A mantis shrimp can punch hard enough that it vaporises the water in front of it into steam, which causes an explosion. It’s an effect called cavitation, and it can kill a prey animal that the shrimp didn’t even touch from the force of the explosion. Cavitation can also be an issue for sea vessels if the propeller and hull design creates too much turbulence, and this can damage vessels. If you’ve played Subnautica, cavitation is what happens when you run the Cyclops at full engine for too long.
Subnautica also has a deep sea vessel called a prawn. Prawns have claws on the first six legs, while shrimp only have claws on the first four. Australians love prawns, and do not call them shrimp. The famous line “shrimp on the barbie” was deliberately changed to make it easier for Americans to understand. Under normal circumstances an Australian would never talk about cooking shrimp, even if the animal on the barbie only had four claws.
Shrimp, prawns, and other marine crustaceans need a chemical called Calcium Carbonate, or CaCO3, to grow their shells. CaCO3 is a buffer chemical, which means that it can react with both hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions to form other chemicals. Buffer chemicals make a solution resistant to changes in pH. If you add an acid or base to a solution with a buffer, the pH will change very little, at least until the buffer runs out. Calcium Carbonate makes the ocean resistant to changes in pH, which is pretty handy because carbon dioxide reacts with seawater to produce carbonic acid. Human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide would have already turned the oceans to acid and killed off all the marine ecosystems if it weren’t for CaCO3. Unfortunately, the amount of CaCO3 in the ocean has been greatly reduced. This makes it harder for crustaceans like shrimp to grow their shells. This has lead to a decline in both population and size for marine crustaceans. If we keep emitting carbon dioxide, the calcium carbonate buffer will run out and the crustaceans will all die. Also, the ocean will turn to acid and all the fish will die too, whether it be due to the acid directly, or to food web collapse. This may herald the end of most life on earth.
You can help protect the shrimp from extinction by getting rid of your car, going vegan, avoiding unnecessary flights, assassinating billionaires, and participating in armed revolution against the capitalist institutions.
Here’s a browser-based video game where you can see how humanity would do against climate change under your leadership, if we converted the world’s governments to socialism immediately: https://play.half.earth/
unfortunately I already do most things (the ones I can influence, anyway) but no way I can do more, even us as people vs countries that dont give a shit (china, india, etc).
China and India both have lower emissions per capita than rich western countries like America, England, and Australia. These high emission countries should only be complaining about China if they were already world leaders on emissions, which they are not. The top ten countries on per capita emissions are African. Afghanistan is 11. India is the leader of the larger countries.
Imagine that you live in Texas. The US has a certain amount of emissions, and Texas has a certain smaller amount of emissions. If Texas seceded from the union, then you would live in a country with less emissions. Therefore, seceding is climate action.
No the net emissiona stay the same. Ergo, boundaries are useless. But we can only change so much trough goverment. Idc per capita, India and China might have a lot of people but their industry is killing us
They are by far the biggest contributors.
its not about living in a country or what country emits the most. The geographical region of india and china emit the most. China and india have the most control of that geographical region. Saying they are not responsible for the emissions is saying they dont have control and/or influence in these regions of industry and murder lf the earth
If you’re in the US, that’s not true. India emits less than US. India emits 3 billion tons of CO2 a year. USA emits 5 billion.
Now that we’ve sorted out the facts, let’s talk philosophy. You’re arguing that we should take actions that prevent climate collapse instead of worrying about borders and blame. I agree. So worry about the political processes that you have the power to participate in. You can’t vote in Chinese elections. You can’t vote in Indian elections. You can vote in your country’s elections, so worry about those.
The alternative is that America does nothing because China won’t do anything, and China does nothing because America won’t do anything. You’re just playing chicken. And what’s the prize for winning? Nothing. What happens if you’re both stubborn? Everyone and everything dies.
The shrimp don’t care whose fault it is that they all died. They just want to live. Every gram of CO2 we don’t emit could mean one more shrimp lives for one more day, and the total chance of climate collapse ticks down by one trillionth of a percent.
