Should We Be Comcerned About The Oceans?

[MystyrMystyry]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8263464/oceans-in-distress-mass-extinctions

It seems we're heading toward doomsday faster than anyone ever predicted - what will we have with our chips?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

According to what my dad heard when he was a kid/teenager (he's 54), by now we should have run out of gasoline, the ozone layer should be nonexistent, and the world should be overcrowded to the point where we can hardly move without bumping in to someone else. And this is just what I can remember.

I don't worry about these things for two reasons. One, I find them hard to believe, and two, there's nothing I can do about it. This isn't to say I litter and do what I can to hurt the environment. I recycle and what-not, but beyond that near-insignificant contribution, I can't do a thing if all the ocean's life is going to go extinct. I also don't worry about the weather or a possible armageddon. In short, I live be the philosophy of only worrying about what I can control.

[The Atheist]

Beware of doomsday predictions made by scientists seeking research funds.

I'll believe the hype when those scientists stop flying by Boeing 747 to their chauffered limousines.

They may even be correct, but it would be nice to see a peer-reviewed study rather than a report co-authored by interested parties released to MSN media.

Things like this are just grist to conspiracists' loony theories that science & political forces are making it all up.

[OrphanPip]

Which scientist get limousines? Often they have to pay their own way to conferences if they can't get funding for the trip.

As to the ozone layer, the international ban on CFCs reversed the depletion, so that seems to argue that we can in fact do things to reverse the course of environmental destruction. And frankly, the Earth is already over populated. Fish stocks are way down and none of it is sustainable long term.

No need for doomsday projections, things are bad enough as is with the collapse of fishing industries globally.

[The Atheist]

Which scientist get limousines? Often they have to pay their own way to conferences if they can't get funding for the trip.

In general, you're quite right, but I get to see how much money floats around in the climate change arena due to some close links to a couple of scientists that speak at conferences.

Climate science has built itself an enormous ivory tower to rival the IMF and World Bank, and many of 'em think the best way to get more sponduliks is to play Chicken Little.

Which is a damned shame, because the core message is good.


As to the ozone layer, the international ban on CFCs reversed the depletion, so that seems to argue that we can in fact do things to reverse the course of environmental destruction. And frankly, the Earth is already over populated. Fish stocks are way down and none of it is sustainable long term.

As usual, spot on all round. (And here under the ozone hole, we're thankful about that!)


No need for doomsday projections, things are bad enough as is with the collapse of fishing industries globally.

Not to mention the growing food crisis overall, which [lack of] fishing will exacerbate.

[Lokasenna]

It's been on the BBC's website as well - so it's not just MSN.

I'm more minded to point the finger at the media. Scientists, if they're doing their job properly, rarely make such inflammatory statements without qualification - simply because it is so hard to actually know something as an absolute fact. I think that a large part of it is the media spinning the story in the most sensational manner it can (as it is wont to do) in order to maximise sales/viewing figures.

That said, while I suspect the media of massaging the scientists' statements, nonetheless I think there is a problem here. As has been pointed out, our species has now grown to such an extent that our planet can no longer support us. And eventually nature is going to bite back at us for this.

[MystyrMystyry]

Long before the rise of the dinosaur as the dominant species, and all life was still at the unicellular stage, there was a global ice age which may have spelt the end of any life at all, but it was actually because of this that life evolved into multicellular organisms.

Fast forward to the end of the dinosaurs when, due to the rocks that were hurled up into the stratosphere from the asteroid that struck Earth, and re-entered the atmosphere as an explosive worldwide meteor shower, setting fire to forests and all large lifeforms (leaving only very small dinosaurs in the form of birds and lizards - which early versions hatched their eggs in the sand - and the water dwellers like crocodiles) so came the rise of the land mammal, which includes us.

The last Great Iceage saw the extinction of the largest of the mammals like mammoths and diprotodons - and in fact all life went through a bottleneck, and we lost our bigger brothers in the Neanderthals, and on down the line, like the moa of New Zealand (6 metres tall!). How much was due to opportunistic hunting and less obtainable food for these creatures is probably about even - but many of our own species would also have been wiped out.

