this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
110 points (89.9% liked)

World News

39392 readers
2237 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

World GDP: $105.4 trillion USD

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

@FlyingSquid
"Scientists say..."
All of them, are you sure?
Geoengineering schemes are not agreed upon by many scientists. There are several types of geoengineering "solutions" and no agreement on any, just suggestions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I can't help what the article is titled. 🤷‍♂️

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What the diamond version of silicosis?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I don't know, but I hear De Beers is already planning to corner the lung transplant market.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago

Let's throw more carbon to the air, what could go wrong. Is not like it will get to our lungs and destroy everything from the inside.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 days ago (2 children)

How effective would it be to sprinkle CEO dust into the sky?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 days ago

I'm not saying we should try it and find out, but I've heard worse ideas.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Not at all. Much cheaper to sprinkle them in the hog trough

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Does this feel like swallowing a spider to catch a fly to anyone else?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

Perhaps we'll die.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Isn't this very similar to the annuki and the Sumerian history. Where these aliens came to earth to mine gold to take it back to their planet and use it to save their atmosphere.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Can we use zirconium for $1 trillion?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

How much if we use rhinestones?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

I'm still set on "we're fucked" until I see some more hopeful news.

When we are fucked and who is first fucked, and making sure I'm not that guy is what I'm trying to determine.

[–] [email protected] 83 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Does it have to be diamonds? Could we maybe use the ashes of billionaires instead?

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Human ashes are mostly carbon, so yes, of course. We'll run out of billionaires pretty quickly, though.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 week ago

Sounds like a win-win tbh

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

Let's give it a trial run with a few thousand then we can measure the impact and reevaluate.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Of all the aerosols they could think about!

No chance at all of a basically indestructible material not being destructed if absorbed by lungs (or gills) and leading to some disease. You don't need to check. There's no way this could go wrong.

Or, rather... I believe lead is cheaper... Given how much people like to use it, maybe it's a better option.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I was thinking asbestos...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Yeah, like asbestos... if asbestos bio-accumulated forever.

Instead, the world has a few mechanisms that will make asbestos harmless after a few generations. Not so much for diamonds.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yes, let's just have everyone on Earth breathe in diamond dust all day every day. There's no way that could be bad for our health.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's never been a case of something having different behavior or health effects just because of a tiny chemical difference (trans fat) or size difference (micro plastics), what's the worst that could happen?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago

There have never been lung issues caused by inhaling very small dust particles, right?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Amazing. Instead of just.. fighting climate change by not polluting the planet let's just fill our entire atmosphere with diamond dust, because that's the logical decision of course.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

It's not really any different than usual dust, other than it is even more likely to scratch your phone (oh no!). The surprising thing is the bullshit price number, I'm sure it's some brain-dead economist looking at the point-price for diamond and with great effort making a single multiplication.

Edit: The study does note industrial diamond manufacturing, but doesn't go into detail on why it's so expensive for diamond powder, other than saying "it would require much more industrial diamond than is currently produced".... Which is just.... Empty? Considering industry would change to account for such a drastic rise in demand.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Am I the only one worried about it scratching my eyes???

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

That amount sounds like total bullshit. Diamonds can be manufactured and once that is done at scale, it won't be all that expensive. Even at $10000 a ton, five million tonnes would cost just 50 billion.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

These are not good ideas. Remember that global warming is just an overarching effect of pollution which we will still have. What diamond dust pollution effects will be, no one knows, but I doubt we want to find out.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

The fossil fuel oligarchy would prefer to give all mammals on Earth emphysema than stop burning fossils, and do it for 10x the price.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

That number is for doing it anually for 65 years. It lists roughly 18 billion per year for the cost.

But besides that, I think you are greatly underestimating the cost of the diamonds. Synthetic ones are way cheaper than natural ones, yes, but there's a lot of room between "natural diamond expensive" and "actually cheap". Going by these prices https://www.diamondtech.com/products/categories/diamond_powder_price_list.html

It's $2.5 million per tonne. I assume you could get a cheaper price per weight if you're buying five million tonnes of anything, but it's still two orders of magnitude more expensive than you are guessing

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago

The artificially-inflated price of the diamonds should be irrelevant in this calculation.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

So what would it cost to replace all fossil fuel energy with renewable?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Thanks, hadn't seen that before. I wonder how things like "eat less beef" fit into that chart, or of that's part of the $0 premium.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (4 children)

You are missing the point, because we need to do that anyway.
The idea is to prevent things from getting worse in the meantime.
Replacing fossil fuels take time no matter how much we invest.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sweet! Four more years of Trump presidency, and Elon Musk can just pay for it out of pocket.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

Nice try, DeBeers.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago

It's not cost effective to save humanity. Stock prices would crash.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Isn't this kind of thing the premise for all those "snowball Earth" sci Fi stories where global cooling went too far

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

No don't worry about that!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago

Someone heard The Beatles (or maybe Rihanna) for their first time and thought "Diamonds in the sky... Huh... What if...".

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago

Break into the diamond company vaults and just take it. Bam, free diamonds.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

The silicosis will run rampant

load more comments
view more: next ›