> Yes, I’m very fond of fermentation. Besides the fine flavors and health benefits, there’s the satisfying confusion of who —microbe or person—is domesticating who, a perspective shift that I find to be good medicine for my human-centeredness.
> If nothing decomposed, the earth would pile up kilometers-deep with the bodies of animals and plants. I remember trying to wrap my head around this idea as a child and feeling dizzy: Our lives take place in the space that decomposition leaves behind. Composers make; decomposers unmake. And unless decomposers unmake, there isn’t anything that the composers can make with.
Coal was mainly formed during a period of time between trees evolving and fungi evolving the ability to break down lignin inside tree cellulose. In that time period composers (trees) made (grew and died), but decomposers (fungi, bacteria) could not unmake (decompose lignin). So, I imagine trees piling on top of each other as they died.
So this means that the often repeated idea that it will take millennia to build up coal supplies once depleted is incorrect because they will not ever be replaced? (not that I care, just find it interesting)
Peat bogs still exist; so the world is still slowly producing (low grade) coal. OTOH peat itself has quite a lot of stored energy and humans gonna exploit... so who knows what the future will hold.
> If nothing decomposed, the earth would pile up kilometers-deep with the bodies of animals and plants
Hem, not. Much more probably some animal would eat this corpses. Not to mention that life beings are lets say between 60% to 99% water and dried corpses would not take so much space. It is a suggestive idea, but is also wrong.
You may want to think about what you are saying. Eating is decomposition; inside of your gut are the same organisms that are in the soil breaking down the cell walls so that you and other animals can absorb a fraction of the available nutrients. This is especially true for ruminants, which have separate guts for fermenting cellulose.
> You may want to think about what you are saying. Eating is decomposition
Absolutely Not. Eating is much more sophisticated than decomposition.
There is a microbial part...
but also a mechanical pre-processing with teeth, cartilaginous spikes, muscles or even rocks,
And cells evolved to produce strong acids (that could dissolve this same cells)
And a complex enzymatic system in controlled environment and temperatures. Necessary to allow its correct function.
And a net of sensors of satiety to avoid the stomach bursting, a gage reflex, a capture reflex, development of complex eyes and noses to hunt and identify food or poison, nerves...
A complex absortion of nutrients and water,
And compaction, dehydrating, filtration, classification, and release of useless stuff.
Is much, much, more than just tiny organisms breaking things.
I just love mushrooms. When I am going to be old and have nothing better to do, I will be growing all sorts of edible mushrooms haha.
Most fascinating creatures of all.
> If nothing decomposed, the earth would pile up kilometers-deep with the bodies of animals and plants.
But the opposite is also not true. We do have pretty deep layers of mostly-decomposed animals and plants.
Along this line, what happens to all the radiation/energy the planet absorbs from the sun (is it radiated away, or is it somehow building up as matter)?
Just finished reading Sheldrake's book. It's truly a spectacular read. Engaging use of language, clear but not condescending expertise, and a great sense of humor to boot. I highly recommend it to anyone looking to extend their (metaphorical) mycorrhizal tips.
18 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 45.2 ms ] thread> Yes, I’m very fond of fermentation. Besides the fine flavors and health benefits, there’s the satisfying confusion of who —microbe or person—is domesticating who, a perspective shift that I find to be good medicine for my human-centeredness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Formation
Hem, not. Much more probably some animal would eat this corpses. Not to mention that life beings are lets say between 60% to 99% water and dried corpses would not take so much space. It is a suggestive idea, but is also wrong.
Absolutely Not. Eating is much more sophisticated than decomposition.
There is a microbial part...
but also a mechanical pre-processing with teeth, cartilaginous spikes, muscles or even rocks,
And cells evolved to produce strong acids (that could dissolve this same cells)
And a complex enzymatic system in controlled environment and temperatures. Necessary to allow its correct function.
And a net of sensors of satiety to avoid the stomach bursting, a gage reflex, a capture reflex, development of complex eyes and noses to hunt and identify food or poison, nerves...
A complex absortion of nutrients and water,
And compaction, dehydrating, filtration, classification, and release of useless stuff.
Is much, much, more than just tiny organisms breaking things.
>Our lives take place in the space that decomposition leaves behind.
Great quote
I will definitely read a book written by a guy like this.
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/fantasticfungi
But the opposite is also not true. We do have pretty deep layers of mostly-decomposed animals and plants.
Along this line, what happens to all the radiation/energy the planet absorbs from the sun (is it radiated away, or is it somehow building up as matter)?