this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
1234 points (97.5% liked)

Science Memes

14495 readers
1382 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If it's actually more efficient then trees, could be a good idea. Saw a 51/49 video where he explained the urban development in the US requiring only male trees be planted leads to increased pollen levels and has made the "allergy season" 30+ days longer over the past 50 years or so.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 2 points 21 hours ago

I still want the trees outdoors, but this would be cool for indoor spaces. Each mall or parking lot could have a solar panel overhead and slime-tanks to produce useful byproducts.

Maybe it could be mixed with and aquaculture like fish and sea plants to create cool scenery

[–] korazail@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

While I would hate to lose actual trees, I'm medium on the idea of this on it's own. People need lots of things and space, which causes the removal of trees. If we can replicate some of their functions, such as CO2 absorption with this tech, then that seems good. If upkeep is the same as a tree, I don't see a downside to the overall concept.

My thought would be that this shows up on top of the buildings instead of at ground level, though.... Plant real trees and put these on the roof. The real loss would be if we stop making green spaces because these things meet the need for O2. Green spaces in cities do way more than just clean the air, though, so I'm not sure we're that dystopian yet.

The photo looks like it doubles as a bench too, so maybe that helps justify its footprint. Make them a mini-light show with varied colors and it can become a functional art installation. How long until it has spikes to prevent someone from taking a nap on it, though?

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah completely agree, I like trees and don't want them completely gone or anything.

[–] shrugs@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

let me introduce you to this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robo-bees-could-aid-insects-with-pollination-duties/

humans are crazy. You want to know whats wrong with trees and bees? It's pretty hard to make a profit of them

[–] iamkindasomeone@feddit.org 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wake me up as soon as some goofy ass startup found out how to arrange the algae to display ads.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Add a blockchain and you could get libertarians tripping over to invest

[–] epicstove@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

When I was visiting Europe, seeing all the trees so well integrated into urban areas was so nice.

Then we git our flight back to Toronto. Concrete jungle.

[–] veggibles@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 day ago

Back when I was a kid, trees still lived under water.

[–] VampirePenguin@midwest.social 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Welp, all the trees are gone but at least there are these cloudy stinking tanks of goo everywhere. Does anything not dystopian happen anymore? Like these things are a set piece from Blade Runner FFS.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's a pretty bad example in this case because the picture is literally on a street with trees. What these are probably for is putting in places where no one's going to look at them but places where you can't put trees, like industrial estates and the rooftops of buildings. Aesthetics aren't important if no one is ever going to look at them aesthetically, and anyway they kind of look cool.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Redredme@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Can we please, stop reposting this same shit pic for the last, I dunno, year?

This is the gazillionth time. I get it. Is a stupid algea tank. where a simple tree does the same for a fraction of the cost. It's of no use in the public space except as a tech demo or art object.

So. Yeah... Next?

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

This is only the second time I've seen it, but please... there was a time when complaining about reposts was the most often repeated thing I saw on reddit. Can we not have that bit of irony become a thing here?

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can't adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.

So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now "liquid trees".

Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can't face that.

[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

I would be fine with changing my ways if changing my anything didn’t require endless paperwork. How is it fair that some guy invents agriculture and now I have to have a credit score

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's an incredibly negative spin.

All these technologies are improvements on the natural version, not a replacement for the natural version, but an upgrade. If you want nice trees go take a walk in a city park, these aren't for looking at they have a different objective. We can have both things, one isn't trying to replace the other.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 71 points 2 days ago (2 children)

ITT: People who looked at some random headline, didn't bother looking further and assumed they knew everything.

It's a stupid headline. These tanks, are to directly affect air polution/quality in urban areas. Trees are terrible at that. The microalgae is 10-50x more effective in cleaning the air.

They aren't going to rip out trees for these. It would have taken you 10 seconds to find the source of the image and the article from 3 years ago to find out, the social media post was misleading. You spent more time making incorrect and wild accusations.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

These algae also produce biogas that can be used for heating or producing electricity.

[–] BottleCaptain@lemmy.pt 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Damn if only trees created something gaseous that was useful

[–] AlolanYoda@mander.xyz 4 points 1 day ago

They emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and oxygen, which causes rust in metals and aging in humans. So it's a negative really...

[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 53 points 2 days ago (9 children)

I discovered when I joined a volunteer litter-picking group in my town that some people really hate trees. And I must emphasise HATE. They hate the shade they cast in summer, the way the leaves block the all-important View. They hate the fallen leaves in autumn. They hate the bare branches in winter. They hate the risk of branches falling in storms. They hate the racket the birds make. I was astonished - it never occurred to me that people would feel so strongly.

