Of note: This only occurred for fragments taken from an individual of the same genetic makeup(genet: basic meaning is they are a colony).
I find it strange that the first observance of this was a year ago, especially given how rapidly it occurs. Coral bleaching has probably been studied since the 80s when major events started being noticed. If Stephen Palumbi is reading this, I would love to read why you think it took so long.
Having been a diver on the Great Barrier Reef numerous times, the scale of bleaching events means that there is often no non-bleached neighbour for vast distances. Healthy propagation rarely occurs before the brown sludge sets in, then its game over.
This kills me. I saw the reef for the first time around 2007. I went back twice, and the last time I was there (2017) I honestly couldn't believe what I saw. Wasteland? An under water desert? I don't have words for it, but I don't really want to go back because it hit me so hard. Our planet is dying and we're sitting here debating why/who and not doing anywhere near enough to fix it.
I'm so glad we have space rockets, flying cars and drone warfare...but I'd trade it all in for the reef to come back.
> I'm so glad we have space rockets, flying cars and drone warfare...but I'd trade it all in for the reef to come back.
It's really just climate change. (Ocean warming is what causes bleaching.) Luckily, since the 80s we've had the technology to generate energy without releasing greenhouse gases. I wish more people knew about the harms caused by climate change because maybe if they were they'd be more interested in preventing them.
I feel like the harms were really drilled into Millennials like myself but then we seem to have assumed that younger Gen Zs and gen Alpha will just receive the climate change wisdom via osmosis or maybe if we're lucky, their parents. I've seen more people worrying about under-population (under population!) than the environment recently. Maybe we need to bring Captain Planet back.
That's horrifying to hear. I also went on a multi day dive trip at gbr and the coral sea in 2007 and it was spectacular; I can't imagine going back and seeing it degraded.
How many humans are worth restoring the coral reef?
Because it’s nice to say these things in Sentiment, until you see past the naïveté to see human lives are what cause the wear and extraction on the environment. Humans live, eat, shit in, consume their environment for their lives.
How many humans are worth restoring the reef for you? And would you sacrifice your own friends and family?
You don’t need to sacrifice humans, you need humans to behave different. Do you know the energy requirements that go into war? The chemical, carbon and physical changes to the ocean from all we do?
We don’t need to kill more humans, we just need to stop being fucking idiots for a few hundred years.
> Our planet is dying and we're sitting here debating why/who and not doing anywhere near enough to fix it.
If only we were just debating why/who! Thanks to Social Media, filter bubbles, and “alternative facts,” we are back to debating whether it is actually even happening or not.
Happy to report the northern and central GBR coral cover is currently higher than any time measured before 2020. Southern is currently below its long-term average, but 2024 was a record high in coral cover.
Wow, I wasn’t aware of this. I’ve always read climate change as the primary driver for bleaching. If that is the case, do we know why/how they’ve recovered?
I remember hearing that the concern with our best techniques for rescuing coral reefs is that they would create a monoculture, and monocultures tend to be very susceptible to specific diseases.
> Fragments from different species and even different animals of the same species did not fuse together, and so did not nurse the bleached piece back to health.
Sounds like a solution is still well within our reach. Normally I wouldn’t suggest something as extreme as using cloning techniques to restore wild creatures, but of course it was extreme actions that got us here in the first place, so I think this balances it out.
Since you mentioned you’re still finding your way in life: please be aware that the appeal of a lot of new age and „woo“ is that the act of noticing a pattern in nature, that feeling of „aaah NOW it makes sense“ is inherently pleasant and can become something you chase like a drug. These frameworks or schools of thought can provide a steady source of that feeling without necessarily being tethered to reality at all. Kind of like acid - very fun at times but catastrophic if you make it a core part of your identity.
Why would the frequency of the healthy one win over the frequency of the non-healthy one though? I assume both would have their own frequencies, are you implying there's an order or tendency across frequencies?
My interpretation is “Programming in their nature” -> their being, meaning the molecular structure that defines them, is a program, a complex program, one executed by the interpreter that is physics.
You might be interested in Catholic theology + philosophy. It takes a LOT of background, and a lot of time to accumulate it, but you clearly have some already, and once you get comfortable with reframing terms that have a lot of societal baggage attached to simpler, honest understandings (for example, God, as a sky dude vs the universe as a mind), you can go so far.
Of note: This only occurred for fragments taken from an individual of the same genetic makeup(genet: basic meaning is they are a colony).
I find it strange that the first observance of this was a year ago, especially given how rapidly it occurs. Coral bleaching has probably been studied since the 80s when major events started being noticed. If Stephen Palumbi is reading this, I would love to read why you think it took so long.
Having been a diver on the Great Barrier Reef numerous times, the scale of bleaching events means that there is often no non-bleached neighbour for vast distances. Healthy propagation rarely occurs before the brown sludge sets in, then its game over.
This kills me. I saw the reef for the first time around 2007. I went back twice, and the last time I was there (2017) I honestly couldn't believe what I saw. Wasteland? An under water desert? I don't have words for it, but I don't really want to go back because it hit me so hard. Our planet is dying and we're sitting here debating why/who and not doing anywhere near enough to fix it.
I'm so glad we have space rockets, flying cars and drone warfare...but I'd trade it all in for the reef to come back.
> I'm so glad we have space rockets, flying cars and drone warfare...but I'd trade it all in for the reef to come back.
It's really just climate change. (Ocean warming is what causes bleaching.) Luckily, since the 80s we've had the technology to generate energy without releasing greenhouse gases. I wish more people knew about the harms caused by climate change because maybe if they were they'd be more interested in preventing them.
