Originally posted by twhitehead
But most of the world is ocean, so it is not important to get optimum yield per hectare. There is all that open ocean out there, lets use it better. Sure you may be suggesting covering it all over with land, but I thought you said 'floating islands'. I am saying that if we use 10 times the area of water as water, we might achieve the same goals. The main ...[text shortened]... simple as putting fans on the bottom of the ocean to create vertical currents with nutrients.
But most of the world is ocean, so it is not important to get optimum yield per hectare.
that would depend on the size of the human population of the world and that size is still greatly increasing and, depending on which assumptions prove correct, may continue to increase rapidly ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg ) and, as I just said, at least some
of the food should come from the land because sea food alone would not make a balanced diet.
Besides, the less area we use to produce our food, the more area we have left over to use for other useful things ( such as forestry, homes, industry, conservation areas etc ) .
but I thought you said 'floating islands'.
actually I didn't. I said 'floating land masses' and I was thinking more along the lines of them being roughly as big as Australia and some may join onto or at least have 'floating land bridges' to the main continents.
Obviously it would be unacceptable to put such vast floating land masses over very productive ocean or where there are coral reefs because, to do so, would kill off much of the life and productivity of the ocean.
So that just leaves parts of the oceans that are naturally poor in both plankton and in coral ( or any other kind of life ). Fortunately there are vast areas of ocean that are naturally poor in both and it is in these areas that I think floating land masses would eventually ( far into the future ) be built. If you see the lower map on
http://www.gma.org/herring/biology/distribution/comparing_oceans.asp , excluding the coral areas which the map doesn't show, you will see that there is plenty of such ocean ( colored deep-blue on this map ) .
If we fertilize the open ocean we could dramatically increase production.
I have concerns of this suggestion whenever I hear it made; where would all this fertilizer keep coming from? Would the nutrients be all recycled or would much of it keep sinking to the ocean depths out of accesses to the plankton near the surface thus the surface water would have to be regularly and unsustainable fertilized by fertilizer imported from elsewhere?
If you look at where in the ocean there is naturally high levels of nutrients, they are where the ocean currents naturally draws-up nutrients from the bottom or where they run off the land. Elsewhere in the ocean, they nutrients levels are very low because they are not naturally completely recycled there which means you would forever have to continually artificially inject nutrients in those nutrient-poor areas which I cannot see how could do that sustainably.