|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by According to an international body of researchers, the world's oceans may be devoid of fish by the year 2048. Fourteen researchers poured over data from UN reports dating back to the 1950s and data from current marine ecosystems to identify a aquatic population peaked in 1994, followed by a dramatic plunge. Indications are postive the ecosystem can rebound, but only through joint, political efforts on a global scale. Marine biologist Boris Worm says, "It's within our lifetime. Our children will see a world without seafood if we don't change things."
Add a Comment (39)
Email This
Message Author
...a scientist said it. I don't know why you people are doubting this pronouncement. O, ye of little faith!
Did I say faith? I didn't mean to imply that "science" or "environmentalism" was the new religion of folks who are too smart for traditional religion.
But maybe it is...
Remember back a few decades ago when scientist told people to go out into the hot and burning sun? They said sun light is good for your skin. Well, what happened? Tons of people got skin cancer.
A few centuries ago, scientist thought the Earth was flat....
Remember when religion thought the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it and put people to death who said otherwise. Man, religion really does have a strangle hold on unchanging truth.
Oh-oh, I LOVE this game. LOVE it. Let me try as well:
Must be true... if the President said it
Must be true... if Ted Haggard said it.
Must be true... if the Coran said it.
Must be true... if the Bible said it.
Must be true... if Einstein said it.
Must be true... if CNN said it.
Must be true... if Marie Curie said it.
Must be true... if George Washington said it.
Must be true... if the Pope said it.
Must be true... if my parents said it.
Yes, let's question everything and ignore thousands of years of societal progress. We are supposed to question, after all.
No, we're just not supposed to question science. We can question everyone else...but not science.
oh, I see your point. IMHO, we have to probably give the scientists some benefit of the doubt, because after all we are able to fly across the continent because of progress in science. As long as the scientist in cause is not some sort of Dr Strangelove supporting a hidden agenda, I think we can generally trust them. (and of course we can question all we want).
Here's what bugs me though: is the environmental issue really not that believable?
Why is that it APPEARS that most liberals choose to believe those warning signs by rather solid scientists, while it APPEARS that most conservative minded folks would rather (by default) differentiate themselves from the above-mentioned group by automatically discarding the signs as alarmist liberal-media hype?
Why is that we choose to believe rather shady evidence over WMD in Iraq while we cannot believe scientists?
Aren't we (as individuals) just victims of political manipulation?
Why is that it APPEARS that most liberals choose to believe those warning signs by rather solid scientists, while it APPEARS that most conservative minded folks would rather (by default) differentiate themselves from the above-mentioned group by automatically discarding the signs as alarmist liberal-media hype?
I would posit because many conservative minded people were put off by the way the subject was broached, and quite frankly, that a lot of the early environmentalism was "in-your-face" and exclusionist working against business, etc. To put it another way, it was quite natural for many "conservatives" to see it as a tool or a ploy for their enemies to bash them over the head with, rather than a genuine issue that needed to be fixed. Contrast with the success it appears E. O. Wilson is having with his book The Creation, where he reaches out to evangelical Christians to help protect the environment. Rather than alienating them, he reached out to them. We can all easily find boucoup examples where the "environmental movement" took a confrontational stance rather than an inclusive stance to actually encourage cooperation or actually affect change. They put the "conservatives" on the defense on the issue rather than engaging them to participate in solving it. I'm not saying all "conservatives" would've "got it" or done the right thing, but I certainly think a lot more would and would have if the approach would've been different.
Also, there were many other environmental concerns that were completely bogus that undermined the credibility of some of these claims--such as the "we are running out of landfill space" one in the 1980s, and the old growth forest "crisis". While I am no fan of landfills, nor of chopping down old-growth forests, these issues kind of undermined serious efforts to get people on board. Now contrast with the successes in getting lead out of gasoline, the law requiring catalytic converters on cars, the clean air act, the clean water act, etc. and the general improvement in air quality in places like Pittsburg since the 1970s and the ban on CFCs (Chloro-Flouro-Carbons, ozone depleting gasses, the Montreal Protocol). So it is really kind if unfair to say this is a "liberal" or "conservative" issue when there are many examples proving that both sides can take a stand for what's right for the people on this matter.
