backtop

Science Study: Edible Fish Gone by 2048
Leona Scanlan - November 4, 2006 1:01 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 135 comment(s) - last by Davelo.. on Nov 10 at 3:20 PM
A new study claims fish populations are dwindling at an abysmal rate

A study published recently by the National Center of Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), at University California and UC Santa Barbara, indicates an accelerating loss of biodiversity in the world's oceans with largely unknown consequences. Possible outcomes include an inability of the oceans to produce enough seafood to feed a growing human population, a decrease in the pollution-filtering ability of the oceans, which would result in poor water quality, and an increase in exposure to diseases, i.e. from poisonous algae species.

The study, published November 3 in Science, is the result of a comprehensive four-year research investigation. Scientists utilized a variety of research methods and data archives to see how the loss of biodiversity affects marine ecosystems. Analyzed data include four-decades of fishery information from the United Nations, observational studies of protected marine areas and core samples spanning 1000 years. In addition, over thirty controlled experiments were conducted. Scientists found that a decrease in oceanic biodiversity exponentially decreased water quality, rates of resource collapse, and potential for ecological recovery.

Furthermore, the scientists project a collapse, or 90-percent depletion, of all seafood types currently harvested by the year 2050. Fortunately, scientists believe the oceans might still be able to recover. They found that in areas where biodiversity was restored, productivity was increased fourfold. Behaviors associated with a loss of biodiversity include over-fishing, damage to coastal and aquatic habitats and warmer temperatures associated with global warming.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Agent Smith was Right
By Ard on 11/4/2006 1:44:00 AM , Rating: 5
I fully side with Agent Smith on this: humans are a cancer. We're the most intelligent species on the planet and we can't even control our population and consumption rates. Which leads to three scenarios: we destroy the planet with our gluttony, the planet destroys us with various epidemics and plagues (or wipes us out considerably), or we realize wtf we're doing and stop.




RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Christopher1 on 11/4/06, Rating: -1
RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Christopher1 on 11/4/06, Rating: -1
RE: Agent Smith was Right
By KingofFah on 11/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Donegrim on 11/4/2006 7:07:36 AM , Rating: 4
aw man I've just woken up


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By nineball9 on 11/4/2006 10:48:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
a religion is a set of beliefs. Since everyone has a set of beliefs, everyone is religious.


This is a fallacy of affirming the consequent. Alas, it appears to be a basic premise of your argument.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By KingofFah on 11/5/2006 3:39:57 PM , Rating: 3
:)

In a good mood so I'll reply; something which I usually do not do.

My advice to you is to read the post again. The argument (hmm, I seem to remember stating that I am not arguing anything somewhere towards the bottom listed under disclaimer) is based on humans not knowing anything and only assuming everything they perceive as knowledge and therefore fact.

I'm overstepping the bounds of commenting and entering into debate, hence the reason why I don't get involved in these things. They can quite literally go on into eternity, as long as whomever I am debating with is capable of finding faults.

If I was indeed arguing, then why did you not simply say that I blatantly negated myself when I said that my statements are as valid as anyone else's? That is a much better negation and much more enjoyable to respond to.

:)


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Gentleman on 11/6/2006 2:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
This is un invalid statement because a is b is not the same as b is a.

Similarly, "All dogs has curly hair, Joe has curly hair, therefore, Joe is a dog"


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Kuroyama on 11/4/2006 11:55:51 AM , Rating: 2
> Math proofs can disproved many ways, but the easiest is
> simply to say, "logic demands there are no assumptions in

Math starts with a set of self-consistent axioms and reaches conclusions based on those axioms and on no other assumptions. Therefore, no, you cannot disprove these math results, because they are simply the consequence of the axioms that we started with. You can argue that these axioms are not applicable to reality, or to whatever problem you are interested in, but that is a question of application and quite different from suggesting that the math is incorrect.

> There is no truth in the words I posted, so how can they
> be disproved? They are only words, marks, bits of light
> coming through a piece of glass or whatever kind of
> monitor you are viewing this on.

What an odd way to end such a post.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By KingofFah on 11/5/2006 3:48:26 PM , Rating: 1
Read above as to reasonings for why I am replying.

Self-consistent? That is one of the most hilarious attributes we can give to anything. Self-consistent yet entirely dependent on our acceptance of it into existence... All knowledge is dependent on us; we are relative creatures. Nothing exists if we don't exist, since we define what existence is...

The hilarious thing of your reply is that axiom and assumption are virtually the same thing :) So thank you for further elaborating on the comment I made.

Oh, I just had to:
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

I am not commenting on the grounds on which we argue. No, I am simply pointing at the assumptions that make up the grounds on which we discuss. Hence, the reason why I never said I was trying to prove anything. If I attempt to prove something right after stating that there are no means to prove (since I said we assume everything, and therefore we are unfit for the usage of logic and reasoning), then I would be as foolish as those who claim their own beliefs as absolute fact.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By AnotherGuy on 11/4/2006 9:18:29 PM , Rating: 1
dude i was drinkin some french red wine before i started reading ur post.... by the time i finished reading it .... guess what ?

Im f$%# high...

maybe it was the wine maybe ur post... i donno


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By psychmike on 11/5/2006 4:52:17 AM , Rating: 1
Very well said! It would certainly be overwhelming for me to truly experience the extent of uncertainty that I face in my life just walking down the street!