If we fail to do anything now, our species will probably survive, with current technology allowing certain plants to thrive like Frankenstein soy, canola and palm oils etc and all manner of processing available for unprepossessing plants long enough for the oceans to regenerate with entirely new species.

We may well be the last mammal - forget cattle animals because 100 lbs of grain = 1 lb of beef.

Of course, all we need really do is come up with a way to re oxygenate the ocean - anyone want to take the million dollar prize?

[MarkBastable]

I think it depends whether you're worried about human beings or the planet.

If we go, the planet will do fine without us, just as it has done fine without pterodactyls.

[MystyrMystyry]

Good point - but it's the manner in which we go that worries me: there'll be cannabalism in the streets - no-one'll be safe!

I mean personally I might be fine for a while because I don't weigh enough to put a dent in the carpet, and will probably be spared til last for toothpicks, but what about the ones who aren't so fortunate? They'll be first to go, and then the rest of us will have to live with the memory...

Doesn't that bother anyone?

[MarkBastable]

Doesn't that bother anyone?

Not at all. I have been forging links with the cockroach population, and I fully expect to be kept by their ruling elite as a pampered and cherished curiosity.

[MystyrMystyry]

Sounds reasonable - until they turn on you!

Or you turn on them!

Though I suppose given recent events with Weapons of Massive Destructing &c, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for our governments to hold Orwellian wars, and just tin the dead soldiers (like the Nazis did in WWII)

Sergeant Hotpot or Peppered Corporal?

[The Atheist]

It's been on the BBC's website as well - so it's not just MSN.

I'm more minded to point the finger at the media. Scientists, if they're doing their job properly, rarely make such inflammatory statements without qualification - simply because it is so hard to actually know something as an absolute fact. I think that a large part of it is the media spinning the story in the most sensational manner it can (as it is wont to do) in order to maximise sales/viewing figures.

That said, while I suspect the media of massaging the scientists' statements, nonetheless I think there is a problem here. As has been pointed out, our species has now grown to such an extent that our planet can no longer support us. And eventually nature is going to bite back at us for this.

I can't put the blame on "the media" for this kind of stuff.

It would be a terribly ignorant scientists that didn't realise press releases like that would become a major news focus. Climate has been the biggest single story of the past 20 years.

If they did the actual science - you know, test, verify, peer review, publish in scientific publications - then this wouldn't happen.

Not to mention that the media is no more independent than any other sector; they merely provide what their buyers want.


Good point - but it's the manner in which we go that worries me: there'll be cannabalism in the streets - no-one'll be safe!

I mean personally I might be fine for a while because I don't weigh enough to put a dent in the carpet, and will probably be spared til last for toothpicks, but what about the ones who aren't so fortunate? They'll be first to go, and then the rest of us will have to live with the memory...

Doesn't that bother anyone?

No.

I thought that was blindingly obvious. Whether Paris Hilton is wearing panties may be news, but the news that every human being is collectively and individually responsible for the fate of our species most assuredly is not.

It is a clear example of SEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else's_Problem).

[JuniperWoolf]

I think it depends whether you're worried about human beings or the planet.

If we go, the planet will do fine without us, just as it has done fine without pterodactyls.

That's what I was about to post. The word "doomsday" is a sensationalist term. The only mass extinction that anyone ever talks about is the end of the dinosaurs, but in actuality there have been five "apocalyptic" events, including one in which about 96% of all marine species were terminated. Life always crawls back, it just takes a few million years or so to do it.

So yeah, even if earth's HUMAN population takes a nose dive because of our actions, I doubt that we're important enough to affect life on earth in a permanent way - especially considering some of the theories of causes of previous mass extinctions, which are as bad if not much worse than what human beings are capable of today (I like the one that suggests that almost everything on earth was killed by massive acid rain storms).


