[tlhighbaugh]

Years ago, in a pool of improperly disposed of motor oil in the corner of my ex-girlfriend's parent's yard, I was amazed to discover mushrooms that started growing in the oil and looked like they were consuming the oil. Each winter, when mushroom conditions were ripest, they returned until the stump the pool of oil gathered around sprouted new branches and started growing again. Turns out there are species of mushrooms that consume oil on the surface of the planet.

So this doesn't shock me at all, its an example of how regardless of humanity's arrogance, life on Earth will be around long after our species and its descendants cease to exist, to think otherwise is to prove one's ignorance.

[CSMastermind]

The biology and evolutionary history of fungi is incredibly fascinating.

To my (admittedly layman) understanding, they're sort of life's premiere resource extractors. Their whole thing is breaking down things that other life can't, so it's not surprising at all that some species can consume oil.

We know they co-evolved with plants, and one theory suggests that fungi allowed plants to make the jump from water to land by using their hyphae to act as a proto-root system, unlock nutrients like phosphorus from the soil, and transport water, while early land plants provided sugars produced from photosynthesis in return.

One of the main differentiations that might have led to the split between proto-fungi and proto-animals is their nutrient acquisition strategy. The organism that would become fungi had extracellular digestion, while the organism that would become animals captured and ingested other organisms.

This split led to different approaches to cellular adhesion along with different developmental and signaling pathways (different strategies for achieving homeostasis for instance).

---

If you want to read about some really wild stuff, look up the Late Paleozoic era in the Carboniferous period. Basically plants evolved Lignin (wood) but there was nothing in the world that could break it down so it rapidly accumulated along with a hyperoxgenated atmosphere due to the extensive growth. This meant there were 8 foot long millipedes and dragonflies that size of crows flying around. There were also massive forest fires spanning the globe since fire was one of the only ways to get rid of the lignin until, eventually, some fungi evolved to take care of the problem.

[maxmalkav]

> Basically plants evolved Lignin (wood) but there was nothing in the world that could break it down so it rapidly accumulated along with a hyperoxgenated atmosphere due to the extensive growth.

That was my understanding too until recently, when I have read in a couple of places that things might not have been like that. Checking the Wikipedia article about Carboniferous [1] it seems there is not consensus yet:

"There is ongoing debate as to why this peak in the formation of Earth's coal deposits occurred during the Carboniferous. The first theory, known as the delayed fungal evolution hypothesis, is that a delay between the development of trees with the wood fibre lignin and the subsequent evolution of lignin-degrading fungi gave a period of time where vast amounts of lignin-based organic material could accumulate. Genetic analysis of basidiomycete fungi, which have enzymes capable of breaking down lignin, supports this theory by suggesting this fungi evolved in the Permian. However, significant Mesozoic and Cenozoic coal deposits formed after lignin-digesting fungi had become well established, and fungal degradation of lignin may have already evolved by the end of the Devonian, even if the specific enzymes used by basidiomycetes had not. The second theory is that the geographical setting and climate of the Carboniferous were unique in Earth's history: the co-occurrence of the position of the continents across the humid equatorial zone, high biological productivity, and the low-lying, water-logged and slowly subsiding sedimentary basins that allowed the thick accumulation of peat were sufficient to account for the peak in coal formation."

One way or another, I find fascinating how different the planet has been along its geologic periods.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous#Coal_formation

[lioeters]

> Mycoremediation (from ancient Greek μύκης (mukēs), meaning "fungus", and the suffix -remedium, in Latin meaning 'restoring balance') is a form of bioremediation in which fungi-based remediation methods are used to decontaminate the environment.

> Fungi have been proven to be a cheap, effective and environmentally sound way for removing a wide array of contaminants from damaged environments or wastewater. These contaminants include heavy metals, organic pollutants, textile dyes, leather tanning chemicals and wastewater, petroleum fuels, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, pesticides and herbicides in land, fresh water, and marine environments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoremediation

[x86x87]

Yeah. Lookup Mycellium Running by that wacky dude Stamets. There are mushroom species that can be emplotey to cleanup nasty oil spills and stuff.

Also, there are mushroom species that can breakdown plastics in effect getting rid of stuff that woulf take hundreds/thousads of years to decompose.

Mushrooms are amazing

[ProllyInfamous]

>Mushrooms are amazing

Lichens are incredible. Check out the book Entangled Life, which Paul Stamets proclaims is "a must-read!"

[x86x87]

Lichens are a mix of algae & fungi. :)

[ProllyInfamous]

& bacteria. :)

[x86x87]

Here: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_stamets_6_ways_mushrooms_can_...

[wolverine876]

> life on Earth will be around long after our species and its descendants cease to exist, to think otherwise is to prove one's ignorance.

Who says otherwise?

[medoc]

It's a common misconception that the reason we should be more frugal is to save the planet, ecosystems, or cute animals.

[mandmandam]

What is the misconception?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

We are killing species at 100-1,000 times the background rate. The damage can never be undone. The Earth may recover, on geological time scales, but 99.9% of those species aren't ever coming back. It's extremely unwise to be committing mass murder on the biosphere like this, and not a matter of "frugality".

[wolverine876]

Personally, I think it's very important, and I think most people would agree, to prevent harm and cost to humans, and to enable them to be free, live long, and prosper. [0] I don't think there's a higher moral or practical imperative - if you don't care about that, what do you care about? The GGP said "life on Earth will be around long after our species and its descendants cease to exist", implying that the extinction of humans was not an issue!