The one thing that does separate science from religion, however, is that science is a method of knowing based fundamentally on falsifiability. The scientists that I know are generally very humble and as concerned with the constraints of their knowledge and explaining contradicting evidence. Your point, however, is well taken and people should show humility about what they know. My point is that, at the best of times, science does emphasize openness in a way that truly is exploratory rather than confirmatory, and I think that's pretty cool.

Mike


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By fsardis on 11/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: Agent Smith was Right
By KingofFah on 11/5/2006 4:07:55 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, the proof for 1 + 1 = 2 is dependent upon the assumption of 0 as the point of reference. It is also dependent upon succession of numbers, where the set of numbers is postulated or assumed. N' = N + 1. The statement was not one pointing to 1 + 1 = 2, but to 1 + 1 == 2 (== not =) -- the laws of addition.
:)

And no, 1 + 1 = 2 is not the basis of all our math; as Kuroyama stated above, axioms, or assumptions of the fundamentals for math are the basis. From these, everything else is derived. Instead of going into the details of addition, I simply stated that 1 + 1 == 2 cannot be proved without assuming as is the same with all math...

We could also go into the basics of logic...
¬T == F, proof?
¬F == T, proof?

There are many more and I'm sure you can understand where this is going.

Here's something:
If the laws of logic are assumed, and one of those laws assumes that nothing can be assumed for something to be logically valid, then is logic illogical?
What if there was no law that nothing can be assumed?
Then I would say that I am correct in all things, and start making statements that would be absolutely true and impossible to negate as far as logic is concerned.
Sadly, nothing can be assumed, but this yields an equally illogical result...


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By WhiteBoyFunk on 11/7/2006 10:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
This is pretty good. :) I'm a math major and always love seeing these things. Anyway, I don't think you have to go into a lot of detail to prove 1+1=2 if you are in the realm of Euclidean Geometry.

The proof of 1 + 1 = 2 is not exactly something worthwhile in my opinion. Try something along the lines of:

limit as H approaches 0 {(f(x+h+) - f(x))/h} - The derivative! :D Fun stuff.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By rykerabel on 11/6/2006 12:31:52 PM , Rating: 3
Wyrd!


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By fxnick on 11/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Steve Guilliot on 11/4/2006 7:44:52 PM , Rating: 1
Have you heard of any person that was uninfluenced by cultural dogma since birth independently reach the conclusion that there must be a higher power? If not, then how do you know it's part of human nature? Because it's the majority opinion?

BTW, I agree with "it lets people think that this world isnt just total chaos and that something else out there is watching over everything". Religion is the opiate of the masses, I agree 100%.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By rushfan2006 on 11/6/2006 8:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I should also add that if we wouldn't have had the Dark Ages, we would probably not be limited to the Earth right now. We would be on other planets, at least have colonized Mars and perhaps, the moon, and terraformed them, if not be outside our solar system by now.

People need to realize that the REAL problem in the world today is that we have too many religious people in the world, who are holding back the rest of us with their belief that some 'god' is magically going to come and solve their problems.

They need to be executed, and yes, I am serious. They are the stuff of the ultra-conservatives, power-mongers, and idiots in the world today.


Bitter, party of one, your table is ready now.....

First I do believe in God, I'm not catholic though -- which would include one of the "religious organizations" you hint about in your prior post that states birth control is against God. I have a lot of problems with the catholic faith myself....however I was raised Lutheran, now I go to a Methodist church now. My only point for telling you this is basically to say you are talking out your ass. I love how people talk on pure emotion and yet try to sell it as facts.

My church isn't against birth control. In fact to be honest my church is pretty hard core into freedom of its congregation. We gather to worship, have charities to help the community in which we live, and other than that - is pretty much what you do in your personal lives is what you do in your personal lives. The trust and understanding is that you live a good, decent and moral life in accordance with the core values we believe as Christians...(re: ten commandments....don't murder, don't cheat, don't steal, etc. etc.).

If it is wrong or harmful to have a happy, helpful life of free will...well color me in as "wrong" then.

As a side note, just so you know some of us believers are in different boats as the "zealots"....I think non-believers have this HUGE HUGE misconception that if you believe in God, or "a god"...that you are automatically a cultist, or some zealot to force feed it down unwillingly people's throats....that simply isn't true. My whole family, believes in freedom of religion, even if that means you don't believe at all. We only practice mutual respect...so it only gets touchy when non-believers disrespect our beliefs....once that happens...then personally I start to disrepect the non-believers.

It has to be both ways..and that's what the world refuses to understand....respect of beliefs is a two way street.

As for your Dark Ages comment...that's just straight out silly.

I think a lot of people, particularly younger folks watch far too many sci-fi movies, ready way too many sci-fi novels and play too many sci-fi video/computer games....colonization of a planet like Mars...is million times more complex, costly and difficult in real life than a movie like "Total Recall" makes it seem.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By AzureKevin on 11/10/2006 10:14:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not religious either, but I wouldn't go so far as to say all religious people need to be executed. I'm sure there are a good number of 'em out there that could use a good beating, but no one needs to be killed. Yet.

