That lousy plant ain’t doing shit to clean the air. You need like 100 gallons of algae for 1 adult, what is half a litre of a plant species going to do that also wastes energy on supporting tissue?
Nuts or just looking to gain some attention
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Mickey7@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/291d68a2-c68c-4bd0-a221-35f20e81edfe.png
Comments
Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Inucune@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
40 gal algae per person.
fartographer@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That’s only 8 paint buckets. You could easily walk around with 8 paint buckets of water and algae on a wagon or cart. Y’know, once you get over the inertia, solve the splashing, and find a way to reduce the risk of momentum.
laranis@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
ITT people assuming it is for the human. I think this guy loves his plant and wants to ensure it gets an abundant supply of CO2 rich air.
Headofthebored@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This man hates socialism so much he bought a plant and made that contraption so he can have private oxygen.
nlgranger@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
There was actually a guy who did an experiment to find out what you need to be self sufficient with plant-based CO2 recycling. He used large containers of algae with powerful lights and water stirring to stimulate the process and it was barely enough.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWRkzvcb9FQ
So that guy in the picture is faking it big time
5ha99y@lemmus.org 1 week ago
When he slept in, I will detatch the pipe from the container and hold it to my butt and fart.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
That does not look like a nut tree.
aeronmelon@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Emotional support fern.
SW42@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Why not both?
craigers@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I saw a guy in YouTube test it. You need a shit ton of plants to produce enough O2 for one person. I’ll find the vid…
basxto@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
And sun, because they consume O~2~ otherwise
fartographer@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
How many aphids do you think they’ve accidentally eaten by now?
kahjtheundedicated@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Almost certainly a bit of performance art. Makes for some interesting imagery, and provocative enough to be posted and discussed here. So he’s done well.
daannii@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yeah that’s a good point. In the city there are walking around art pieces.
They are intended to be understood as art.
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’ll take it any day over having to see more fucking Met Gala photos rn.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Except there is no science behind it, and if anything, it misses the point and implies a person can live off a single house plant.
kahjtheundedicated@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Art vs science, many such cases. Decent band, too
daannii@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I think it’s implying that
Like most art. The artist allows for multiple interpretations unless they state otherwise.
But usually the point is it’s interpretive. Because the interpretation is personal. Subjective. And becomes more about the viewer than the view.
Kertyna@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
Ok! I like it. Picasso!