Damage to nature, as a general concept, can often shorten lives, cause great harm to the living (warfare, starvation), and cost enormous amounts of money - climate change is very expensive. One reason is that we have enormous amounts of fixed capital - 10,000 years worth, in a way - invested in the ecosystems as they currently are, including all our agriculture, ports, cities, infrastructure, borders, food and water supply, etc. etc. It will be very expensive and pointless to rebuild it all for new ecosystems instead of just retaining what we have.

Also, most people agree that harming animals is also wrong, though not nearly on the level of harming humans. If you physically abuse your dog, for example, people will be angry and there are laws against it in most places.

And I think most people value what is 'natural' to some degree; it seems like a common value of humanity across time and cultures. They prefer the natural hill to the strip-mined one, the green field to the parking lot. They also like coal and parking their car, so there are competing values too.

[0] :)

[b112]

Personally, I think it's very important, and I think most people would agree, to prevent harm and cost to humans, and to enable them to be free, live long, and prosper. [0] I don't think there's a higher moral or practical imperative - if you don't care about that, what do you care about?

Believe it or not, I have met many people which have a belief system close to "humans are scum and deserve to go extinct" along with "but we're hurting rabbits, and they're cute!".

These people prattle on extensively about how our activities are "hurting the planet", without caring that we're actually hurting ourselves. We aren't part of the equation. Mostly, these sorts just repeat things they've heard without ponderance or thought.

I've had conversations with people about how mosquitoes are important, not to be a food source for things, but instead, because "poor mosquitoes". It doesn't matter to them that mosquitoes are the number on killer of humans, AND the same can be said for the harm caused to animals.

I often wonder if this sort is just a troll. Trolls existed way before the internet ever existed, they can be found at town meetings.

Ah well.

Re: mosquitoes. I absolutely think we should genetically engineer methods which result in the extinction of all blood sucking animals. Leeches, mosquitoes, all flies, bed bugs, you name it. The pain and misery that humans and animals alike suffer from such horrors, is immense.

Animals have been seen to run off of cliffs, due to biting flies swarming them.

They spread disease, they cause infection, and frankly if 10% of birds of extinct as a result, well I will be sad but call it a fair price.

We need to start geo-engineering our own biosphere. This seems like a very good start.

(NOTE: before replying, people should consider. Do they live in a nice city, with almost none of the above parasites? Or do you have great experience of going outside in the spring, in a rural area, with quite literally mosquitoes so thick that you have a hard time seeing through them?

Have you lived in an area where you're being attacked by 100s of insects simultaneously? That's not an exaggeration, even remotely, I can walk outside my door in May and have literally more than 100 insects trying to suck my blood in under a minute.

If these things aren't true, if you don't know what life is actually living in nature, and not just inside a city, then I submit that your opinion has far less value.)

[ceejayoz]

Yep. These sorts of thing can’t possibly go wrong. Maybe next we can take out those pesky sparrows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign

[b112]

Yes indeed, if you work on a thing, any thing, mistakes can be made.

That does not mean you stop working towards a goal, or you drop the concept of modifying the universe around you. If that were so, we'd still be in the stone age.

Instead you observe those mistakes, consider the lesson of those mistakes, and then apply them towards further efforts. Anything else means we may as well give up all science, and cower in caves.

[adammarples]

Yeah, ecosystems are fragile, they're equilibria. Of course if you disrupt them you eventually get another one, but I'm quite fond of the ones we have and not looking forward to a cool fungi and jellyfish locust swarm ecosystem or whatever comes next.

[ceejayoz]

“Save the planet” is a short slogan for “not have sentient cockroaches wondering what happened to the folks who dug up all the coal”.

No one asserts climate change is gonna crack the planet in half.

[Shekelphile]

We are actually in the last 20% of time remaining for life on earth to exist. Multicellular life will likely go extinct within a few hundred million years.

[whutsurnaym]

That's not information I'd heard before. Do you have a source?

[philipkglass]

Not a "few" hundred million years, but less than a billion years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Ear...

500-600 million years: The Sun's increasing luminosity begins to disrupt the carbonate–silicate cycle; higher luminosity increases weathering of surface rocks, which traps carbon dioxide in the ground as carbonate. As water evaporates from the Earth's surface, rocks harden, causing plate tectonics to slow and eventually stop once the oceans evaporate completely. With less volcanism to recycle carbon into the Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels begin to fall. By this time, carbon dioxide levels will fall to the point at which C3 photosynthesis is no longer possible. All plants that use C3 photosynthesis (≈99 percent of present-day species) will die.

...

800-900 million years: Carbon dioxide levels will fall to the point at which C4 photosynthesis is no longer possible. Without plant life to recycle oxygen in the atmosphere, free oxygen and the ozone layer will disappear from the atmosphere allowing for intense levels of deadly UV light to reach the surface. Animals in food chains that were dependent on live plants will disappear shortly afterward. At most, animal life could survive about 3 to 100 million years after plant life dies out. Just like plants, the extinction of animals will likely coincide with the loss of plants. It will start with large animals, then smaller animals and flying creatures, then amphibians, followed by reptiles, and finally, invertebrates. In the book The Life and Death of Planet Earth, authors Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee state that some animal life may be able to survive in the oceans. Eventually, however, all multicellular life will die out.

[rad_gruchalski]

We better find the Planet B.

[MikeTheGreat]

At least we have a long runway?

[DANmode]

Any evidence, here or elsewhere, that it completely consumed the toxic compounds?

Neat evidence either way, that they thrive in that condition.

[Log_out_]

So encode human genomes into mushrooms, so we rise again? Great idea

[hypercube33]

Wasn't that an episode of SG1 with the mushroom humanoids?