I feel like the harms were really drilled into Millennials like myself but then we seem to have assumed that younger Gen Zs and gen Alpha will just receive the climate change wisdom via osmosis or maybe if we're lucky, their parents. I've seen more people worrying about under-population (under population!) than the environment recently. Maybe we need to bring Captain Planet back.
That's horrifying to hear. I also went on a multi day dive trip at gbr and the coral sea in 2007 and it was spectacular; I can't imagine going back and seeing it degraded.
How many humans are worth restoring the coral reef?
Because it’s nice to say these things in Sentiment, until you see past the naïveté to see human lives are what cause the wear and extraction on the environment. Humans live, eat, shit in, consume their environment for their lives.
How many humans are worth restoring the reef for you? And would you sacrifice your own friends and family?
This is an absurd remark.
You don’t need to sacrifice humans, you need humans to behave different. Do you know the energy requirements that go into war? The chemical, carbon and physical changes to the ocean from all we do?
We don’t need to kill more humans, we just need to stop being fucking idiots for a few hundred years.
> Our planet is dying and we're sitting here debating why/who and not doing anywhere near enough to fix it.
If only we were just debating why/who! Thanks to Social Media, filter bubbles, and “alternative facts,” we are back to debating whether it is actually even happening or not.
Happy to report the northern and central GBR coral cover is currently higher than any time measured before 2020. Southern is currently below its long-term average, but 2024 was a record high in coral cover.
https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-co...
This doesn't mean everything is fine, but it is doing way better than 2017.
I wonder if coral coverage is a meaningful stat itself. Does that directly translate to diversified creatures?
Was in central GBR this year, can't say I'm super impressed but not sure how I should set my expectation
Wow, I wasn’t aware of this. I’ve always read climate change as the primary driver for bleaching. If that is the case, do we know why/how they’ve recovered?
"The planet is fine, the people are fscked!"
"The Industrial Revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race -- and every other living being on the planet as well."
At least we are owning the libs.
> This incredible new result
Only if you've never talked to anyone remotely involved with propagating coral, including those in the saltwater fish-tank community!
I remember hearing that the concern with our best techniques for rescuing coral reefs is that they would create a monoculture, and monocultures tend to be very susceptible to specific diseases.
Only if they are clones - genetically identical. So not much use in practice, unfortunately.
I think the article says they just haven't tested other cases. I wouldn't expect the symbiotic microalgae to be that picky.
Edit - The article makes Okkef's point, I just missed it.
The article says otherwise.
> Fragments from different species and even different animals of the same species did not fuse together, and so did not nurse the bleached piece back to health.
Sounds like a solution is still well within our reach. Normally I wouldn’t suggest something as extreme as using cloning techniques to restore wild creatures, but of course it was extreme actions that got us here in the first place, so I think this balances it out.
We don’t use cloning enough IMO.
We use cloning plenty - most fruits we eat are clones, and it has some drawbacks (see Cavendish bananas).
We could create a bank of coral clones tagged to each individual location.
Some good news :) anything to bring back coral reefs
Anything but reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn.
My first thought when reading the headline... horizontal gene transfer?
> My first thought when reading the headline...
Conways game of life.
Could this also, have anything to do with, Nikola Tesla's resonance theory on dark matter and consciousness, in play in living matter?
More intelligent individuals should look more into this field.
No. Tesla's resonance theory has nothing to do with dark matter, consciousness, or living matter.
I'm all about the concepts you're presenting, but care to elaborate on how you think the corals relate?
Disclaimer: I am still finding my way in life, so take this theory with a grain of salt.
New age movement, claim everything on earth is actually a hologram of the universe, experiencing itself.
So perhaps, just being in close proximity with another coral, the hologram frequency was now more in tuned.
Since you mentioned you’re still finding your way in life: please be aware that the appeal of a lot of new age and „woo“ is that the act of noticing a pattern in nature, that feeling of „aaah NOW it makes sense“ is inherently pleasant and can become something you chase like a drug. These frameworks or schools of thought can provide a steady source of that feeling without necessarily being tethered to reality at all. Kind of like acid - very fun at times but catastrophic if you make it a core part of your identity.
Well said, I have found myself in this place before in life and it can be quite dangerous
Why would the frequency of the healthy one win over the frequency of the non-healthy one though? I assume both would have their own frequencies, are you implying there's an order or tendency across frequencies?
Same reason, stem cells repair damage body cells, I guess.
I am just glad coral can repair themselves.
Thumbs up to the researcher.
I am just trying to understand your ideas and riff on them
Cells are complex organisms and contain programming in their nature so we can more easily trace and understand its reasons
A frequency is something a lot more raw than a cell
I will repeat this for the last time. I am not an expert in the field.
"programming in their nature" means they have a range of frequency, like a radio? perharps.
Nevertheless, thumbs up to the researcher. Positive vibes.
My interpretation is “Programming in their nature” -> their being, meaning the molecular structure that defines them, is a program, a complex program, one executed by the interpreter that is physics.
I'm not quite following your defensive style of writing. What's up with that?
Do you believe only experts can contribute to discussions and ideas? Are you afraid of sounding "dumb"?
No question/idea is stupid and it's okay to be wrong or to learn something by putting yourself out there!
You might be interested in Catholic theology + philosophy. It takes a LOT of background, and a lot of time to accumulate it, but you clearly have some already, and once you get comfortable with reframing terms that have a lot of societal baggage attached to simpler, honest understandings (for example, God, as a sky dude vs the universe as a mind), you can go so far.
No that's ridiculous woo woo. It's just that some of the symbiotic algae from the healthy coral transfer over to feed and revive the sick coral.