Why is that we choose to believe rather shady evidence over WMD in Iraq while we cannot believe scientists?
Because our own scientists have been wrong about stuff before, not that they are wrong about global warming, etc. now. Nobody expects intelligence to be perfect, because you can't be perfect and have to infer a lot of information to fill in the gaps of what you know. People believed the "shady" evidence of WMD in Iraq simply because they were so wrong and so grossly UNDER-estimated the Iraqi capabilities in pre-Desert Storm, and so horribly missed the 9/11 threat. Intel involves reading the activities and intentions of other people and nations, so you will never get it 100% right. Intel also often requires immediate action or you will face dire consequenses. Science is expected to get it right more often, and has high standards for accuracy and consensus, and often times we have the luxury of time to verify the conclusions science comes up with before implementing them. We also have numerous examples of jumping to implement a scientific discovery before understanding the second and third order effects (such as importing non-native species). We don't have that luxury of waiting long to play around with global warming, but WMD threats are more imminent than the threat of global warming, and they require more immediacy. We also have the tools and the framework in place to deal with other people with WMD who pose a threat to us, whereas the threat of global warming requires an enormous, uncomfortable change in the way we do just about everything.
That is a very apt and interesting observation considering that science is built upon the premise that everything can be questioned. At its core, science is an almost continual questioning of the data and methods of produced by scientists, and others. For instance, in physics the goodness of fit measure of a model to some data must be better than 3 confidence intervals (99.9 % sure that the model fits), or there is a 50-50 shot at the model being incorrect, just because of the level of scrutiny and repitition by the community. Since published science must undergo such scrutiny, I believe that, at least in popular culture, science is viewed as unimpeachable. As a scientist, I don't view science that way, but I'm more inclined to believe the word of a scientist in a field I'm not familiar with about that field than someone off the street, especially if the scientist has been working in that field for a while, i.e. published and peer reviewed. The general public, though, sees scientists as these smart people doing very difficult and demanding work, so any conclusions that they spout off must be correct. Even though, a good scientist will be the first to tell you that they could be wrong. Good scientists differentiate themselves from bad scientists very easily. A good scientist, will tell you about the flaws they know of in their analyses and provide you with, if not the data itself, the means (through detailed procedures) of reproducing what they did.
So, my advice: question science. If someone quotes a number at you, find out where it came from. If that remains unsatisfying, get their data, and re-run the analysis, or design an analysis scheme yourself. If you can't do the math required, find someone who can. Ultimately, you could perform the experiment for yourselves. In this way, our knowledge is advanced, and you may discover something interesting.
(Sorry, didn't mean for that to become a rant.)
So, my advice: question science. If someone quotes a number at you, find out where it came from. If that remains unsatisfying, get their data, and re-run the analysis, or design an analysis scheme yourself. If you can't do the math required, find someone who can. Ultimately, you could perform the experiment for yourselves. In this way, our knowledge is advanced, and you may discover something interesting.
Well said. Well said. This, of course, is opposed to the opposite case that one may question their faith. Such questioners were once branded ''heretics or provided the circular answer, "God works in mysterious ways."
And before everyone jumps all over that ... we have been there before in a previous discussion: Perkel's take on it. After I said, "Convenient, the Bible includes passages to prevent its own disproof," I was told "It's not convenient; it's well-planned. If the purpose of our life here is to learn by faith, why in the world would God organize scripture through prophets in such a way that secular proof could secure its truth?"
You are presenting the picture as if the only two choices are 1) science is the end-all of knowledge and 2) the Bible is the end-all and can't be questioned. I think this leaves out other possibilities, such as 3) science is a method of learning through certain means, while scripture claims are a method of learning what is outside the scope or reach of science. There need be no mention of circular answers or name-calling, and everything can certainly be questioned.
while scripture claims are a method of learning what is outside the scope or reach of science.
Yes but what's one to do when that which is within the scope of science doesn't jive with what's in the bible? For instance the age of man, the age of the earth, the flood, etc. These questions are completely within the scope of science and yet the bible is in complete opposition to science here.