I do want to see some change take place in this world and in our society. I just don't see it happening any time soon.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By UnstableHero on 11/4/06, Rating: -1
RE: Agent Smith was Right
By rykerabel on 11/6/2006 12:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
God's response to the hubris of Babel's Tower was to spread the people over the earth and scramble their languages to always seperate them from one another in punishment.

So, yes, if you want to follow that vein, the Atom bomb was decreed by god to keep us seperate in punishment. God has used man before to meet punishment on man and will do so again.

One thing I learned from faithfully listening in church (Babtist, Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian) and devout reading of the Bible along with questioning all of the "assumed" tenets of Science and Math is... people stress too much about nothing.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By AzureKevin on 11/10/2006 10:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
About your argument that god wanted us to use the atom bomb, it seems like all god ever does for us is punish us. I think if there really is a god, he either knows he screwed up when he made us and doesn't care about us anymore, or he really hates us.

I don't seem to understand the logic of some religions. God loves you, but if you're disobedient, you're going to burn in a place full of fire and torture and pain after you die. How nice! It really makes me want to believe in god...

Anyway, I've been to church and all that before. I gave it a chance, and decided when I was like, 8 years old, that I'd rather not be religious. None of the things they taught made sense. I started questioning the existence of god since 3rd grade. The thing is, I know nothing can be proven or disproven; with that logic, I deem myself agnostic. I can't allow myself to believe everything in a book written by some random people two thousand years ago.

I know not everyone is like me, but so far I haven't needed religion to tell me how to treat others, or how to live my life. No one hates me or thinks I'm a bad person in the least way, and I can accept the possibility that the world is just chaos and that there is no god who loves us. I will agree, however, that it is probably helpful to many other people.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By xsilver on 11/4/2006 2:11:43 AM , Rating: 4
wow, what a mind-dump
just to clear up a few things though
1) china is not the problem, they have already implemented strict birth control regiemes for 25 years and it is to a large degree working.
2) I dont think it is your place to tell someone that they can or cannot believe in god. (before you flame, I'm not religous either)
3)The world cannot produce enough food for what you clam 10-50 times the number of current people in the world, it is just out of the realm of possibility. Think about the people in africa and what they have and you may have a small idea of what I mean.

quote:
We know this because 50-75% of the food that people buy or grow, goes bad and is never used in the United States. That's probably the mean for the entire world.

and people are confused as to why americans are hated in view of the rest of the world? lol


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By mindless1 on 11/4/2006 2:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind that random numbers like 50-70% are only worth the paper they're written on.

We certainly cannot blame China for problems on other coasts, but we could for their own share of the problems locally. Further, birth control in china is NOT working to a large degree, unless you mean stabilizing a state of overpopulation. That doesn't mean we can really criticize China though, they are old world nation and younger ones may have the same problem in the future.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By xsilver on 11/4/2006 3:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
well, yes the definition was a bit vague.
but I was going along the lines of the OP where he was ranting about birth control, religous zealots, and womens rights.

What I was refferring to was the efforts that china have placed in trying to effectivly map out population growth for the next century. They have probably done as much planning and implementing as any other nation.
The results of that have been seen through a substantial decrease in the RATE of population growth. You must understand that population growth is generally not linear but rather exponential, china has kept their growth since the 1 child policy to a (close to) linear rate.
Compared to the efforts of india or parts of africa I cant think of a better large scale example of it being done better.

oh and sorry if I offended anybody with my generalization of american people being self centred and self serving, i know its probably not the norm but I've found that there are quite a few of these people. they're usually highly religous too, but for some reason this guy is on the opposite spectrum and still acts the same. wierd.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By copiedright on 11/4/2006 8:02:54 AM , Rating: 4
100 years ago you would have a dozen men working a small field. In modern times you now have half that cultivating millions of acres. Don't believe me? take a trip out to Australia where GPS controlled tractors have been around for a decade.

Actually we have gotten so good at mass producing crops that we are making so much of it, that due to supply and demand, the price is so low that its more affordable to dump it and write it off as a tax deduction!

The united states alone can feed the entire 3rd world with just its dumped wheat crops!


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By xsilver on 11/4/2006 7:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
lol, ur funny mate -- I AM AUSTRALIAN

and I know about the GPS tractors, but the point was that we are so full of food that we are wallowing in it.
and the OP was taking it to be the norm (america is only average)
the dumped crops of america and other industrial countries actually dont much go to waste, they feed organisms higher up the food chain (pigs etc.)
you and the OP are making world famine sound like a problem that is easily solved, I pity that view.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By kruege311 on 11/4/2006 3:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
WOW...I mean, just wow! Seriously I'm not even sure how to respond to what was listed. I mean from the total lack of reason and logic that went into all of that, I'm not even sure if I should even waste any time refuting what was said or just go easy on the poor soul as it obviously seems that something is a bit loose in the old noggin up there.

It sounds more like someone just wanting to start a religous flame war than really making any actual worthwhile comments about the article. Fortunately most people seem to be blessed with more logic and common sense so I don't see any problems coming out of this.

"...the REAL problem in the world today is that we have too many religious people in the world, who are holding back the rest of us..."

Hahahahaha, oh man that is classic! Seriously, I've gotta write that one down. Keep em coming Christopher...I've got a feeling you could fill up an entire book with those gems in no time at all.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Wwhat on 11/5/2006 7:19:12 AM , Rating: 1
So you have no counterarguments then.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By KeypoX on 11/4/2006 2:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
christopher1 = a guy that THINKS he is really smart. Prob 16 or something.

