this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
57 points (98.3% liked)

science

19997 readers
887 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MelastSB@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] seat6@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago

That was my thought too

[–] dbtng@eviltoast.org 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Wood is billions of years more advanced than this stuff.

[–] dbtng@eviltoast.org 5 points 1 week ago

This isn't a serious magazine. They cover quirky things, with zero depth.
Calling this goop "building material" is a bit far fetched.
Saying it does carbon sequestration (well, they'd have said that if the intended audience knew what sequestration means) is kinda dumb as well, as it ain't gonna do much.

Although the article and the magazine suck, they had poor material to work from. The research paper sucks too. They seem to claim some breakthrough or advancement. At best, they've got a clever way to keep a biofilm alive and green. It's useless as such.

Dual carbon sequestration with photosynthetic living materials
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58761-y