« One Million Pageviews On DOTE | Main | Half Of New College Grads Are Underemployed »

04/23/2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alex

i trully believe that even the scariest "doom and gloom" predictions cannot be called "alarmist" anymore

there always be people who will personally benefit from denial of obvious to anyone who has even a grain of reason (that is knows basic math and is not delluded by ideology of any particular belief-system - i know a rare find :))

even in theory the chage from denial into dealing with the problem will not begin to manifest until the ecosystem collapse and most of humans die out from extreme weather events, hunger, war over resources and desease

this is a certainty - the fact that in science we cannot use such language does not change anything - yes it ain't over till it over - but for all practical purposes the probability of averting the complete collapse of ecosystem and fossil fuel civilization may be called "non-existent"

thanks to dave we have a steady supply of evidence to corroborate the non-existance of that probability

K7_Ben

We have to deal with the majority of people who don't give a fuck, then the crazy techno-opto-assholes who want to mine asteroids, and we don't need the smartest people in the world disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.

teri schooley

"Even without the aid of mathematical modeling, it is possible to predict that fish population debates themselves will remain sustainable for some time to come."

I can't even believe she said this. (Well, okay - yes, I can.) How funny, how cute. That's what the "press" wants...let's just "debate" things (and both sides must be given equal weight, natch) until there are no more fish, no more fresh water, no bees, zero ice in the Arctic, and the US has split in half from fracking earthquakes. Even then, people like this will interview rich "smart" assholes like Rush Limbaugh or Bill Gates who will opine that they always hated the taste of fish anyway.

BTW, did you know Bill Gates is heavily invested in Monsanto as well as funding research into "ocean fertilization" and geoengineering (the idea being to fill the upper atmosphere with sulphate particles to block the rays of the sun to alleviate global warming; i.e., cloud seeding)? The last I heard, some of the groups he is funding plan to go ahead, or have already, with experiments without waiting for international consensus or agreement to being his guinea pigs.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/23-2

http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/2010/05/bill-gates-funds-field-trial-global-coalition-urges-immediate-halt-to-geoengineering/

John D

As they say, they're just going to have to fish harder. Sad.

sharonsj

Anyone who says there are still plenty of fish in the sea ought to go shopping in any supermarket. Most of the fish sold in mine are farm-raised--disgusting tasting, bacteria-laden crap, imported from China or South America, that I avoid like the plague. When I have some extra money, I buy wild caught North Atlantic or North Pacific--and even then, I'm not sure about what I'm buying or eating.

And throw in the demise of the Gulf of Mexico. The last thing anyone should eat is mutant, oil-infected sea life from there. If the Gulf inhabitants, who eat tons of local seafood, are getting sick, then that crap isn't safe to eat either.

And I haven't even mentioned the obscene, complete pollution of the rest of the oceans.

adam

I am prone to think the worse data is not merely more correct but possibly (very) conservative. Data from 1950 is starting from a severely degraded baseline, long after extreme fishing methods like bottom trawling - possibly the worse sin in fishing - became popular. There is a book called "The Unnatural History of the Sea" that actually bothers to look through the historical record and try to reconstruct where we started out. It's depressing.

At the end the author suggest we ban ALL fishing in much of the ocean, severly restrict it in most of the rest, and have extremely limited "open fishing" zones. That's how to get back to the historic norm. Does anyone think that's gonna happen?

He also makes the point that we destroyed the rivers and lakes first, and have progessively gone to less and less fertile areas of the sea - from shallow bays and estuaries that were very fertile, to the open ocean that is much less so, to finally the deep sea, which is inhabited by fish that take many, many years to reach maturity and esentially are impossible to fish "sustainably".

It's not a pretty picture.

Dave Cohen

Re: An Unnatural History Of The Sea

I discussed that book in Learning From The Aquacalypse

http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2011/06/learning-from-the-aquacalypse.html

-- Dave

Wanooski

So Dave, should we just reserve a corner booth in hell now? To avoid the rush?

adam

I remember the post when I see the image. Maybe that's where I heard about it in the first place?

My only hope (unrealistic though it is) right now is that fossil fuels will get dear enough fast enough, and that the natural systems are much more robust than imagined. In the book, he has big hopes for the resilience of natural systems when left alone... But we're really rapacious, as a species, it's truly frightening. I expect we'll leave behind not much more than jellyfish - and that's if we don't develop a taste for them, like we have for lobster which was once poor man's food.

Paul

Imagine if 40% of all the grasses on the surface of the Earth, you know, the bits we can see, had vanished over the last few decades.
No wonder seals and sea-birds are washing up onto beaches starving to death.
We have taken away the first level of the pyramid that we live on.
Not long to go now.

The comments to this entry are closed.