"If religious people were to disappear or we had some SANE religious people who realized that "'god' wouldn't have even let us come up with the idea for birth control if he didn't want us to use it!"" Says chrissy

LoL... so god gave us the power to kill because he wants us to kill? God gave us the power to sin because he wants us to sin? Your premise makes no sence... just because we can do something doesnt mean its right. That is called temptation and it was put here as a filter.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Steve Guilliot on 11/4/2006 7:58:42 PM , Rating: 1
Who "put" temptation here?
What are we filtering?
Who created the objects to be filtered?
What happens to the filtered objects?
..
Why would anyone think this is rational?

Ugh.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Ard on 11/4/2006 2:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't even know where to begin with that post, so I won't. I'll just say that the fact that the US recently passed 300 million ppl means our efforts of controlling the population are doing jack.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By zombiexl on 11/4/2006 7:01:04 PM , Rating: 3
At the risk of being modded down....

One could argue that the overpoplation has as much to do with advances in medical science that keep people alive much longer.

The life expectancy continues to climb, but people still feel a need to pass on their legacy (or however you look at it), which is good or else our species would go extinct.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By KaerfSusej on 11/4/2006 8:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
So... second holocaust?

BTW, I'm Christian, and I don't exactly like it when other Christians do those things either.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By flexy on 11/4/2006 11:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
well..ugh...i didnt see that post yet since it was folded :) So i was wondering what the other guy was citing.

Anyway...*basically* you are right....but you ALSO make the mistake and being INTOLERANT and (as it looks) would fight a war against all "religious" people.

But then you would act THE SAME as any other fanatic motivated "religious freak"....in this case just being intolerant against "the beliefers"...so it doesnt really MATTER whether one comes along and wantd his BELIEF forced upon someone else...or a "non-beliefer" comes along and crushes heads of every "beliefer" because "they're wrong".

From that point of view i really do NOT care where intolerance and fanatism orginates from.

But then you certainly have a point with the "church" giving advice regarding BC (like they know ??? :) Most of them are gay anyway and celebate in addition :)

But..speaking of the 1st world countries...usa, japan, etc..i think the problem of birth-control is NOT as big a priority there as it is in 3rd world countries.....and THOSE are *not* the ones responsible for overfishing, pollution, USUALLY.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By GTaudiophile on 11/4/2006 7:59:12 AM , Rating: 1
All of my friends, those who are edudcated and making good money, don't have a strong desire for kids. It's the lower end of gene pool that's having 5 kids at a time and in the process dumbing down society.

Besides, nature has its own correction methods. Nature invests smart diseases like cancer and AIDS to fight back against the human cancer as you put it. It also throw hurricans and tsunamis at us, etc.

Nature always wins in the end.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By ZmaxDP on 11/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: Agent Smith was Right
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2006 8:21:05 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah well you can feel free to move to China where they tell you how many kids you can have and there is no choice.

I'll stay here in the USA where if I want to have a kid, I can. And the large majority of people aren't gluttons. Get out of your tree and return to the real world.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By flexy on 11/4/2006 10:41:11 PM , Rating: 1
i dont know what a "glutton" is...but...anyway...blamimg "the asians" for sure is dumb.

I think the problem (because you're just raving about our great us)....is (as said and stated and comprehensible by everyone with an IQ > 10 and a halfway understanding of what's going on)...

... that we have ~300Mil *FAT* americans and of course the mass-industrialization/producing of..be it FISH...or cattle...or eggs....or whatever animal is used to feed ~300Mil *FAT* americans (or Asians, or Europeans)...contributing to the profits of McDumb or BK or whatever fastfood-chain.

Lowe Wages...Low conscience (in general) regarding the environment (especially in the states)...dont care what i eat actually as long as it's CHEAP..so let's go to walmart..etc..etc...mentality.

And then a rather aggressive mentality doing off such reports as "non scientific" or "belongs to the tabloids" etc.

Sorry..i can just laugh if people are so brainwashed that they they *actively* refuse reports like those (even if what it says basically is NOT news at all)...be it reports regarding global warming, running out of natural resources (oil)...poisoning of our environement, atmosphere, oceans, you name it.

And then...OBLIVIOUS to the most oblivious...also stand there and state that "we" actually have it quite good since (obviously :) everywhere is peace and happiness anyway....right...the last war we fought was like 500 years ago...and we're also LOOONG over any religious motivated fanatic actions/terrorism/wars..whatever. All long gone.

Also..of course all the statements about emissions polluting our air and oceans and groundwater are just plain lies...it's LIES people, spread by the liberals and democrats ! Now you all go to bed, get those thoughts out of your head...get along with your lifes..focus on the MORE important things in life !



RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Wwhat on 11/5/2006 7:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
I think you can subtract some of the homeless from those 300 million fat americans ;)
And there are millions of fat euros andsoforth too, let's not blame ALL of it on america.
As for the reports, I myself think there's enough evidence of the human species starting to affect the natural balance, but I do think that there is a lot of pseudo-science the last few years and I can't blame people for getting cynical about it, and in the range of reports about this real issue there are many that are not valid, obscuring the truth of the real valid reports.
For the rest I don't argue with you at this time.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By GhandiInstinct on 11/4/2006 10:11:21 AM , Rating: 1
"It is inevitble."