Doesn't that bother anyone?

It doesn't bother me either, because we're going to die anyway as individuals so the thought of everyone dying collectively isn't that bad. It doesn't affect me personally, whether my family and I die in car crashes or as the result of a nuclear war we'll be in the same state.

As far as surviving a "doomsday" event for a little while, I guess that would suck. Something tells me we wouldn't survive for very long though, so that's something.

[ShoutGrace]

Excellent summary, Juniper.

I guess I'm worried about the human endeavor continuing ... it's at least interesting and unique, isn't it? Wouldn't it be cool for it to continue for a couple thousand years? Long enough for humanoids to figure out how to populate other planets, find other energy sources, make it to another solar system ... ? There's a lot out there, and our ridiculously powerful brains should be capable of doing almost anything.

[MarkBastable]

It is a clear example of SEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else's_Problem).


I think that's an oversimplification. I'd say that in many cases it's not an example of SEP but more commonly an example of AIMPBIIHINGTGRTDAAIALNTW.

...which needs a little work before it's taken on universally as a catchphrase, but which is actually rather zippy shorthand for 'admittedly it's my problem but if I'm honest I'm not going to get round to doing anything about it, at least not this week.'

[The Atheist]

By which time another ~20,000 children will be dead.

See, ignore it and it goes away!

[OrphanPip]

That's what I was about to post. The word "doomsday" is a sensationalist term. The only mass extinction that anyone ever talks about is the end of the dinosaurs, but in actuality there have been five "apocalyptic" events, including one in which about 96% of all marine species were terminated. Life always crawls back, it just takes a few million years or so to do it.

So yeah, even if earth's HUMAN population takes a nose dive because of our actions, I doubt that we're important enough to affect life on earth in a permanent way - especially considering some of the theories of causes of previous mass extinctions, which are as bad if not much worse than what human beings are capable of today (I like the one that suggests that almost everything on earth was killed by massive acid rain storms).


I think arguing over whether the damage we do the environment will cause the end of humankind or not seems besides the point. Our actions, in the long term, will lower the quality of life for millions of people, predominantly the poorest people. We should be concerned about global warming, not because it will destroy humankind, but because it will aggravate already existing problems of drought and food shortage in many areas of Africa and the Indian sub-continent. Depleting fish stocks has already essentially destroyed local fishing enterprises in Africa, especially since those nations lack the naval power or international clout to stop Russian and Japanese industrial fishing operations from emptying their coastal waters. For most of us the implication of fish stock collapse simply means we pay more at a restaurant for fish, for many others it means the end of their community's way of being because fishing is the only viable local economy.

[MarkBastable]

By which time another ~20,000 children will be dead.

See, ignore it and it goes away!



I'm not saying it's a laudable attitude - just that it's a widespread one.

[MystyrMystyry]

we pay more at a restaurant for fish, for many others it means the end of their community's way of being because fishing is the only viable local economy

Umm, I was thinking in terms of paying absolutely nothing for fish because there will be absolutely no fish. I mean we've done our best to get this far down the drain and I don't see the big fisheries suddenly stopping any time soon - even for a few weeks to let them breed would make a difference - but no stop valve - no red light, just go go go til it's all unrecoverably lost.

And as for the present cost, if anything is underpriced it's fish - I can buy a 450 gram tin of red salmon from the local supermarket for 2 bucks, such are the abstract economics of the West, meaning that the entire fish is worth about ten bucks, and that's cheaper than the cheapest beef

[prendrelemick]

forget cattle animals because 100 lbs of grain = 1 lb of beef.

Check where that comes from. My cattle convert at 6:1 of total feeds - not just grain (which is 10%ish of their diet)



Conservationists are blighted by the belief that their cause is so important that lying and exageration is justified. It is a shame because it harms their credibility. The state of the Oceans may be serious, but how can we be sure anymore?

[MystyrMystyry]

100 oz to 1 lb maybe, that makes about 7, but that's not including forage. Jeez, I don't know. 7 at the finishing stage, 20 throughout the entire life? Brain hurts, going into overdrive...