No one likes absolutes, yet in this case one can't be making exceptions for Bible since it is said to be the word of God. Therefore in these cases either the Bible has holes of untruth in it, or science is wrong. Now if one examines the evidence of science, it most certainly takes a giant leap of faith to buy into the idea that science has mucked it up.
So no, you can't always have it both ways Switzerland.
Yes but what's one to do when that which is within the scope of science doesn't jive with what's in the bible? For instance the age of man, the age of the earth, the flood, etc. These questions are completely within the scope of science and yet the bible is in complete opposition to science here.
I think your interpretation of the Bible (e.g., the Bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old, etc.) is incorrect. I suggest reading Earth: In the Beginning by Eric N. Skousen. He delves both into the content of scripture and the rock record. Let me know if you'd like me to go into more details on particular issues.
I think your interpretation of the Bible (e.g., the Bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old, etc.) is incorrect.
That is the core problem non-believers have with having the Bible cited as evidence. What "man" is truly justified in deciding which aspects of the Bible can be considered hard fact and which are learning fables? If passages from the book are considered subjectively true based on the sophistication of the era, then how can someone outside of the faith truly take it seriously?
What "man" is truly justified in deciding which aspects of the Bible can be considered hard fact and which are learning fables?
First, no one said anything about "learning fables." My point is that interpreting the Bible to say that the Earth has only existed for 6,000 years is incorrect - not that the Bible clearly says that but it's only a fable.
Second, the man with the most authority on earth to interpret scripture holds the same office of those who wrote the scripture in the first place, that of a prophet.
First, no one said anything about "learning fables." My point is that interpreting the Bible to say that the Earth has only existed for 6,000 years is incorrect - not that the Bible clearly says that but it's only a fable.
The fable thing came from another discussion. But let me ask you the same question I asked lddsuddth (sp?). If you can tell me, that you believe every last word from the bible to be true fact because it is word divine, then I can accept biblical arguments as evidence because of consistency. This means, you must believe such things like people literally turning into salt, seas parting and a dude actually living inside a whale/fish/whatever for days and coming out a better man.
Then, while I probably won't agree with you, I can at least accept your convictions on the source.
I accept the Bible to be completely true as far as it is translated correctly. Of course, whether that includes "people literally turning into salt, seas parting and a dude actually living inside a whale/fish/whatever for days and coming out a better man" or not is up to interpretation - which is something requiring much more than a simple read-through. I just purchased an gigantic book just to aid with interpreting the book of Isaiah, for example, due to the difficulty for us (modern Americans) to understand Hebrew culture and writing styles.
One last piece of advice. If you decide to go up against one of the established pillars of science, e.g. quantum, relativity, etc., you must present extraordinary data to establish your claims. Some of these areas are so extremely well tested, that to challenge them your data needs to be beyond good. These areas are as well tested as they are precisely because they made extraordinary, and sometimes bizaar, claims that accurately described what was happening. These fields are not untouchable, but extraordinary proof will be required to topple them.
I don't know how your data can be "beyond good", but they had better be solid because these are areas a lot of crackpots try to assail science and the community is flooded with "theories" from a lot of people wanting to be the next Einstein. In short, your data either backs you or it doesn't, but your methodology had better be tight and you'd better have some way of differentiating yourself from all the other crackpot claims if you even want someone to look at your paper, much less buy into it.
Now, I must get back to my anti-gravity perpetual motion machine.
Now, I must get back to my anti-gravity perpetual motion machine.
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" ~ Homer Simpson
For some good perpetual motion reading - http://www.answers.com/topic/perpetual-motion - as long as Homer isn't around.
The best way to define "beyond good" is to look at the hyperfine splitting constant, alpha. This is probably the best measured constant of all time. According to pg 4 of this paper, alpha-1 = 137.035 999 58 with an error of 3.8 parts per billion. Thus far, quantum electrodynamics has held up to this level of measurement. This is beyond good, it is phenomenal.
I must get back to my anti-gravity perpetual motion machine
In theory, I'm building a death ray in my basement, but I don't have a basement. So, I'll trade my expertise in antigravity, if I can use your basement. Deal?