We are the virus.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By Ard on 11/4/2006 2:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed.

"I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that you're not actually mammals. You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague...and we...are the cure."

Yeah, Smith was on point.


RE: Agent Smith was Right
By rykerabel on 11/6/2006 12:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, a more false statement I've rarely heard:

every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium

Um, no, the mammals don't instinctively develop a natural equilibrium, nature shoves that equilibrium down their dumb throat with famine, disease, and predators.


Global Warming eh?
By SilthDraeth on 11/4/2006 8:36:18 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Behaviors associated with a loss of biodiversity include over-fishing, damage to coastal and aquatic habitats and warmer temperatures associated with global warming.


Wow, So first I read a ton of posts blaming the loss of fish on woman's rights, and lack of widespread birth control.

I then read the article, and the last line, which is quoted above made me question the entire thing anyways.

Global warming in and of itself is a very hotly debated subject. Not that it is happening per say, but what exactly is causing it.

Base this on the age of the world, the number of Ice Ages the world has went through, the temperature of the earth during the periods when dinosaurs where said to be on earth, (which is widely considered to be quite a bit warmer than it is today) and you have a theory being said to be caused by another unknown. That is if you even believe in dinosaurs and the ice ages.

To sum it up. They state one of the causes of the loss of biodiversity is Global Warming. Global Warming in itself is an unknown factor. But if you use the ice age, and fossils, which show animals and creatures, both terrestrial and aquatic, that are now extinct, and humans had nothing to do with those factors. The only part I can warrant pointing fingers to humans over, is over fishing, and damaging the oceans ie oil spills etc. Granted it wasn't clear if they where implying humans cause global warming and therefore are further at fault, or whether it was just included.




RE: Global Warming eh?
By TomZ on 11/4/2006 9:46:36 AM , Rating: 3
Bottom line is, there's a lot of money to be made being an environmental alarmist - in science research, in politics, and in the news media. And there is really no force to keep this in check. So it is no surprise that reports like this come out. After all, what would we do all day if we didn't have stuff like this to worry about?


RE: Global Warming eh?
By tigen on 11/4/2006 7:04:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Bottom line is, there's a lot of money to be made being an environmental alarmist - in science research, in politics, and in the news media. And there is really no force to keep this in check. So it is no surprise that reports like this come out. After all, what would we do all day if we didn't have stuff like this to worry about?


There's a lot of money to be made by preserving the status quo also. So what?

What would we do all day? We'd pretend we know what we're talking about on messageboards.





RE: Global Warming eh?
By Steve Guilliot on 11/4/2006 8:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
"Science" is a top-tier peer-reviewed journal, not a blog. If they got into Science, the research must have been pretty solid, ESPECIALLY on such a hot topic.


RE: Global Warming eh?
By rykerabel on 11/6/2006 12:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
ha ha ha
no, its not.


RE: Global Warming eh?
By tigen on 11/4/2006 7:01:50 PM , Rating: 1
Global warming in and of itself is a very hotly debated subject. Not that it is happening per say, but what exactly is causing it.

Not really. By blowhards on messageboards perhaps, but the causes are pretty clear in scientific circles.


RE: Global Warming eh?
By Wwhat on 11/5/2006 7:37:02 AM , Rating: 4
I guess you don't hang in these circles eh.
Because there are real scientist that have some strong reservation about various causes and effects, and they should have because the system is a complex one we do not completely understand, however there is an agreement that what we do does have effects on nature, now more than ever before, just not what the endresult is or how bad it is.



RE: Global Warming eh?
By rykerabel on 11/6/2006 1:03:20 PM , Rating: 1
Got a PhD in Atmospheric studies?
Work for NCAR?
ever even heard of NCAR?

The majority of real atmospheric scientist refute global warming.


RE: Global Warming eh?
By ydgmdlu on 11/6/2006 3:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, no they don't. You'd have to be some kind of idiot not to accept that the world is warming. The CAUSE of the warming is what is in question, not the warming itself. Any scientist working any sort of climatological field would be laughed out of the community if he/she claimed that the world isn't warming.

The clear scientific consensus, which becomes more accepted year after year, is that humans are the cause. Some have reservations about this conclusion, but very few completely disagree with it. Nobody, except know-nothing politicians, refutes the notion of humans being the cause as a reasonable conclusion.


RE: Global Warming eh?
By TomZ on 11/9/2006 3:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, I just can't take it seriously. These are the same scientists that told us in the 1970s that we were going into an ice age.

And while I agree there is consensus on the fact of global warming, i.e., actual observations/data showing the trend, there is lots of dissent in the scientific community about the cause of that being human or otherwise.

I am not an expert, but I think it is laughable that anyone would claim there is consensus. All you have to do is use google for 5 minutes to find lots of scientists that believe that global warming is not caused by humans, and that initiatives like Kyoto are useless and economically destructive with no hope of "solving the problem."


RE: Global Warming eh?
By Tsuwamono on 11/4/06, Rating: -1
RE: Global Warming eh?
By SilthDraeth on 11/4/2006 9:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

PS. Ask your priests to stop touching boys.. its annoying to hear about.


