Hacker News Reader

Comment by MarkMarine | Hacker News Reader

I’ve been scuba diving for 20 years and I’ve seen the devastation first hand. Once healthy eco systems, teeming with life, just completely wiped out. It’s heartbreaking.

Corals grow so slowly, this might improve things 100-200 years from now, which is not nothing, but no one should delude themselves into thinking this is a solution. The fish that depend on these reefs will not be able to wait 100 generations for us to engineer a solution. That biodiversity will be lost and will take millions of years to recover.

A great doc about this: https://youtu.be/aGGBGcjdjXA?si=fnYuvjTDqAkRE3Ad

View on HN

It must be heartbreaking to witness that devastation firsthand

Examining and quantifying the genes that give heat tolerance in the same species will allow polyp replacement - driven evolutionarily. That way they will occupy the same 'burrows' and can reform the reef more rapidly without the need for the slow growing coral skeleton?

You've witnessed actually dead coral or just "bleached" coral? Bleached coral isn't dead. It has just expelled its symbiotic algae. When the water cools it gets its algae back.

All corals are broadcast spawners. The polyp will start growing where ever conditions are right. It may not be the same place it was growing before but the coral doesn't go extinct.

> Bleached coral isn't dead. It has just expelled its symbiotic algae. When the water cools it gets its algae back.

Zooxanthellae provide 90% of a coral's energy. Bleached coral has a few weeks where recovery is indeed possible, but if stresses last longer than that the coral dies.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/coral-recovery-...

Have you stopped scuba diving? Aren't you concerned that your scuba diving contributes to the destruction?

I am aware of only three ways that diving could affect coral.

1) Boat's anchor doing physical damage, which is why popular dive spots have mooring buoys.

2) Many popular sun screen lotions are really bad for coral.

3) Physically touching the coral can do damage, even if gently.

Are there any other factors of which I am unaware?

To my mind, I'd add the heat effects of the various forms of transportation involved, both in direct contribution and the CO2 increase as a result of their use.

Spilling fuel into the water, dumping garbage into the water (nearby restaurants and hotels)

This is a valid concern as Thailand barrier reefs made great recovering during the covid period (hinting that tourism could have had major effects)

Not the GP, but I've moved from bi-weekly diving in South Florida and the Keys in the mid to late 90's, to once every couple of years for this reason, among others.

Even then, you could see the difference in the John Pennekamp State Park reefs from when I first snorkeled them in the 1970's.

Why would it? I’m a scuba diver and I don’t pour hot water on corals.

My primary function for diving is to protect the kelp forest where I usually dive by removing sea urchins, whose population has exploded, killing the kelp. This is done in conjunction with the department of fish and wildlife.

Any scuba diver knows never to touch the coral, the ground, or anything like that. Fairly simple

In the Florida Keys, shooting invasive Lionfish is also a way that divers can contribute to reef health.

Thanks for helping with the urchin removal.

It seems that the Sea Star Wasting Syndrome, which killed off most sea stars along the western North American coastline, might have been exacerbated by unusually warm water in 2014-2016 which stressed those animals. The death of those predators caused the purple sea urchin population to explode and they ate up most of the kelp. So it's all connected. (I'm sure your aware of this, just providing a little more context for others.)

https://www.nps.gov/im/swan/ssws.htm

Added C02 from boats may have an effect. And people may know not to touch it, and you may not, but that doesn't mean other's don't.

The best way not to effect nature is to not interact with it.

Obviously that's not 100% possible nor pleasurable, but for more sensitive systems, it's more necessary.

I have stopped traveling to dive, but because it's too sad, not because I was concerned about destroying the ecosystem by viewing it. I don't touch the reef, I don't fin near coral, I can hold my buoyancy quite well... but the same can't be said for many divers.

That said, there is a factor for people that if something is out of sight, it's out of mind. Being involved with the ecosystem really is the only way I've seen protection of it happen, people just tend not to try to protect something they aren't engaged with. I'd rather everyone dove, even if that brought traffic to certain sites up, because I think they'd make the macro changes we need to make to preserve things while accepting the micro change in boat fuel use or reef traffic, or whatever risks you're thinking of. Seeing a fish trying to escape from a plastic bag is a sobering experience, you only need to see it once.

Electric drones could suffice if you still want people to be able to view it up close.

There's plenty of nature reserves that have tourism limitations for the very reason that high traffic has negative effects.

The best thing for the reefs in Thailand was Covid (ie, the absence of people)

This feels pretty combative, and unhelpful. Which leads me to think it's bad faith.

What active contributions are you making to the wellbeing of our reefs?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com