Bacteria Could Help Stop Desertification 218
Bridgette Steffen writes "In attempt to slow down desertification, a student at London's Architectural Association has proposed a 6000 km sandstone wall that will not only act as a break across the Sahara Desert, but also serve as refugee shelter. Last fall it won first prize in the Holcim Foundation's Awards for Sustainable Construction, and will use bacteria to solidify the sandstone."
deserts move all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a big fan of interfering.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
why exactly are we to interfer with this process?
Because moving the farmers would require something approaching socialism, and not moving the farmers would require something appraching starvation.
Moving the desert is a better choice.
Details (Score:5, Insightful)
The most information I could find is here [flickr.com] (the full-size images are pretty large) and here [blogspot.com].
It's hard to pick through the information, but is this scientifically viable? Or is this the random musings of an architecture student focusing only on the architecture side, and ignoring the biology side?
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
Nature is not "wise", and it is wrong to personify it or otherwise assume otherwise. All nature does is follow the path of least resistance.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
Except it's usually the loopy lefty crunchy hippy types that actually most often anthropomorophize nature, assign it a personality, presume they know what it wants and how it should be, etc. You know it's true.
Re:How will a wall help ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of the sand is traveling very low to the ground. Sure, there's still a nice big dust cloud up high, but that big tall plume represents the least dense of the material, which is why it rises to the top.
You're essentially asking, "why have a sea wall if the very tops of the largest waves might still occasionally break over the top?"
Re:How will a wall help ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm personally wondering what would prevent this wall from just catalyzing the formation of a massive sand dune, which would eventually rise above the wall, effectively rendering the wall useless. Unlike the Ocean, once sand rises up against the wall it isn't going to flow back out later.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
I was watching a program last night about the evolution of the planet, something about vulcanic activity and the superplume, and other things, as well as the evolution of the first landwalkers (tulogs?) that basically looked like a cross between crocodiles and fish, among all the changes in the environment, as well as mass ocean pollution (millions of years ago) killing a vast number of species.
When someone says nature is wise, they probably are romantizing how much "nature"/god? cares about our survival as a species but also don't want to be at the short end of the evolutionary stick when nature shows it' uncaring side and things change. I'm sure a man-made solutions to various things would be welcomed with open arms then.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:2, Insightful)
This seems to have 2 very obvious problems...
first of all, this [flickr.com] is what they are talking about harnessing with that wall. I hope those bacteria aren't afraid of heights.
Second, I am no environmentalist (proud to say), but seems to me that making such a large impact on the worlds climate (and the Sahara sandstorm is a force that has effects on the entire globe) is something that could have many unforseen effects.
I am no hippie but whenever it comes to a discussion about making a major "upgrade" to our environment I remain suspicious. Nature itself may not be wise.... but its balanced. We have a way of upsetting that balance in the interest of making things "better" for us.
Sometimes the risk and effort is worth it, but this doesn't seem like one of those cases in its current stage.
Re:I for one (Score:1, Insightful)
There's a reason that the indigs got conquered.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
Life as a whole survived, sure, but there were changes and extinctions, just as there are now. It's sustainable only in the way that everything is.
Re:How will a wall help ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike the Ocean, once sand rises up against the wall it isn't going to flow back out later.
Unlike the ocean? Same thing happens there. Actually in some places walls are constructed along coastlines to trap sand for beach nourishment.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hardly anthropomorphic to describe nature as self correcting. Life on earth survived for what, like a billion years without modern man fucking it up? Pretty much a model for sustainability if you ask me.
It's hardly anthropomorphic to describe nature as self correcting? Really? That implies that there is something to correct, which implies ... . Not to mention describing some universal aspect of "Life" which the existence of an unbalanced humanity can "fuck up?" Sounds pretty anthropomorphized to me.
The crux of the matter seems to be, what do you mean by "self correcting?" I'm also unsure why you bring modern man into the equation. Surely you're aware of a multitude of previous mass extinctions? Surely you're aware of the extinction of not only species but of entire orders of life? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but when you say "without modern man fucking it" you make it sound like humans are something exceptional in terms of extinctions?
A balanced and closed ecosystem is naturally self correcting. Humans will prove no different. The available resources will be consumed, humans will die off in large numbers and a balance will be reached eventually where real sustainability can be achieved.
Ah yes, sustainability...the new holy grail.
The only thing "self correcting" or "sustainable" about life on earth is that there is life on earth.
Re:It's called "Bacterial cement" (Score:3, Insightful)
Little googling revealed that bacteria could actually do it.
Beats the hell out of reading the article!
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
When people describe nature as self-correcting, they aren't usually referring to any inherent right or wrong. What gets corrected is imbalance, such as restoring a predator-prey system to equilibrium. It seems to me that discussing natural equilibria doesn't have to involve intent, purpose, morals, or anything else that would make it anthropomorphic to say that nature is self-correcting.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How will a wall help ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sandtrout and wind traps, duh.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, I understand that (and almost didn't say what I did, how I did..) but then again, what is balance in nature--what does that mean?
I don't think there is any (forgive the term) "natural" state which is the proper and balanced state. Everything in nature is constantly in flux. Sure, to use the common example of the predator-prey equilibrium, that is sometimes the case. Sometimes the predators go extinct, sometimes prey go extinct, sometimes they both do.
It seems to me that it's far easier to look at life on Earth through the lens of evolutionary bubbles and crashes. It only seems self correcting because we want to apply some kind of order to it, when it reality, that's just the way the universe works. When a forest fire burns, it burns everything it can, until it's burned too much and dies out. That seems about the same level of self correcting to me.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
Because we _caused_ the desert. Overpopulation, Overgrazing goats, digging for aquifers, using imported fertilizers, etc., helped destroy modest existing ecosystems that stabilized the soil and retained soil at the desert's border. Looked at over thousands of years of geological and archaelogical history, it seems clear that humans created or wildly expanded the deserts. There were amazing small areas that weren't overfarmed and avoided overpopulated, as experiments, and they showed up as remaining green and fertile as the desert grew right past them. It made the cause of desert growth quite clear.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
I sometimes wonder why there isn't more effort made to collect genetic material from endangered species.
I consider killing the last of a species similar to burning the very last copy(in any media) of a book. So much information lost.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
Because we are the main responsible [wikipedia.org] for desertification.
I live in the south of Europe. It's highly likely that the Sahara crosses the Gibraltar Strait and comes knocking on my door. When that happens we'll all wish we have "interfered" more.
Up to the moment, the unbelievable stupidity (from politicians, companies and common people) in managing land goes to such an extent that makes me wonder if it's not intentional and there's a hidden conspiracy to turn my country into a desert.
Better start thinking about buying a camel.
Re:deserts move all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, I understand that (and almost didn't say what I did, how I did..) but then again, what is balance in nature--what does that mean?
I think most people would consider "balance" as balanced in the favor of human habitation. As a species we are probably most interested in maintaining the organisms and ecosystems required for a comfortable human existence.