Not sure if you understood my post. I simply threw that statement in there to ward off the people that may try to claim dinosaurs didn't exist because it isn't recorded in their precious bible.

I do in fact believe in Dinosaurs.

As for the other poster that believes "Global Warming" is well understood in the scientific circles. In my opinion, I believe it still is hotly debated by scientists. But thats an entirely different discussion.



RE: Global Warming eh?
By MrHanson on 11/4/2006 11:53:38 PM , Rating: 3
I just love it when an article about the environment innevitably turns into a christian bashing crapathon. I guess you're right. If one doesn't accept the belief that life and all its complexities are the end result of a purposeless 4.5 year billion accident, then he or she obviously isn't qualified to be a researcher in any scientific field. Oh by the way you just called Charles Babbage, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell,Lord Kelvin, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Wernher von Braun, JRR Tolkien, James Irwin etc..., retards. Cowardly name calling isn't exactly productive, and just makes you look like a bigger idiot.


RE: Global Warming eh?
By rykerabel on 11/6/2006 1:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
but none of those blindly believed in creationism.

they all questioned reality and all of its tennants.

the only few who did believe creationism (not blindly) only did so because there was no better alternative yet discovered in their time.


RE: Global Warming eh?
By glennpratt on 11/8/2006 3:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
So you have the alternative? What caused this big bang? What happened before then? When did time begin? Explain singularity to me please... thanks.


RE: Global Warming eh?
By ydgmdlu on 11/6/2006 3:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Behaviors associated with a loss of biodiversity include over-fishing, damage to coastal and aquatic habitats and warmer temperatures associated with global warming.

You should read that line more closely. It says only "warmer temperatures associated with global warming." It says nothing about humans being the cause of global warming. I assume that your reaction was based on your political shadings behind the term "global warming." Would you have preferred "climate change" instead?

Okay, so it might imply that global warming is caused by human "behaviors," but honestly, is anything that we're doing right now actually reversing global warming?


Not going to happen
By Christopher1 on 11/4/2006 1:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but we have had people saying this same thing for nearly 100 years, since the 1910's, that within X years we would overfish the sea and fish would vanish from the world.

IN A PIG'S EYE! Frankly, there is no way to know how many fish there are out there, and just because PENGUINS are having problems finding food does not mean that there is going to be a collapse in the future!

Frankly, penguins eat ONE, repeat, ONE kind of fish that is only found at the extreme ends of the globe. They are NOT a good sign of whether we are overfishing or not.




RE: Not going to happen
By BladeVenom on 11/4/2006 4:16:14 AM , Rating: 4
Also, 90% percent depletion is nonsense. Long before that happens it will be cost prohibitive to fish. Already I see more and more "seafood" that's farm raised.


RE: Not going to happen
By number999 on 11/5/2006 8:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
will be cost prohibitive to fish.

This doesn't answer what really happens, from subsidies to keep people fishing to fishing other species to fishing in more ecological destructive ways. I suggest you look at the history of fishing off the east coast of america and canada.

What's disturbing about farm raised fish as a so called solution is that the feedstocks for atlantic salmon for example require 3lbs of fish to be caught to produce 1 lb of farmed salmon. There is also the fact that sea lice from the farmed salmon kill the natural fish and salmon in the area. It is totally non-sustainable by any definition.


RE: Not going to happen
By TomZ on 11/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: Not going to happen
By Sebec on 11/4/2006 10:06:46 AM , Rating: 3
The depletion is a projection, not a prediction, which are quite different things. This story was on NPR yesterday, and the audio explains the projection. NPR also provided opposing commentary from other researhers who disagree with the research conclusions. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...


RE: Not going to happen
By Schmolly on 11/5/2006 4:54:42 AM , Rating: 2
You mean, you found the part of the debate where self-proclaimed experts such as you (truly sane people will call you arrogant idiots) discuss their "facts" and predict the future.


RE: Not going to happen
By TomZ on 11/9/2006 3:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
No, I meant the part of the thread that didn't diverge into discussions of religion and the end of the world. Sheesh.


RE: Not going to happen
By number999 on 11/5/2006 9:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
90% will be gone by 2048
It's a statistical projection. The kind I always hated to do and still hate. Just because it has environmental tagged to it, doesn't mean that it doesn't have some validity to it. Large fish are disappearing from the oceans' and fisheries have been wrecked along with lots of people's lives. The fisheries around the world aren't going recover magically and this study wasn't from any conservation organization but an international group of scientists. As for robustness of the world's fish stocks just look at the Canadian cod fishery. Dead and basically gone due to overfishing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414....


Like oil?
By bobsmith1492 on 11/4/2006 11:16:51 AM , Rating: 1
What was it the "scientists" said back in the 60s-70s? Oil would be gone during the 70s? Hm, what was that I put in my car today... I thought it was an oil derivitive.

Anyway, I think the point of people posting things like this study is to 1. warn people that it "could" happen eventually and to look into ways of controlling our consumption, or 2. to get some publicity for themselves in whatever way possible to bump their ego even though it may be bad science. From all the rules about fishing that people have mentioned and the simple fact that the ocean is so freakin' huge, I would hope for the first but suspect strongly the second.




