, so these could fit where a tree could not; and (4) they damage stuff when they fall over in storms.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 13 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Crazy thought - instead of just putting trees near curbs, have dedicated green spaces in cities where there aren't sidewalks or other important infrastructure near the trees.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Why not both green spaces (central park anyone?) and these alge pods everywhere else?

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Where did you get these ideas you freak

[–] captainjaneway@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Parks? Gross. I like parking lots.

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

How about multi level parking garages teeming with algae?

[–] The_Caretaker@lemm.ee 8 points 9 hours ago

You see, trees get in the way when we want to put down more asphalt to make more room for cars. We need more lanes for cars to park in and more parking lots for cars to park in. The goal is to turn the city into a place devoid of anything but asphalt. Then with no access to dirt to grow food or water to keep them alive, the people will be 100% dependent on their capitalist overlords. Everyone wins.

[–] CaptainHowdy@lemm.ee 14 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Dumb take. If someone crashes their car into one of these, it can be replaced in a few days. Trees take decades to grow in ideal conditions. Between tall buildings in a city is far from ideal conditions.

Also algae is way more efficient at converting CO2 into O2; I think it's maybe multiple times more efficient using the same amount of light.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 20 points 9 hours ago

As an emergency responder, I can say with confidence that when a car hits a tree, it's rare that the car wins. The tree usually just shrugs it off.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 12 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Dumb take, by the guy who has no idea how much it costs to maintain these tanks or any understanding of the scales involved, all while wanting to live in a world of green goo in tanks instead of one with trees in their cities.

[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Trees take ages to grow, and their root systems damage buildings and pavements.

[–] Kekzkrieger@feddit.org 5 points 10 hours ago

But the shade of a tree is far superior and reduces the overall temperature around them if many are planted, so overall much better.

Also certain trees dont need deep roots and can grow without neccessairliy damaging the pavement.

[–] Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 hours ago

Also really really hard to keep trees alive on the sides of buildings where these units could conceivably be used. Modular trees plus trees where we can fit them.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 hours ago

You can take trees and replant them in the city, you don't have to grow it there. There are tree farms.

[–] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

I would support legislation that mandated these be used around the highest carbon emitting facilities. Maybe a few very well designed structures (algae tanks) in very densely populated cities.

These would be in no way a replacement for trees in a community but, I could see forcing the corporations to use them. Such as those that must pollute because, they can not manufacture these products without polluting.

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 69 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

ITT: People who looked at some random headline, didn't bother looking further and assumed they knew everything.

It's a stupid headline. These tanks, are to directly affect air polution/quality in urban areas. Trees are terrible at that. The microalgae is 10-50x more effective in cleaning the air.

They aren't going to rip out trees for these. It would have taken you 10 seconds to find the source of the image and the article from 3 years ago to find out, the social media post was misleading. You spent more time making incorrect and wild accusations.

[–] Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Even with the misleading headline, has nobody commenting about how bad it is ever seen how many trees die when set up in low light conditions? These can be used in places trees wouldn't be effective, and that's before the whole "they're better at cleaning the air" bit.

[–] nickiwest@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

Even with ideal light conditions, there's still more to consider.

I lived in Louisville for many years. It's fairly green as cities go. In older parts of the city, trees had been planted between the streets and sidewalks ... definitely a long time ago, maybe 30 to 50 years? Maybe longer?

Every spring, we lost a number of those trees to thunderstorms. Enough rain, followed by strong winds, would topple multiple trees. Every single one that I saw had a root ball that was exactly the size of the opening where it had been planted, so maybe two square meters and maybe a meter or two deep. (For those keeping score at home, that's not enough root volume to support a full-sized tree.)

So we'd lose those lovely trees and on a good day, we'd lose the use of the street for a while. On a bad day, someone would lose a car or a chunk of their house.

"Just plant more trees in the middle of the city" is not the brilliant fix that many people seem to think it is.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can't adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.

So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now "liquid trees".

Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can't face that.

[–] nailbar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 hours ago
[–] Charlxmagne@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

All these braindead silicon valley tech bros trynna reinvent existing solutions to problems in very expensive and unnecessary ways, marketing it as "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking"

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

The majority of our oxygen comes from algae, they aren’t reinventing existing solutions they just put a tank of them in a city and blow air into it so that a city can use the same more efficient ~~fauna~~ flora that is available in coastal cities

[–] NichtElias@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I believe algae are flora, not fauna

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You are absolutely correct and that was a stupid on my part

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 9 hours ago

Mistakes aren't stupid, they are human. Hell we are even making our AI in our own image now...

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

The problem with trees is they are used as lumber. The national parks has always been protected. But Trump has unprotected parts of the national parks to be cut down for lumber.

[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 55 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

I discovered when I joined a volunteer litter-picking group in my town that some people really hate trees. And I must emphasise HATE. They hate the shade they cast in summer, the way the leaves block the all-important View. They hate the fallen leaves in autumn. They hate the bare branches in winter. They hate the risk of branches falling in storms. They hate the racket the birds make. I was astonished - it never occurred to me that people would feel so strongly.

Turns out I'm a bloody tree-hugging extremist.

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah trees are assholes. They always ring my doorbell trying to sell me the book of Gaia. Constantly telling me "you can't smoke here, sir". There's a tree behind my house who constantly wears the same glasses as me. Whenever I buy new ones, a day later this tree has the same. He's constantly mocking me for no reason.

I think all trees should be cut down and burned. Algae never complain, are always kind and always say "good day sir" when you walk by.

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

A tree stole my wallet and had sex with my wife!

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

So many trees have destroyed people their houses with stupid forest fires. Have you ever heard of algae fires? No! Because algae aren't assholes!

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 12 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

That's just unhinged. The trees are the view.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Xatolos@reddthat.com 20 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The problem with trees in an urban setting is trees have roots, and these cause issues. The can damage pipes and other underground objects. And many trees that are designed to not have these issues, end up with stunted/damaged roots which severely effects the trees growth. Planting trees in urban settings take quite a lot of pre-planning, and aren't drop in solutions, and if the areas weren't originally designed with trees in mind, you are likely to cause more problems than solutions.

https://greenblue.com/gb/avoid-root-heave-pavement-damage-caused-urban-trees/ https://tiptoptreeandgroundcare.co.uk/2025/01/06/tree-roots-in-urban-spaces/

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

In Australian temperate climate areas we have the brush box whose roots do not cause these problems. Unfortunately evergreen, casting shade in winter.

load more comments
view more: next ›