It doesn't apply to a glass of water though

when ice melts *in* water then the water level stays the same
~~I think~~

No

That's of the ice is *in* the water.

If you have a glass that is full and add ice the water is displaced until it equalizes.

So it would over flow.

Again, try it.

Take a glass, fill it, then put your ice in.

The water level will rise without a shadow of a doubt.

And the ice of Antarctica is mostly above the water.

It's like the full glass that you shove ice cubes into.

Of course none of us really know anything and can't fathom the depths of the knowledge we acquire, and ultimately it could turn out that God had absolute control the entire time and all we did was equal to nil.

Yes

I said I knew what you were saying

But yes, you're right. If all the ice was actually in the water, and not above it likely wouldn't have much of an impact on sea levels, just the temperature.

I confused what you said with what someone else said and I assumed something

But that's assuming the ice is of regular density at 1 atmosphere of pressure.

Nerd

What's the language in your name and what does it mean

Japanese, it means Curse Lord.

Noroi Dono

I mean

even ignoring global warming

there's still plenty of other reasons to actually care about the environment

We're using resources unsustainable fast, many of which are nonrenewable

also, ice sheets and rising sea levels be damned, smog and other forms of pollution are pretty unhealthy

mass <:unequal:473954748517842954> volume

volume is the issue when it comes to rising sea levels

wait nvm that's not relevant

This is a decision that should be entirely left up to local communities. One can focus on industry, while another on conservation. Let the people decide which is the better place to live for there needs and interests

But if one local community makes too big of an impact it ruins it for others @campodin

The whole “ you have the freedom to swing your fist so long as it doesn’t hit my nose”

It takes more than one local community to "ruin it for others" unless they are just dumping toxins in the water supply or the like. But that goes beyond developing industry. Not causing harm to others is not the same as conservation

So then it shouldn't be up to the local community?

Because who decides what is and is not right when the community that has decided this is fine and it works for them, but the other community is disproportionately affected by that choice?

It's far easier to dump toxins than to clean them.

The question was on industry vs conservation. That is what I was addressing. Not allowing someone to dump toxins in the drinking water is not the same as conservation.

Conservation is trying to preserve the state of nature, and maintain a healthy amount of biodiversity in your environment. Disallowing actions like dumping toxic waste is for the purpose of preserving human life and health.

erm not nessecarily

One local community alone cannot ruin conservation efforts

No? So say a community decides to build a dam