Ok, but you have to promise not to peek at the flux capacitor in the corner.
let's see finishing the death ray vs looking over a neat new toy like a flux capacitor ... I don't know, tough choice. As I observed at the APS Centennial conference in Atlanta, there are two ways to get 11,000+ phycisists onto one floor in a building: either offer free food, or tell them that there is a new toy in the basement. Works everytime. So, the drive to see a new toy is kicking in, and I may not be able to resist. ...
I was going to finish that thought with something about just looking, but I couldn't with out it coming out very, very wrong. And, while I can't claim a G rating to my posts, I try not to stray beyond PG. So, I will refrain.
...something about your death ray makes me a little nervous about making a deal with you about my flux capacitor--unless I rig it to automatically bring me back before you kill me in the event you do kill me so I can stop you from killing me before you do it.
As far as G and PG go, what kind of "toys" are you talking about anyway? Remind me not to trade home videos with you, and now I am also wondering to myself just what you want that perpetual motion machine for exactly...
... unless I rig it to automatically bring me back before you kill me in the event you do kill me so I can stop you from killing me before you do it.
This is an excellent lead-in to the "grandfather paradox" of time travel. I've got a coffee shop post about time travel coming up. Once I get it posted, I think some really cool discussions about those paradoxes and maybe any of your arcane physics knowledge would make great discussion.
Don't make me whack your grandfather so you can't post that story dude. But then, as I recall, you are working on that "Minority Report" crime prediction thing and would know I was planning this before I actually went through with it and would stop me. That is, unless I whack your grandfather first, so you don't develop it and can't stop me.
Yeah Yeah (1) Sidebar ... but this comment is a question posed mostly for your quantum physics knowledge in the coffee shop section. I was inspired by powerpointsamurai's time travel paradox response to you.
It will take me some time to craft a response. I should have a response in a couple of days.
RSS
Nonsense by guyvia :: NR5 :: on 06 November 2006
All they had to do is call up an economist buddy of theirs. As the seafood population dwindles (lower supply) the cost will rise. Certainly the population will suffer, but they seafood will continue. The question is will *you* be able to eat any.
(note: I am not advocating over-fishing, just arguing that this is FUD)
RE: Nonsense by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 06 November 2006
All they had to do is call up an economist buddy of theirs. As the seafood population dwindles (lower supply) the cost will rise. Certainly the population will suffer, but they seafood will continue. The question is will *you* be able to eat any.
I'm not too concerned about the loss of sea-life because I can't stand seafood. However, isn't there some huge correlation to plankton and oxygen?
But that aside, it's not really a matter of the price driving down consumerism. The study indicated it was not a factor of overharvesting the sea, rather, a combination of that and environmental change and pollution. Those two factors will continue regardless of how much it costs.
RE: Nonsense by Eye.Of.Sage :: NR6 :: on 06 November 2006
Yep, you're right. The cumulative pollution and other things that people pour into the ocean will eventually destroy most of the sea life. However, according to the Theory of Evolution, some species(the fittest) will survive. So not all sea creatures will die.
[The positive side is you won't smell any Tuna Breath when you go to work in a few years]
RE: Nonsense by gheorghe :: NR5 :: on 06 November 2006
Right, the fittest of the species -- three-headed mutants, most likely, if at all.
A load of bollocks anyway. I mean, there are more pressing issues at hand, like gay marriage or stem cell research or outsourcing jobs to Kazakhstan. [Yawn].
RE: Nonsense by Eye.Of.Sage :: NR6 :: on 06 November 2006
a load of .....
[Well, it's not the SH word. Are you Irish or something?]
There are no more important issues at hand. If the Ocean Ecosystem shuts down, then all the other ecosystem will also shut down. That will be the end of the world my friend. Or maybe you think gay marriage is more important than our existence.
RE: Nonsense by Liz_Miracle :: NR5 :: on 06 November 2006
I'm pretty sure gheorghe is kidding. Gheorghe?
RE: Nonsense by gheorghe :: NR5 :: on 06 November 2006
I am no Irish, but if one looks from an outsider's perspective, you have to agree with me that the most important issue seems to be same-sex marriage.