A mantis shrimp can punch hard enough that it vaporises the water in front of it into steam, which causes an explosion. It’s an effect called cavitation, and it can kill a prey animal that the shrimp didn’t even touch from the force of the explosion. Cavitation can also be an issue for sea vessels if the propeller and hull design creates too much turbulence, and this can damage vessels. If you’ve played Subnautica, cavitation is what happens when you run the Cyclops at full engine for too long.
Subnautica also has a deep sea vessel called a prawn. Prawns have claws on the first six legs, while shrimp only have claws on the first four. Australians love prawns, and do not call them shrimp. The famous line “shrimp on the barbie” was deliberately changed to make it easier for Americans to understand. Under normal circumstances an Australian would never talk about cooking shrimp, even if the animal on the barbie only had four claws.
Shrimp, prawns, and other marine crustaceans need a chemical called Calcium Carbonate, or CaCO3, to grow their shells. CaCO3 is a buffer chemical, which means that it can react with both hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions to form other chemicals. Buffer chemicals make a solution resistant to changes in pH. If you add an acid or base to a solution with a buffer, the pH will change very little, at least until the buffer runs out. Calcium Carbonate makes the ocean resistant to changes in pH, which is pretty handy because carbon dioxide reacts with seawater to produce carbonic acid. Human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide would have already turned the oceans to acid and killed off all the marine ecosystems if it weren’t for CaCO3. Unfortunately, the amount of CaCO3 in the ocean has been greatly reduced. This makes it harder for crustaceans like shrimp to grow their shells. This has lead to a decline in both population and size for marine crustaceans. If we keep emitting carbon dioxide, the calcium carbonate buffer will run out and the crustaceans will all die. Also, the ocean will turn to acid and all the fish will die too, whether it be due to the acid directly, or to food web collapse. This may herald the end of most life on earth.
was not prepared for the sad ending
aight we had good run
You can help protect the shrimp from extinction by getting rid of your car, going vegan, avoiding unnecessary flights, assassinating billionaires, and participating in armed revolution against the capitalist institutions.
Here’s a browser-based video game where you can see how humanity would do against climate change under your leadership, if we converted the world’s governments to socialism immediately: https://play.half.earth/
unfortunately I already do most things (the ones I can influence, anyway) but no way I can do more, even us as people vs countries that dont give a shit (china, india, etc).
China and India both have lower emissions per capita than rich western countries like America, England, and Australia. These high emission countries should only be complaining about China if they were already world leaders on emissions, which they are not. The top ten countries on per capita emissions are African. Afghanistan is 11. India is the leader of the larger countries.
Nature doesnt really give an F about per capita though
Imagine that you live in Texas. The US has a certain amount of emissions, and Texas has a certain smaller amount of emissions. If Texas seceded from the union, then you would live in a country with less emissions. Therefore, seceding is climate action.
Can you explain the flaw in this logic?
No the net emissiona stay the same. Ergo, boundaries are useless. But we can only change so much trough goverment. Idc per capita, India and China might have a lot of people but their industry is killing us They are by far the biggest contributors.
its not about living in a country or what country emits the most. The geographical region of india and china emit the most. China and india have the most control of that geographical region. Saying they are not responsible for the emissions is saying they dont have control and/or influence in these regions of industry and murder lf the earth
If you’re in the US, that’s not true. India emits less than US. India emits 3 billion tons of CO2 a year. USA emits 5 billion.
Now that we’ve sorted out the facts, let’s talk philosophy. You’re arguing that we should take actions that prevent climate collapse instead of worrying about borders and blame. I agree. So worry about the political processes that you have the power to participate in. You can’t vote in Chinese elections. You can’t vote in Indian elections. You can vote in your country’s elections, so worry about those.
The alternative is that America does nothing because China won’t do anything, and China does nothing because America won’t do anything. You’re just playing chicken. And what’s the prize for winning? Nothing. What happens if you’re both stubborn? Everyone and everything dies.
The shrimp don’t care whose fault it is that they all died. They just want to live. Every gram of CO2 we don’t emit could mean one more shrimp lives for one more day, and the total chance of climate collapse ticks down by one trillionth of a percent.