• zout@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      From other times something like this came up:

      1. The rate of conversion is too low
      2. It will only eat plastic if other carbon sources aren’t available
        Probably more, this is from the top of my head. Also, this will still cause the plastic to eventually be converted into CO2 which is released in the atmosphere.
    • WeeSheep@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I see this every couple years (I think it’s the same). The fungus can only degrade very few plastic types, like Styrofoam.

      • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Fantastic. Styrofoam is not recyclable like Polypropylene or even the Polyethylenes. Styrofoam ends up in landfills. I want it in mushrooms.

        It’s not the magic bullet but it’s a fucking howitzer. Yas kween.

      • Szymon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        So are we disappointed it’s not the perfect solution, so we don’t bother?

        Sounds like we’re on the right track and someone can find a way to make money with this, or decide to dedicate their resources to it for society’s benefit.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          We don’t bother because those few kinds of plastics aren’t the ones that are causing most of the polution

          If something costs millions and only works in a limited space, at specific conditions, and recycles 0.2% of all plastics, why would anyone want to invest in it?

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Okay, so go out and pay millions of dollars yourself and do it. If you can’t, why do you expect anyone else to do that, with no hope of return, no hope of sustainability and such?

              • Szymon@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Because they should care about the future of the human race more than their current bank balance.

                We’re doomed as a species.

                • Maalus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Then again - go out, sell your house and do it. It’s great to be outraged when “nobody is doing it”. Yet everything requires money to do. I have a company producing humanitarian supplies. Do you think I would be able to do it / should I do it for free?

                  • Szymon@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    You’re preaching from the selfish soapbox of only caring about your own bank account, not humanity’s best interests.

                    Expending my assets to make a difference wouldn’t make a dent and I’d be completely left with nothing. Someone with massive wealth can expend 95% of their resources and still live a more comfortable existence than 99% of us.

                    Why are we protecting the dragons sitting on the piles of gold instead of taking the gold and investing in our species’ future prosperity?

                    We’re doomed.

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes. That’d be way better than having it kill animals and contaminate our food and water to the point where you basically cant avoid it. We literally want plastic to biodegrade. Just as long as it biodegrades after we are done using it. Which would be a wonderful problem to have compared to the current state of things.

    • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      There are hundreds of different plastics, each chemically different and created for different conditions. At least with heavy metal detoxification, fungi also tend to bioconcentrate what they eat. You can’t eat them growing off a hemlock tree without being poisoned by hemlock. Something will eat these and probably get a belly full of petroleum byproducts or whatever it metabolises that into.