/sci/ - Science & Math

>says we wil never reach an earth like planet because people do not want to explore dead rocks
>says what an individual wants do not determine what the world wants
>writes everything based on his own opinion, as an individual
I can sense a little logical mishap there bud

>>9789917
>I say people do want to explore dead rocks. And reason why we will never reach an earth like planet comes down to how far away those potential planets are.
>I say what an individual wants, does not represent what the world wants
>Yes, it's my opinion on why deep sea is more interesting that deep space

I sense poor reading comprehension there bud.

>>9789903

>People don't want to explore the deep sea, that is not dead and is full of unknown lifeforms and mystery.

But that is wrong, the vast majority that is not near fissures or currents is the sea equivalent of deserts on land. Boring, flat and featureless without any complex organisms.

>>9789903
why not both?

>>9790003
>the vast majority that is not near fissures or currents is the sea equivalent of deserts on land. Boring, flat and featureless without any complex organisms.

That's factually wrong.

>>9789903
>dead rocks.
>There is no life there.
>there is nothing there.
>we will never be able to reach an earth like planet
Thank you for your insightful prognostications, Nicodemus.

>>9790003
Are you a time traveler from the 1950's?

>>9789903
>> unknown lifeforms
That's biology, we all know biology is low-tier.

>>9789903
>And we will never be able to reach an earth like planet.

There's not really any reason (other than for SCIENCE and CURIOSITY) or need to reach one when you can build your colonies in space and spin them for artificial gravity.

>>9790267
You've never really studied anything about oceans have you? Most of the floor is essentially barren areas. Only barren places along the main currents where food energy comes through has a plethora of transient life. You need to remember that 99% of what you read or see it about the highlights. No one wants to show you a boring desert of a sea floor for an hour long tv documentary. That doesn't make them any money.

>>9790493
Yeah, it is pretty barren, but there is life there. And most of that life is uknown.
There is probably a vast amount of unknown deep sea ecosystems yet to be discovered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmSSJmRAGuA

>Boring, flat and featureless without any complex organisms.
There is plenty of complex organisms. Image related, Yeti crab.

>>9790513
>Yeti crab.
>used as an example of life living in barren areas of the ocean

Those were found around hydrothermal vents, not in barren areas.

Why can't we explore the deep sea anyway?

>>9790718
It's pointless to be honest. Earth has basically a similar kind of distribution of ecosystems throughout. You get the idea of the entire ecosystem just by examining a part of it. The oil industry do explore the deepest trenches of the oceans where they are granted permissions I guess. Till now they haven't recorded anything remarkable themselves.It's just a barren submerged desert with few species acclimatized to high pressure environment.

>>9790713
Well, deep sea vents are a part of the deep sea though, and deep sea is what the thread is about.
And you're pretty retarded if you think the barren areas don't have complex organisms. (Did you see the video)
You also don't care to address the fact that we know little to nothing about how these ecosystems work. And most of them are unknown to the degree that we're not even aware about any of the species that take part in it. If that is not reason to explore the deep sea, that I don't know what would be. Do you want mermaids or the cracken to be interested?
This >>9790740 doesn't count. You definitely can't understand a complete ecosystem, by just looking at parts of it. What a dumb thing to say.

>>9790776
Have you studied about ecological niches? I was talking in terms of functioning of ecosystem to be precise (that's how you study ecosystems. In terms of their functioning and output). One can easily understand it just by looking at a part/portion of it.
The undiscovered "complex" species that you you are talking about are actually acclimatized to high pressure environment i.e. they will obviously die whenever brought to the surface. Ain't gonna find lost land of Atlantis in acres of barren area.

>>9789903
Because on dead rock there is material to get to some watery planet with good weather. And we bring our own life, no need to find another.

humans arent dumb fish

>>9790792
But you said the entire ecosystem?
And if you have studied this, you should be able to explain how looking at a part of something, can give you the whole picture. At some point you might be able to "guess/fill inn" the blanks, but that depends on how big of a part/portion you're talking about.
I'm under the understanding that even though ecosystems have similarities, understanding a new species entire way of life and all it's interaction and niches takes some time to uncover. You even point out how hard it can be studying deep sea creatures.
Why would scientist even be interested in the deep sea, if it is as you're saying? You should tell them that there is no point in going down there. We know it all, nothing interesting to uncover. (And the discovery of deep sea vents kinda destroyed your way of thinking, that we know it all and it's all just mud).

>>9789903
>There is no life there.
There is life here, ergo there is life on other planets
>we will never be able to reach an earth like planet.
We could right now, it would just be expensive and take a very long time
>implicit exploration of oceans
News flash, the bottom of the oceans is also a deadzone with extremely little life according to all current data. Moreover you dont have any grasp of boyles, henrys, or pascals laws.

>TLDR
You are a retard who has never once read any relevant literature.

>>9790826
The size of the part/portion under observation largely depends upon the size of the main ecosystem. In this case it's the huge aquatic/deep sea ecosystem so the sampling size is going to be huge and larger than any terrestrial ecosystem like grassland or desert.
The guess work is more or less reliable in such cases because it's not like one is going to find colossal diversity at each kilometre in places like the deepest trenches of the ocean floor. It will more or less be similar or at least have a uniting demo-graphical distribution.
(Some variations could or may be seen but it is extremely rare because of severe crunch factors like the availability of light).
I am not stating that the scientists shouldn't research more on the deep sea but quite frankly one isn't going to find anything miraculously different over there. Maybe some some random new species of the same Genus of an organism?
(Benthic life forms have a sparse distribution).

>>9790776
>>9790513
Stop quoting different anons' and posts in a single fucking post you autistic shit. you replied to art least 3 people with shit from each as though they are all one person. It completely ruins your rebuttal and anyone's ability to reply to you properly. The discussion devolves into drivel and semantics doing shit like that.

>>9790929
>I am not stating that the scientists shouldn't research more on the deep sea but quite frankly one isn't going to find anything miraculously different over there. Maybe some some random new species of the same Genus of an organism?

Fair enough, I think that's interesting though.

>>9790936
I just quoted one other person, who seem to be the same/share the same opinon