One aspect that was left unaddressed and would be interesting to dive deeper is how containers create new ecosystems. This is true particularly in deep waters, where most lost stuff is reclaimed by the ocean, eventually becoming home for fish, and habitats where there was none.
I think it’s less impressive than you think. Most of the ocean is incredibly deep and the bottom isn’t that interesting. You really need to be (relatively) close-ish to shore and (relatively) shallow to see what most people think of as interesting.
In Florida, where I grew up, the state would sink old barges, tires, cement tubes left over from construction projects, etc. to make artificial reefs. Those were pretty cool because they were near shore and attracted the whole food chain from algae and coral all the way up to sharks and other apex predators. Do that in the middle of the ocean and you just add a new pile of junk that maybe a couple tiny shrimp and sightless fish call home.
I think you’re probably broadly right, because containers won’t be very useful, but in different circumstances things can be more complex than “a couple tiny shrimp and sightless fish”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_fall
> In Florida, where I grew up, the state would sink old barges, tires, cement tubes left over from construction projects, etc. to make artificial reefs.
That would be a good use for all of the oligarch super-yachts they're seizing. For one thing, they can't be sold. The market is going to be flooded with super-yachts. For another, nobody who wants to buy a super-yacht will want to disclose where their money is coming from, or who the actual owner is going to be.
Most ships aren't worth the cost to decontaminate and sink due to various environmental regulations. Some are reasonable and some are not.
I assume most of the superyacht will eventually go back to their owners where in relations with Russia are normalized if they have not deteriorated into worthlessness
Giving them back would reinforce Russia's belief that it can commit any kind of crime with impunity, which would then result in it becoming even more aggressive.
In The Ministry For the Future (World War Z style novel about what the near future might look like as climate change really takes hold) there’s a group that torpedos ships with shipping containers and uses drones to take down private jets and cargo planes. The idea being that if they do it enough, demand will dry up.
I like to brainstorm "engineering black swan events", and thought it would be interesting to use torpedoes/unmanned submersible IEDs/fertilizer-filled bulk freighters to attack major container ports, while simultaneously shorting the stocks of the publicly-traded companies that own/operate them. They seem like a very vulnerable part of the world's economy/supply chain.
> containers create new ecosystems. This is true particularly in deep waters, where most lost stuff is reclaimed by the ocean, eventually becoming home for fish, and habitats where there was none.
How often does this happen? What are the upsides and downsides? Do they destroy other habitats?
> would be interesting to dive deeper is how containers create new ecosystems. This is true particularly in deep waters, where most lost stuff is reclaimed by the ocean, eventually becoming home for fish, and habitats where there was none.
But look at the bright side. Seriously, while somewhat true that life is always amazing, I would expect, environmentally speaking, the sheer numbers of lost containers sitting on the bottom of the ocean is probably a net bad rather than a net good. Would be more interesting, though depressing, to see just what bad and how much bad, and how much of the ocean floor is left that isn't covered in containers.
I think an even more interesting question is to delve into what exactly “net bad” or “net good” even means. Relative to what?
I think we’ve been living in artificial environments for so long we’ve forgotten how much nature simply does not care and is not meant to be any particular way. It just is. Whether we are a part of the environment nature is adapting to is totally irrelevant from the perspective of other creatures, and we are both naive and solipsistic to think our notions of harm and no harm matter on an evolutionary timescale.
Dropping containers into the bottom of the ocean is bad for us. It conflicts with the pristine natural environment we envision and the natural order we have been adapted to and find interesting, beautiful and wish to protect, and it feels like bad stewardship of a garden we wish to cultivate.
That does not matter to nature. Different species within the ocean are in a constant battle for survival to adapt to anything and everything and containers are just another adaptational factor like any other.
I am worried by the number of people that seem to think nature will reciprocate if we are nice to it. We should strive to protect the environment and not change it drastically for our own reasons, not anthropomorphize and treat it like a substitute God that will reward us if we make the proper sacrifices to it.
This is a tangential rant not that related to what you’re saying, and I don’t know why a particular flavor of desire to protect nature as some kind of good in and of itself bothers me so much (which you may not hold in the manner that bothers me), but it does. I say that as someone who is currently bird watching while browsing hn by a marsh and loves evolutionary history and the study/protection of the natural world. I think maybe it’s because it diminishes where all of the stuff around us comes from and how we got here. Biological stuff is really, really, really old and been through environmental changes we can’t even imagine. I feel like a bunch of containers dropped in the ocean is like just another thing in a long, long, loooong history of all kinds of curve balls that contribute to the constant change that is the natural world.
> I am worried by the number of people that seem to think nature will reciprocate if we are nice to it.
Could you give an example of some of these people? I've never read that.
> nature simply does not care
It's philosophical and raises philosophical questions, but we can collect data on the practical outcomes. Plastic in the food supply, for example, isn't philosphical.
I think the best example of people who assume reciprocation are the types of tourists that walk up to and try to take pictures with wild animals. They assume as long as they’re nice the animal will be nice. On a larger scale, I think people tend to assume that bad natural events like fires, hurricanes, floods, etc relate to how we treat the planet, and that if we stop human activities, those things will become more manageable. I think a lot of people vastly underestimate how powerful and uncaring most natural forces are to a lot of what we do. Volcanoes have randomly erupted and emitted enough particulates to effectively cancel spring/summer. While we don’t want to use technology poorly and pollute our environment, the reason we have technology in the first place is to shape our environment to be less inhospitable to us than it is naturally.
> I think the best example of people who assume reciprocation are the types of tourists that walk up to and try to take pictures with wild animals. They assume as long as they’re nice the animal will be nice.
