this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
1208 points (97.7% liked)

Science Memes

14462 readers
2821 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
[–] shrugs@lemmy.world 11 points 2 hours ago

let me introduce you to this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robo-bees-could-aid-insects-with-pollination-duties/

humans are crazy. You want to know whats wrong with trees and bees? It's pretty hard to make a profit of them

[–] iamkindasomeone@feddit.org 8 points 2 hours ago

Wake me up as soon as some goofy ass startup found out how to arrange the algae to display ads.

[–] VampirePenguin@midwest.social 6 points 3 hours 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 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] VampirePenguin@midwest.social 1 points 2 hours ago

I'm sure they're probably a good idea, I'm just crabby.

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

Keep in mind that tree roots can brake through anything

[–] ubergeek 3 points 2 hours ago

Not all do. That's an oak thing really. Pines, most stone fruits, etc, take a path of least resistance, unlike oaks which are more "I am going that way, and NOTHING will stop me!"

[–] quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Alternative in what sense?

[–] scala@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 hours 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 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 9 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] BottleCaptain@lemmy.pt 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Damn if only trees created something gaseous that was useful

[–] AlolanYoda@mander.xyz 3 points 2 hours ago

They emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and oxygen, which causes rust in metals and aging in humans. So it's a negative really...

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 24 points 12 hours ago (3 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.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

That's an incredibly negative spin.

All these technologies are improvements on the natural version, not a replacement for the natural version, but an upgrade. If you want nice trees go take a walk in a city park, these aren't for looking at they have a different objective. We can have both things, one isn't trying to replace the other.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 minutes ago

Trees provide shades that cool down the cities. These algae don't. The main benefit of these "liquid trees" is to reduce pollution. You know what reduces even more pollution? Electrification and public transportation. Combine both. You'll need much less space for motor vehicles lane inside the city and no need for "depolluting" inventions. Add some bike lanes and you'll still have plenty of space for trees. They're better looking and will do the cooling job.

So, as I was saying: praising a less efficient solution that may bring new unexpected issues down the road because the efficient solution requires people to change.

[–] AlolanYoda@mander.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, can plant a tree? Plant a tree. If you can't, the alternative right now is nothing. This introduces another option.

[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 9 points 11 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 3 points 11 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 14 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 6 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 15 points 12 hours ago (3 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.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I think the current plan is to simply depopulate the United States through fiscal policies and have everyone move back to Europe.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

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

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 10 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Where did you get these ideas you freak

[–] captainjaneway@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Parks? Gross. I like parking lots.

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

How about multi level parking garages teeming with algae?

[–] The_Caretaker@lemm.ee 9 points 13 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 14 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 25 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HATEFISH@midwest.social 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Emergency responder in a big city? Trees will fuck up a car no doubt but not usually the tiny ones lining the streets of major urban centers, most I see get to be maybe 5 in across. But it may all be location dependant.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Yes. Even a 50mm (2 inches) tree trunk will usually win against a car on urban roads.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 12 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 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 14 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

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

[–] Kekzkrieger@feddit.org 6 points 13 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 69 points 20 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 15 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 13 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.

[–] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 6 points 13 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›