RE: Nonsense by Liz_Miracle :: NR5 :: on 06 November 2006
So you were serious. I apologize, I assumed your yawn was an indicator that your belief that the other topics were, of course, not as important and that you were adding satyr to your post.
Let me prefice this by saying this is not an attack, just a general wonderment. But, how is it that you think that an argument over symantics to define a union is more important than having oxygen to breath (refer to post about wiping out plankton)?
RE: Nonsense by gheorghe :: NR5 :: on 06 November 2006
Ahhh. The keyword in my previous statement was SEEMS.
Just like Global Warming, the imminent depletion of all ocean lifeforms seems just too distant and not threatening enough.
And the initial post I believe mentioned the UN, which of course has little credibility in the US, the only country that would be able to put together some sort of massive response. (as a side note, this type of action would be enough to probably restore the moral leadership the United States claimed until recently).
Are we doomed? Probably not (yet).
However, at least from the US perspective, I just don't see this issue getting through the noise (no matter how trivial or opportunistic) of irrelevant issues such as same-sex unions, flag-burning, finger-pointing, etc.
I agree with the previous post about the economic effect of this imminent depletion. First, there will be an outcry (maybe). Then, people would just shrug it off and replace fish with pork and chicken (after all, how many times a week does on eat fish?) And I am not sure our children will miss the ocean lifeforms. Today's US population is mostly urbanized, which means (and this is anecdotal evidence) that most people don't see real-life hens, cows anyway. And if one goes to a Caribbean resort, most Americans don't even bother to actually bathe in the ocean, they prefer pools. What is the percentage of US population actually going to fish/enjoy some sort of close contact with ocean lifeforms? On the positive side, there will be no more sharks to cause panics and breaking news.
Now, the environmental effect is a totally different issue. It probably deserves the same attention as the global warming/pollution/climate change deserves (and certainly does not get). America needs a catastrophic environmental event (the equivalent of Katrina, if you will, but worse and on a different level) to wake up.
Until then, life is good, I have a big house, 3 cars, I hate the idea of gay marriage, I would definitely shoot those flag-burning liberal pot heads if I could. These issues matter to me NOW. Après moi, le deluge.
RE: Nonsense by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 08 November 2006
I listened to a few podcasts about this over the years, and the real danger does not seem to be extinction or the depletion of plankton and such, but that we are permanently damaging these fisheries and their potential as future food sources.
Which fish to we catch and keep? The big ones. What does that do from an evolutionary standpoint? It selects for smaller fish, and that's exactly what's happening. We are altering the gene pool on fish, making them smaller and less viable all the time.
A seperate issue is coral bleaching (caused by rising ocean acidification from CO2 absorbtion) and by sugars in sewage runoff. There is also general pollution damaging the algae in the ocean, which is the primary driver for atmospheric oxygen generation, but again, that's a seperate topic.
RE: Nonsense by romanizzo :: NR6 :: on 09 November 2006
I'm not entirely certain that the "we keep the big fish" theory is accurate. Sport fishing is not the threat that will wipe out entire species of fish. Commercial fishing is the culprit, and honestly, they don't throw anything back unless its the wrong kind of fish (remember the dolphin fiasco of the early 90s.) A sardine boat isn't going to throw back the small sardines because they don't fit the trophy limits. Incidentally, sport fishing limits are often "windows," i.e. a minimum size and a maximum size, mandating the release of the largest and smartest fish, even if they do happen to bite on my tasty fly. Pollution and mega-scale net fishing operations' indiscriminate kiling or harvesting is the threat.
RE: Nonsense by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 13 November 2006
Yes, it's not sport fishing, but commercial fishing, but nets do tend to let smaller ones get away and the bigger guys have a greater chance of getting snagged. Some fish, like some types of tuna, are harvested by line, and sport fishermen have noted a gradual decrease over the years in the size of trophy fish. Back in the 1950s, when US fishermen were catching tuna solely for cat food or to sell to the Japanese, tuna were enormous. Now the big ones are pretty much gone.