Hacker News Reader

Why? The naysayers have some very good points (discussed elsewhere in the thread).

I would say a serious attempt at cleaning any amount of the ocean is better than no attempt.

...unless its doing more damage than good. The project uses screens which 'because they are not nets' will do no harm. Wha? How about to microscopic life, say, the size of plastic particles? Isn't it going to sterilize the surface of the ocean of all those animals? The vast bulk of life in the ocean is in the top meter - exactly where they're vacuuming up everything.

If your taking the 'protect wildlife' route, then it doesn't make sense to argue against taking trash out of the ocean which directly kills a god-awful lot of animals as it stands.

Is that even true? Does the Sargasso sea plastic particulate harm animals? To what degree?

Straining billions of sea creatures out of the top meter of water is an actual harm. It makes no sense to have to argue that's a net loss. Unless we're taking the 'save the large, cuddly animals first' route, which is so often part of eco-theatre.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com