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 5 days ago by Mickey7@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/291d68a2-c68c-4bd0-a221-35f20e81edfe.png
Comments
Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Inucune@lemmy.world 5 days ago
40 gal algae per person.
fartographer@lemmy.world 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days ago
This man hates socialism so much he bought a plant and made that contraption so he can have private oxygen.
nlgranger@lemmy.world 5 days 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
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
That does not look like a nut tree.
aeronmelon@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Emotional support fern.
SW42@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Why not both?
craigers@lemmy.world 5 days 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 5 days ago
And sun, because they consume O~2~ otherwise
fartographer@lemmy.world 5 days ago
How many aphids do you think they’ve accidentally eaten by now?
kahjtheundedicated@lemmy.world 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days ago
I’ll take it any day over having to see more fucking Met Gala photos rn.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 days 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 5 days ago
Art vs science, many such cases. Decent band, too
daannii@lemmy.world 4 days 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 5 days ago
Ok! I like it. Picasso!