I think it’s less impressive than you think. Most of the ocean is incredibly deep and the bottom isn’t that interesting. You really need to be (relatively) close-ish to shore and (relatively) shallow to see what most people think of as interesting.

In Florida, where I grew up, the state would sink old barges, tires, cement tubes left over from construction projects, etc. to make artificial reefs. Those were pretty cool because they were near shore and attracted the whole food chain from algae and coral all the way up to sharks and other apex predators. Do that in the middle of the ocean and you just add a new pile of junk that maybe a couple tiny shrimp and sightless fish call home.

I think you’re probably broadly right, because containers won’t be very useful, but in different circumstances things can be more complex than “a couple tiny shrimp and sightless fish”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_fall

> In Florida, where I grew up, the state would sink old barges, tires, cement tubes left over from construction projects, etc. to make artificial reefs.

On the other hand, some of those projects were a net negative for the environment, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reef

That would be a good use for all of the oligarch super-yachts they're seizing. For one thing, they can't be sold. The market is going to be flooded with super-yachts. For another, nobody who wants to buy a super-yacht will want to disclose where their money is coming from, or who the actual owner is going to be.

Most ships aren't worth the cost to decontaminate and sink due to various environmental regulations. Some are reasonable and some are not.

I assume most of the superyacht will eventually go back to their owners where in relations with Russia are normalized if they have not deteriorated into worthlessness

That's probably the worst possible scenario. Even a series of accidental fires would be a better outcome.

Why is that? Giving them back wouldn't particularly bother me.

I think worst case is paying Russia cash value for the stolen yachts

Giving them back would reinforce Russia's belief that it can commit any kind of crime with impunity, which would then result in it becoming even more aggressive.

In The Ministry For the Future (World War Z style novel about what the near future might look like as climate change really takes hold) there’s a group that torpedos ships with shipping containers and uses drones to take down private jets and cargo planes. The idea being that if they do it enough, demand will dry up.

It’s a very interesting book.

I like to brainstorm "engineering black swan events", and thought it would be interesting to use torpedoes/unmanned submersible IEDs/fertilizer-filled bulk freighters to attack major container ports, while simultaneously shorting the stocks of the publicly-traded companies that own/operate them. They seem like a very vulnerable part of the world's economy/supply chain.

Why not just sell them cheaper?

> containers create new ecosystems. This is true particularly in deep waters, where most lost stuff is reclaimed by the ocean, eventually becoming home for fish, and habitats where there was none.

How often does this happen? What are the upsides and downsides? Do they destroy other habitats?

Well, there is this ecosystem of orange plastic cats in France: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-have-garfield-...

And Lego in Cornwall, UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28367198

This is the starting point of the very article we're discussing!

Tom Scott has a video, and it's not as cute as it sounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FxfXVuHRjM

> would be interesting to dive deeper is how containers create new ecosystems. This is true particularly in deep waters, where most lost stuff is reclaimed by the ocean, eventually becoming home for fish, and habitats where there was none.

But look at the bright side. Seriously, while somewhat true that life is always amazing, I would expect, environmentally speaking, the sheer numbers of lost containers sitting on the bottom of the ocean is probably a net bad rather than a net good. Would be more interesting, though depressing, to see just what bad and how much bad, and how much of the ocean floor is left that isn't covered in containers.

I think an even more interesting question is to delve into what exactly “net bad” or “net good” even means. Relative to what?

I think we’ve been living in artificial environments for so long we’ve forgotten how much nature simply does not care and is not meant to be any particular way. It just is. Whether we are a part of the environment nature is adapting to is totally irrelevant from the perspective of other creatures, and we are both naive and solipsistic to think our notions of harm and no harm matter on an evolutionary timescale.

Dropping containers into the bottom of the ocean is bad for us. It conflicts with the pristine natural environment we envision and the natural order we have been adapted to and find interesting, beautiful and wish to protect, and it feels like bad stewardship of a garden we wish to cultivate.

That does not matter to nature. Different species within the ocean are in a constant battle for survival to adapt to anything and everything and containers are just another adaptational factor like any other.

