Great point✅ During the Carboniferous period, high oxygen and CO₂ fueled rapid plant growth, creating massive forests. But if plants grew 10x faster today, cities could be overrun in weeks! Crazy to imagine😧
The water supplies running out because crops are using them while rainfall is constant kind of breaks the whole thing. Either wild plants die off because they are using 10x the water (which isn’t there) and crops consume global water resources, or wild plants continue to grow 10x faster as well as crops, but don’t need 10x the water. Doesn’t make sense that wild plants thrive on the same level of water while crops somehow require so much more in this scenario.
You’re missing a key point. Crops are artificially maintained and optimized for yield, meaning they already consume a massive amount of water compared to wild plants. If their growth rate skyrockets, their water demand would too, because they’re not naturally adapted to survive with limited resources like many wild plants are. Wild plants, on the other hand, have different survival strategies-deep roots, drought resistance, and slower water usage. Sure, 10x growth would strain ecosystems, but it wouldn’t be a simple ‘everything dies or everything thrives’ scenario. Nature is way more complex than that.
Its a midwit thought experiment at best... 1) Food cost would crater, so would fertilizer costs (more animals). 2) Just because you can plant constanctly doesnt mean farmers would. 3) Water would not be an issue, plants would remove more from the ground, then evaporate more into the air leading to more rain. This is already happening due to the greening of the earth. 4) People would just kill their ivy plants. 5) Yes lawns would need mowed every day or 2. OR you could raise a cow on a .1 acre and feed yourself... Basically you dont understand what you are talking about. You didnt think beyond the surface level, and you didnt account for adaptation.
Calling it a midwit thought experiment doesn’t make your points any stronger.😠Yes, food prices might drop initially, but only if infrastructure, labor, and supply chains adapt fast enough-which they likely wouldn’t. Farmers wouldn’t just stop planting because oversupply could bankrupt them. Water cycling would increase, but not necessarily in a controlled or beneficial way. Rapid, unbalanced growth could still deplete groundwater before rainfall catches up, especially in arid regions. And sure, people could kill their ivy or raise cows more efficiently, but that doesn’t negate the fact that ecosystems, agriculture, and economies would face massive upheaval. Adaptation isn’t instant or guaranteed. Thinking beyond the surface level means acknowledging both benefits and disruptions.
@@SplendidExplainer-yc1zs No calling it midwit is just true. I dont think you know much about the water cycle or agriculture. Most infrastructure would be fine, we would need to pay more people to maintain it, but the other cost reductions I mentioned would likely make up for it. Killing an Ivy takes less than an hour, buying a Cow is quick any easy though that process would take a bit for us to breed enough livestock (doesnt have to be cows, can be goats, sheep, etc). People adapt pretty darn fast, and if the "problem" is to much resource (plants are resources) People wont have much of a problem dealing with it... Im sorry you dont like my take, but yours is very weak and ill thought out. If you want to make youtube videos like this you are going to need to put in alot more thought and effort than you did here.
The return of agent orange
😱
Didn't this happen in the Carboniforous[sp]?
Great point✅ During the Carboniferous period, high oxygen and CO₂ fueled rapid plant growth, creating massive forests. But if plants grew 10x faster today, cities could be overrun in weeks! Crazy to imagine😧
Keep it up 💥
Thanks 🔥
The water supplies running out because crops are using them while rainfall is constant kind of breaks the whole thing. Either wild plants die off because they are using 10x the water (which isn’t there) and crops consume global water resources, or wild plants continue to grow 10x faster as well as crops, but don’t need 10x the water. Doesn’t make sense that wild plants thrive on the same level of water while crops somehow require so much more in this scenario.
You’re missing a key point. Crops are artificially maintained and optimized for yield, meaning they already consume a massive amount of water compared to wild plants. If their growth rate skyrockets, their water demand would too, because they’re not naturally adapted to survive with limited resources like many wild plants are. Wild plants, on the other hand, have different survival strategies-deep roots, drought resistance, and slower water usage. Sure, 10x growth would strain ecosystems, but it wouldn’t be a simple ‘everything dies or everything thrives’ scenario. Nature is way more complex than that.
To put it simpler for the average population, imagine mowing your lawn twice a day every day
Don’t spoil 😂✌🏻
Very interesting
Thank you very much ❤️
Its a midwit thought experiment at best...
1) Food cost would crater, so would fertilizer costs (more animals).
2) Just because you can plant constanctly doesnt mean farmers would.
3) Water would not be an issue, plants would remove more from the ground, then evaporate more into the air leading to more rain. This is already happening due to the greening of the earth.
4) People would just kill their ivy plants.
5) Yes lawns would need mowed every day or 2. OR you could raise a cow on a .1 acre and feed yourself...
Basically you dont understand what you are talking about. You didnt think beyond the surface level, and you didnt account for adaptation.
Calling it a midwit thought experiment doesn’t make your points any stronger.😠Yes, food prices might drop initially, but only if infrastructure, labor, and supply chains adapt fast enough-which they likely wouldn’t. Farmers wouldn’t just stop planting because oversupply could bankrupt them. Water cycling would increase, but not necessarily in a controlled or beneficial way. Rapid, unbalanced growth could still deplete groundwater before rainfall catches up, especially in arid regions. And sure, people could kill their ivy or raise cows more efficiently, but that doesn’t negate the fact that ecosystems, agriculture, and economies would face massive upheaval. Adaptation isn’t instant or guaranteed. Thinking beyond the surface level means acknowledging both benefits and disruptions.
@@SplendidExplainer-yc1zs No calling it midwit is just true.
I dont think you know much about the water cycle or agriculture. Most infrastructure would be fine, we would need to pay more people to maintain it, but the other cost reductions I mentioned would likely make up for it. Killing an Ivy takes less than an hour, buying a Cow is quick any easy though that process would take a bit for us to breed enough livestock (doesnt have to be cows, can be goats, sheep, etc). People adapt pretty darn fast, and if the "problem" is to much resource (plants are resources) People wont have much of a problem dealing with it...
Im sorry you dont like my take, but yours is very weak and ill thought out. If you want to make youtube videos like this you are going to need to put in alot more thought and effort than you did here.
This sounds like a very interesting concept. ps your channel is so underrated keep up the good work
Much appreciated❤️🙏🏻