This is quite a stretch from befriending some mythical anthropomorphized 'Nature' to making nice with wild animals for photos. Animals actually do feel and act and respond, and it's actually true that animals will respond better to 'nice' behavior than aggressive behavior, though wild animals still are not reliable enough.
> I think people tend to assume that bad natural events like fires, hurricanes, floods, etc relate to how we treat the planet
They don't assume it, there is an enormous amount of evidence and clear scientific consensus going back decades that human activities cause climate change, and climate change results in some of the problems you describe. Other human activities also affect those things.
> the reason we have technology in the first place is to shape our environment to be less inhospitable to us than it is naturally
If you believe that, why don't you believe technology can also make our environment more inhospitable.
Again, it's all philosophy, and IMHO transparent. Do I really need to write all this to say the obvious? And when not philosophizing, what are you doing about our environment?
> And when not philosophizing, what are you doing about our environment?
I think you ought to re-read the posts you're replying to and stop trying to make an enemy of someone who, as far as I can tell, could well be doing as much about our environment as you are
I do believe technology can make our environment more inhospitable.
The best world is one with zero emissions and everyone having all their shipping/transportation, heating, air conditioning, farming, food preservation, and other energy needs met in full. The philosophizing becomes important when deciding between people’s ability to meet basic needs and environmental protection. I think it’s a mistake to think there’s an intrinsic good in trying to preserve nature as it is currently, as nature is agnostic and much more inhospitable without modern amenities. The good relates to all of the many benefits of the way the environment is now to us, including long term environmental effects relative to our survival and the continuation of all the beauty and learning opportunities that currently exist in the current form of our natural world.
I’m not sure where the hostility is coming from. My consumption is pretty low and I enjoy spending time in and learning about nature. I think the best and most practical thing we could be doing energy wise is building more nuclear salt reactors, which I advocate for fairly frequently. I am not arguing that we shouldn’t take care of the environment.
Likely for much of them, lost in storms over deep ocean, it really does not much of anything at all - the area around the Titanic is mostly empty and lifeless.
I wonder why it’s not possible to route around weather. We have slowed shipping (Slow Steaming) because no one was willing to pay the extra fuel cost for the faster transits. We’re very good at nowcasting and forecasting weather globally and extremely good at it near coasts (COAMPS). Why not avoid these systems rather than plow through? Or is global marine trade like the wildebeest migrations in the Serengeti?
>>>
More recently, the steep rise in demand for goods during the Covid era has meant that ships that once travelled at partial capacity now set off fully loaded and crews are pressured to adhere to strict timetables, even if doing so requires ignoring problems on board or sailing through storms instead of around them
Bottom line, cost, someone has done the math and has determined that it's cheaper to power thru than to try to re-route.
Insurers could change this by refusing to insure under certain conditions but they've also concluded that it makes better financial sense to let the situation continue as it is now.
I've come to the conclusion that if something that seems crazy continues to happen then the primary culprit is money. Not always, but it's up there.
> if something that seems crazy continues to happen then the primary culprit is money
I agree, but I’d get more specific; the primary culprit is usually over abstraction and misallocation due to bad assumptions about value.
When used appropriately, money is a fantastic way to signal relative need and allocate resources in a decentralized way, and is one of the most powerful and sophisticated technologies we have.
When money is artificially easy to come by and leveraging is artificially low risk, that decreases price signal quality and leads to increasing levels of insanity.
> the primary culprit is usually over abstraction and misallocation due to bad assumptions about value.
I really wish this was more widely known. People really love to think "I know exactly what would solve every problem" while over abstracting and making bad assumptions about value all the time
Haha, I don’t practice what I preach that well/don’t try to look for real value that actively. Majority of what I invest is in a couple different Vanguard index funds. I don’t have the time to do the proper research to pick well, so I just kind of hope the averages in the Vanguard picks work out favorably over time.
I took a chance on crypto in 2019 that worked well, but that wasn’t a huge bet.
I’m currently spinning up my own business, which I consider my main pie in the sky active investment. Depending on how that goes I might shift to more active investing later in life (am 30, single currently, and feel like the best path for active investment and hunting for real value right now is something I steer myself).
The primary reason is efficiency. Sometimes taking risks is more efficient. Efficiency may translate into money, but you are describing something as a vice, when it's not..
No one takes risks only for the sake of efficiency. They do so because taking risks to be efficient (can) make them more money. Efficiency for the sake of $$$
It also means goods getting to people who need or want them, when they want them, and at a lower price. Yes this is money, but money buys food, and fulfills many human needs.
There are always some needs that can't be addressed by money, but it sure goes a long way.
That is the point of money, to measure and guage efficiency. To answer the question of 'Is the risk of losing a ship and all hands worth it?' one merely need check the actuarial tables.
It could also be that the person in charge or scheduling gets a bonus for on time delivery and dinged for late deliveries but isn't punished for boats sinking.
Well, insurers tend to go off hard data (they rarely go looking for trouble), and it takes a decent number of sunk ships to start being a statistically significant shift.
I tried, but with all the ads and the way stuff dynamically loads it's actually darn hard to target anything using a quick scroll. I miss the old, plainer web.
"Afterward, among the shells and pebbles and dragons, residents and beachcombers kept coming across some of the cargo: a million plastic bags, headed for a supermarket chain in Ireland, bearing the words “Help protect the environment.”"
Lots of shipping stories today on HN.
One aspect that was left unaddressed and would be interesting to dive deeper is how containers create new ecosystems. This is true particularly in deep waters, where most lost stuff is reclaimed by the ocean, eventually becoming home for fish, and habitats where there was none.