- Efforts to rid the ocean of pollution damages it.
- Using oil traps can inadvertently catch fish causing them to die.
- Gas emissions from boats trying to clean the waters add damage to the environment.
- If 100% of the ocean were to be scouted and cleaned of pollution, the efforts to do that will still lead to some percentage of pollution.
- No matter how many efforts are being placed the damage that we will cause to get a goal still causes pollution so we are beyond the point of “balancing out”
- Any efforts to clean the ocean will be partially negated by the methods that we use to try.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Counterintuitive 
A great start, Sundial. You’ve isolated a compelling irony: we’ve been so sloppy for so long that we can barely do anything without harming the environment. This topic is well worth your time.
Your language is unclear in several places making it impossible for me to understand your claims. I won’t nitpick your grammar in this very early draft, but please clean up the sentences before the Hypothesis deadline so I can judge your work on the basis of its ideas, not its grammar.
LikeLike
I edited my hypothesis and categorized it to feedback please
LikeLike
Even better. But I have some questions. Mostly about language.
Efforts to rid the ocean of pollution damages it at the same time
[Subject and verb need to agree in number. EFFORTS DAMAGE IT.]
Using oil traps catch fish and leave them to die
[No idea what “traps catch fish” means.]
With gas emissions from boats and rigs this prevents the waters from ever being truly clean
[“With” constructions a risky to begin a sentence. Yours is unnecessary. You mean: “Gas emissions from boats and rigs prevent the water from being truly clean.”]
If 100% of the ocean were to be scouted and cleaned of pollution, the efforts to do that will still lead to some percentage of pollution.
[Undoubtedly the effort to clean existing pollution would require vast energies and most of our current energy sources create pollution. You’ve identified a real problem.]
No matter how many efforts are being placed the damage that we will cause to get a goal still causes pollution so we are beyond the point of “balancing out”
[This, of course, is the gist of the argument. Can we clean up our messes without polluting MORE in the process than we clean? You’ll find what you find, but the dilemma is well worth investigating. You will certainly find SOMETHING unexpected to report.]
Any efforts to clean the ocean will be partially negated by the methods that we use to try.
[This is not substantially different than Step 5. But it’s OK. It’s actually less categorical and much easier to demonstrate.]
LikeLike
I’ve edited it once more to clean it up and make it more clear.
LikeLike