RE: Like oil?
By Richardito on 11/4/2006 12:43:53 PM , Rating: 1
From your statement I can see that you are not a "scientist" and have no respect for them or the truth. I am a Scientist and a devote Christian. People practicing science-bashing, like our current president and yourself, is a very disturbing trend. Oil is a separate issue because the information about the oil reserves in the middle east, etc. is controlled by the oil-companies and is not in the public domain. Scientist are not ignorant, they know more about the world. They are acutelly aware of what is going on compared to everyone else who do not knows or cares about science. If you think real scientists lie, I feel sorry about you. Do not believe the government (or religious) propaganda that global warming does not exist or that it is actually good for you. The human race is driving Earth to the point of no return. Apparently the end of the world is closer than what we all thought.


RE: Like oil?
By fishmonger12 on 11/4/06, Rating: -1
RE: Like oil?
By bobsmith1492 on 11/4/2006 2:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
I am, in fact, a *devout Christian and a scientist myself (engineer, actually - essentially science, but more applied and practical than pure science). That means nothing in these circumstances (online chat), however; I can say I am whatever I am, and you can say you are whatever you are, and no one will know the difference.

I do have great respect for scientists; however, by being one, I know that I am, indeed, only human, as are all scientists. Therefore, I know how easy it is to jump to wrong conclusions, how strong the desire to come up with something truly great, something novel, or some breakthrough that, if you really look deep into your motives, you can attach your name to forever.

For that reason, I am extremely sceptical of much coming out of the scientific community. There is always much more than meets the eye to any study, the results from any research, and any conclusion drawn.

That being said, not all are selfish spotlight-seekers; many people devote themselves to the search for the truth in and about the physical world. I do not know enough about this study to say anything in particular about it. These are more general musings.

I will, therefore, withold any judgment about the motives of this study ands its validity. I merely wanted to present my scepticism and reasoning for it.


RE: Like oil?
By jarman on 11/5/2006 2:26:56 PM , Rating: 1
I'd tend to agree. Anytime someone proclaims that they are a "scientist", you are dealing with:
1) a liar
2) a purchaser of a $50 degree from Phoenix Online
3) someone who thinks that a political science degree is "qualified"
4) again a liar.

Put down the kool-aid tree huggers!


RE: Like oil?
By rykerabel on 11/6/2006 2:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
If you obtained any kind of B.S. Degree from any reasonable university and none of your professors told you that Scientist and Engineers lie every single day, then you had the wrong professors.

That’s like the most common knowledge among scientist and engineers is that lying is status quos.

The point they try to make with this is that we should try to NOT lie so that we may truely advance.


RE: Like oil?
By rykerabel on 11/6/2006 2:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, the same can be said about religious institutions and political parties.

With status comes the need to maintain your status. So when one lies to advance beyond you, the temptation to lie also overwhelms far too many normal people.

IRS agents lying on taxes, scientist making up data, engineers purposefully introducing flaws, priests violating major tenets of their own religion... its all part of the human condition.


RE: Like oil?
By ydgmdlu on 11/6/2006 3:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, what a terrible analogy. Fish are a renewable resource. Fossil fuels aren't. If you don't accept that we're running out of oil, and probably won't have enough steady supply to feed the needs of an ever-growing population (and especially the booming economy of China) in the next 100 years, or maybe as little as 50 years, then you're truly living in some dream world from the mindset of the mid-20th century.

Scientists didn't say that we'd run out of oil in '70s. One guy in the '70s predicted that we'd hit peak oil, but his view was seen as rather heretical. (In hindsight, he did jump the gun.) Since then, many have awakened to the reality that our oil supply is dwindling and will become very expensive in the next few decades. In fact, peak oil predictions become more valid every year as once-oil-rich nations see diminishing returns. Most of the oil wells in the world have already peaked, with pretty much the only exceptions being the OPEC countries.


RE: Like oil?
By Davelo on 11/10/2006 3:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Peak Oil is a theory, and a incorrect one at that. It's incorrect because they did not understand where oil came from. The truth is that oil is not a fossel fuel at all. It's a naturally forming substance that is made at the inner areas of the planet. Some of it seeps up through fissures and collects in pockets near the surface. When a pocket is tapped out they only need to either find a new pocket or wait till the old pocket is replenished. The latter is what recently happened in the Gulf of Mexico when a dried up oil field began new flows.


So kill yourself
By montgom on 11/4/2006 6:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who thinks mankind is evil and causing the end of the earth, just take the first step, kill yourself. That is taking the first step in personal responsibility. With you gone, one less person to ruin the planet.
Bob




RE: So kill yourself
By Fubar0606 on 11/4/2006 9:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
ok first of all
"Indeed.

"I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that you're not actually mammals. You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague...and we...are the cure."