Turns out I'm a bloody tree-hugging extremist.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Few things about trees in cities: (1) tree roots ruin sidewalks because they upend that stuff; (2) tree roots get into and ruin infrastructure, (3) not every curb can sustain a tree, so these could fit where a tree could not; and (4) they damage stuff when they fall over in storms.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Crazy thought - instead of just putting trees near curbs, have dedicated green spaces in cities where there aren't sidewalks or other important infrastructure near the trees.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think the current plan is to simply depopulate the United States through fiscal policies and have everyone move back to Europe.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Why not both green spaces (central park anyone?) and these alge pods everywhere else?

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Where did you get these ideas you freak

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 145 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (16 children)

While I don't want to spoil the joke (but I will) and I hate techno-optimist solutions that displace actual solutions for our biosphere as much as the next person: supposedly, Belgrade is such a dense concrete hell that trees aren't viable solution (at least in the short term).

There is some rumbling that liquid trees are not the solution to the real problems caused by large-scale deforestation, nor does it reduce erosion or enrich the soil. However, much of this wrath is misplaced as Liquid tree designers say that it was not made as a replacement for trees but was designed to work in areas where growing trees would be non-viable. Initiatives like Trillion Trees are laudable, but there is something to be said for the true utility of this tiny bioreactor. The fact that they can capture useful amounts of carbon dioxide from day one is another benefit for them. Such bioreactors are expected to become widespread in urban areas around the world as the planet battles rising carbon levels in the atmosphere.

Source

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] CaptainHowdy@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Dumb take. If someone crashes their car into one of these, it can be replaced in a few days. Trees take decades to grow in ideal conditions. Between tall buildings in a city is far from ideal conditions.

Also algae is way more efficient at converting CO2 into O2; I think it's maybe multiple times more efficient using the same amount of light.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 26 points 1 day ago (3 children)

As an emergency responder, I can say with confidence that when a car hits a tree, it's rare that the car wins. The tree usually just shrugs it off.

[–] CaptainHowdy@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago

I've definitely seen "median trees" and "sidewalk trees" here in Atlanta get removed or replaced after a car hits them. But for sure, large trees can easily shrug off a car crash. Those are just not usually in heavily urban areas like these tanks are meant for.

Not that it is super relevant to this discussion, but last month someone with a chainsaw cut down multiple (I wanna say a dozen or so) trees along a street in Atlanta in the middle of the night. Who TF would do that?!?! Sad and pointless....

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 70 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is missing out on likely the most important part of trees in urban areas. Shade. They give you a cooler place to stand or walk through.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 47 points 2 days ago

No standing or sitting allowed. Resume consumerism!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bratorange@feddit.org 92 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (13 children)

Like I always think that people don’t get one thing about trees in a city. There purpose is is not about co2. The co2 reduction of city trees is neglectable. The reason you need them in a city is temperature regulation, shade, air quality, mood, the local eco system and maybe solidifying unsealed ground. Putting these tanks in a city is laughably inefficient w.r.t. co2 conversion if you compare this to any effort to do this in instustrial capacity ( which is is also still laughably inefficient)

[–] pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

From the top of my head, they also help manage storm water by filtering rainwater into the aquifer, while also lowering flood risks, provides habitats for plants, insects, birds, and small animals while also being a natural sound barriers, which reduces noise pollution. All of these together greatly increase mental health for everyone too

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] DimFisher@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Keep in mind that tree roots can brake through anything

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago

Not all do. That's an oak thing really. Pines, most stone fruits, etc, take a path of least resistance, unlike oaks which are more "I am going that way, and NOTHING will stop me!"

[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Trees take ages to grow, and their root systems damage buildings and pavements.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bennypr0fane@discuss.tchncs.de 47 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (10 children)

I guess the "problem" with trees is obvious: it takes decades for them to produce the desired cooling effect in urban areas. You plant a dozen young trees today, you can begin to reap the cooldown 10 years later at best. Also, they need a lot if water, and many of them just don't make it - urban surroundings are just much hotter and more stressful (smog, salt...) then standing with other trees in a forest. I fail to see though how these artificial "trees" provide any kind of benefit at all.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Alternative in what sense?

[–] scala@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pretty sure some cities have about zero areas for a tree to grow. Algae produces a much larger percentage of oxygen compared to any tree.

[–] quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Pretty sure trees in cities aren't there to produce oxygen or capture carbon.

[–] MouldyCat@feddit.uk 6 points 1 day ago

Trees do actually improve air quality, by absorbing harmful gases like sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide through their leaves. Additionally they can reduce particulate pollution by up to 70% - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200504-which-trees-reduce-air-pollution-best

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mostly they're there either for decoration or to lower street temperature. Depending on how long ago they were planted.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com 102 points 2 days ago (12 children)

im guessing "where will the animals go" is also a stupid question?

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›