Any takers?

[prendrelemick]

I reckon they've included the grain that wasn't grown, because grass was grown to feed cattle instead. eg I acre of land = 3 tons of wheat, or 300kg of beef. A theoretical scenerio that ignores all sorts of realities. Even then there must've been considerable massaging of figures, using worst case efficiency beef production, against best performance grain production.


Both sides do this of course. So who do we believe?

[The Atheist]

we pay more at a restaurant for fish, for many others it means the end of their community's way of being because fishing is the only viable local economy

Umm, I was thinking in terms of paying absolutely nothing for fish because there will be absolutely no fish. I mean we've done our best to get this far down the drain and I don't see the big fisheries suddenly stopping any time soon - even for a few weeks to let them breed would make a difference - but no stop valve - no red light, just go go go til it's all unrecoverably lost.

First off, it's a lot more than a few weeks. Species like orange roughy and Patagonian toothfish need decades to recover.

The economics of fishing works as Pip described - millions of poor people will starve before you cannot go and buy fish & chips.


And as for the present cost, if anything is underpriced it's fish - I can buy a 450 gram tin of red salmon from the local supermarket for 2 bucks, such are the abstract economics of the West, meaning that the entire fish is worth about ten bucks, and that's cheaper than the cheapest beef

Was it farmed? Salmon are really easy to farm, which is the main reason for its price. Canned salmon are just the unsaleable bits mushed into a tin.

Still bloody nice though!


Conservationists are blighted by the belief that their cause is so important that lying and exageration is justified. It is a shame because it harms their credibility.

It gets worse - take NZ as a classic example.

I would estimate that 100% of sheep grown in this country are grown on land it would be impossible to use for horticulture. You cannot grow and harvest fields of corn on a mountain, but you can grow sheep to eat the grass that manages to grow.

Even in dairying, a massive number of farms are on what is traditionally called "rolling country".

Last combine harvester I saw required a flat surface to work on. There is precious little of that in the North Island.

Has anyone factored little problems like that into these equations?

Just taking a wild guess here, but I'd say "no".


The state of the Oceans may be serious, but how can we be sure anymore?

I think the only thing in doubt is the real picture.

We know from the disappearance of fish stocks that some fish are at/nearing critical points. The fish haven't moved away, they are no longer there.

Again NZ, but because fish are pretty important to us and we have an enormous area of ocean we have under our control, we do some cutting edge research in how fishing affects fish stocks. We've also had an excellent example with some local species - including the ones I mentioned above.

Because orange roughy hang about in gigantic schools in one specified area, we've known from the time we discovered them exactly what we had - just like an oil well, we knew there x million tons of them in the sea.

In the 30-40 years they've been fished, we have been able to physically watch the stock getting smaller - very quickly. We know how many we've caught and what size there was, but the stock depletes at almost the rate of catch - these fish just don't breed either often or sucessfully. Given that they take ~10 years to get to sexual maturity, it's inescapable that if we deplete the stock to the point of non-economic use, the fish may never recover, or if they do, it will take centuries.

[prendrelemick]

Now take that example of the Orange Roughy, and extrapolate it over all oceans and all fish, and you'll be a conservationist my son.

To keep the income stream up they have to paint a whole industry as black as the worst case.

[The Atheist]

Now take that example of the Orange Roughy, and extrapolate it over all oceans and all fish, and you'll be a conservationist my son.

That's easy - it's awful fish, if you ask me. I like pelagic species.

:D


To keep the income stream up they have to paint a whole industry as black as the worst case.

Nah, simple supply & demand rules and it's pretty clear that fleets would fish closer to home if there were fish to take. Spending less money on fuel = more profit for shareholders.

I think you'll find industry people tend to be far less conservative if only for the reason that if they start crying doom, they mightn't be allowed to fish at all. Industry numbers always err on the side of "there are plenty more fish in the sea".