[katamaritaco]

The comparison to a WW2 tank in the Black Forest isn't great though, because the environments live on different timescales.

A forest can regrow and thrive after a few decades. The same is _not_ true for the deep sea[1].

'Life on the ocean floor moves at a glacial pace. Sediment accumulates at a rate of 1 millimeter every millennium. With such a slow rate of growth, areas disturbed by deep-sea mining would be unlikely to recover on a reasonable timescale.'

[1]: https://news.mit.edu/2019/understanding-impact-deep-sea-mini...

[seiferteric]

Are they mining in sensitive areas? Isn't there an equivalent of an underwater deserts with little life/biodiversity? Not to diminish this idea, but the ocean covers >70% of the earth so I would think this could be done somewhere with relatively little impact, but maybe I am wrong.

[lostlogin]

This area with nothing in it sounds like the oil spill “outside the environment” in the very excellent comedy skit “The Front Fell Off”. https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM

Edit: Linked to official channel. Thank you for the correction.

[mcfoobar]

Might be nice to link to the official Clarke and Dawe channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM ) rather than some knock off reupload. RIP John Clarke.

[seiferteric]

Not really. We already mine on land that covers only 30% of earth, I would think that would have a much bigger impact. Second, and oil spill spreads far and wide contaminating a vast area. All I am saying is mining can in theory be contained to a much smaller area.

[jascii]

I'm not sure our knowledge of the ocean is sufficient at this point to designate an area as "non sensitive".

[pvaldes]

And no fish nurseries in deep waters mean not mesopelagic fish. We could distroy it in a week, and the negative consequences over the human famine would be basically permanent. It just does not worth it.