I am worried by the number of people that seem to think nature will reciprocate if we are nice to it. We should strive to protect the environment and not change it drastically for our own reasons, not anthropomorphize and treat it like a substitute God that will reward us if we make the proper sacrifices to it.

This is a tangential rant not that related to what you’re saying, and I don’t know why a particular flavor of desire to protect nature as some kind of good in and of itself bothers me so much (which you may not hold in the manner that bothers me), but it does. I say that as someone who is currently bird watching while browsing hn by a marsh and loves evolutionary history and the study/protection of the natural world. I think maybe it’s because it diminishes where all of the stuff around us comes from and how we got here. Biological stuff is really, really, really old and been through environmental changes we can’t even imagine. I feel like a bunch of containers dropped in the ocean is like just another thing in a long, long, loooong history of all kinds of curve balls that contribute to the constant change that is the natural world.

> I am worried by the number of people that seem to think nature will reciprocate if we are nice to it.

Could you give an example of some of these people? I've never read that.

> nature simply does not care

It's philosophical and raises philosophical questions, but we can collect data on the practical outcomes. Plastic in the food supply, for example, isn't philosphical.

I think the best example of people who assume reciprocation are the types of tourists that walk up to and try to take pictures with wild animals. They assume as long as they’re nice the animal will be nice. On a larger scale, I think people tend to assume that bad natural events like fires, hurricanes, floods, etc relate to how we treat the planet, and that if we stop human activities, those things will become more manageable. I think a lot of people vastly underestimate how powerful and uncaring most natural forces are to a lot of what we do. Volcanoes have randomly erupted and emitted enough particulates to effectively cancel spring/summer. While we don’t want to use technology poorly and pollute our environment, the reason we have technology in the first place is to shape our environment to be less inhospitable to us than it is naturally.

> I think the best example of people who assume reciprocation are the types of tourists that walk up to and try to take pictures with wild animals. They assume as long as they’re nice the animal will be nice.

This is quite a stretch from befriending some mythical anthropomorphized 'Nature' to making nice with wild animals for photos. Animals actually do feel and act and respond, and it's actually true that animals will respond better to 'nice' behavior than aggressive behavior, though wild animals still are not reliable enough.

> I think people tend to assume that bad natural events like fires, hurricanes, floods, etc relate to how we treat the planet

They don't assume it, there is an enormous amount of evidence and clear scientific consensus going back decades that human activities cause climate change, and climate change results in some of the problems you describe. Other human activities also affect those things.

> the reason we have technology in the first place is to shape our environment to be less inhospitable to us than it is naturally

If you believe that, why don't you believe technology can also make our environment more inhospitable.

Again, it's all philosophy, and IMHO transparent. Do I really need to write all this to say the obvious? And when not philosophizing, what are you doing about our environment?

> And when not philosophizing, what are you doing about our environment?

I think you ought to re-read the posts you're replying to and stop trying to make an enemy of someone who, as far as I can tell, could well be doing as much about our environment as you are

That's a pretty accusatory comment for someone preaching listening!

I do believe technology can make our environment more inhospitable.

The best world is one with zero emissions and everyone having all their shipping/transportation, heating, air conditioning, farming, food preservation, and other energy needs met in full. The philosophizing becomes important when deciding between people’s ability to meet basic needs and environmental protection. I think it’s a mistake to think there’s an intrinsic good in trying to preserve nature as it is currently, as nature is agnostic and much more inhospitable without modern amenities. The good relates to all of the many benefits of the way the environment is now to us, including long term environmental effects relative to our survival and the continuation of all the beauty and learning opportunities that currently exist in the current form of our natural world.

I’m not sure where the hostility is coming from. My consumption is pretty low and I enjoy spending time in and learning about nature. I think the best and most practical thing we could be doing energy wise is building more nuclear salt reactors, which I advocate for fairly frequently. I am not arguing that we shouldn’t take care of the environment.

Likely for much of them, lost in storms over deep ocean, it really does not much of anything at all - the area around the Titanic is mostly empty and lifeless.

They will be invaluable for future archeologists studying the 21st Century Global Peak.