Yeah, Smith was on point."
that is a very true statement but that is from Independance day. I dont care personally but i mean, yeah.

second of all! MANKIND IS MOST DEFINETLY GOING TO CAUSE DOOMSDAY! where do u think all the stuff that goes down a sewer drain goes, it doesnt go to a treatment plant, it goes to a Detention Pond where it gets in the soil and polluts the ground.
Mankind doesnt fit in with the Earth, we are the aliens of our own planet. I agree we are a virus and to put it in an even better terms, WE ARE THE AIDS OF THE BODY OF EARTH!
I am not a smart guy I do not claim to be smart, but there is a thin line between Ignorance and Knowladge, I do not believe my self to be ignorant nor smart, I am a normal person, all the worlds problems are caused by both Ignorance and knowlage so dont assume ignorance is the only bad out of the 2
Ignorance : Stupidity, lack of knowladge, Anger,
Knowladge : leads to ignorance, and is a disease of man, The size of our Cerbrial Cortex is a disease, knowladge caused alot of problems, i belive Undertanding is the inlightenment not knowladge, becasue everyone has knowladge, it doesnt mean its important knowladge


RE: So kill yourself
By SilthDraeth on 11/5/2006 3:36:30 AM , Rating: 1
Do you have knowladge or is it knowlage of Firefox 2.0?

It has a built in spell checker. Maybe if you used it you would spell knowlage as knowledge.

Also, why would you take a quote from "The Matrix" and say it is from "Independence Day"?

I do not believe I have ever seen you post before Fubar0606, but you seem to be full of self loathing.

First: Ignorance means "lack of knowledge".
Stupid means "lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind"
Knowledge means "the fact or state of knowing"

Mankind as a whole is definitely ignorant about a lot of things, how much, we obviously do not know. We also have acquired a lot of knowledge about in the sciences. Biological, astral, nuclear, environmental, etc.

Both ignorant and stupid people may think they are neither, and may think they have all the knowledge. A knowledgeable person may even think they know everything, but then that would be ignorant of them, and or stupid.

A smart person, whether knowledgeable or ignorant, would know that they do not know everything.

A smart person can also tell you that obtaining knowledge does not lead to ignorance, in fact having knowledge is the opposite of being ignorant.

The fish however do not care about human reasoning.


RE: So kill yourself
By Wwhat on 11/5/2006 7:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
Astral science? uhm you mean atronomy? or do you mean astrology


RE: So kill yourself
By SilthDraeth on 11/5/2006 11:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
If you consider astrology a science you have problems on a whole new level my friend.


RE: So kill yourself
By Wwhat on 11/5/2006 1:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I asked him ;]


RE: So kill yourself
By Xietsu on 11/9/2006 1:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
Anyways, considering how we're amidst discussion of knowledge and intellect, may I privy you onlookers with the notion that an "astral science" regards to that of any study affiliated with that of stellar quantities?


Interesting.
By vhx on 11/4/2006 5:21:26 AM , Rating: 1
Clearly, cloning is the answer.




RE: Interesting.
By bisoy on 11/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting.
By GhandiInstinct on 11/4/06, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting.
By bobsmith1492 on 11/4/2006 11:10:57 AM , Rating: 2
"Greek's [sic] were just as advanced" as who, us? I'm sorry, that's a blatant lie, and for what reason? To satisfy to yourself that, since the Greeks were advanced in science, their religion was valid? "I'd take multiple powerful gods over Jesus anyday" It's an excuse in your mind to disregard Jesus as impotent.

Sorry, but I'm not going to let that one slide here.


RE: Interesting.
By GhandiInstinct on 11/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting.
By jarman on 11/4/2006 8:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
The ancient Greeks weren't even as advanced than the ancient Egyptians, Romans (post Constantine I), and the Babylonians. What have you been smoking?


RE: Interesting.
By bisoy on 11/5/2006 8:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
How so? Because the Greeks were able to build rockets and fly to the moon? Because the Greeks were able to give you a computer so you can spend one useless afternoon ranting nonsense on messageboards?

The Greek indeed were advanced but not so much as the current civilization of the world.

Today we have the ability to do Cloning and even start colonizing other planets. I don't care if I live to see that day but I sure hope that it gets done - for the sake of the virus-like humans who eventually will outgrow this earth.

One God, No God or Multiple-God is of no consequence - I've yet to see one.


RE: Interesting.
By Wwhat on 11/5/2006 1:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
uhm, we have the ability to clone and colonise other planets? you mean in TV shows I assume..


RE: Interesting.
By rykerabel on 11/6/2006 1:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
nah, we do have the ability, just not the collective willingness to put the required effort (read as finance in a capitolistic economy).


The circle of life
By cciesquare on 11/4/2006 1:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
The earth by scientific estimates is about 5 billion years old. During that time, it is said that the earth has encountered numerous ice ages, a meteor that wiped out the dinos, and a super continent that drifted apart.

We are apart of the greater nature that makes up the earth. Unless the earth breaks apart litterally, whatever we do, life will go on. We can throw nukes at each other and wipe each other out, but given time, the earth will survive and repair itself, just as it has over the eons and accross the billions of years written within its skin.

Us wiping out life or destroying the earth is no different than the very thing that wiped out the dinos, and the history that predated human existance.

I have to also add, that dont under estimate the ability of humans to adopt, change, and survive. No matter what happens, or what we do, it will still be apart of nature, apart of the greater circle of life. In the end you will still return to the very clay that made you. Whether it be from age, or humans destroying the earth.




RE: The circle of life
By flexy on 11/4/2006 11:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
>>>
The earth by scientific estimates is about 5 billion years old. During that time, it is said that the earth has encountered numerous ice ages, a meteor that wiped out the dinos, and a super continent that drifted apart.

We are apart of the greater nature that makes up the earth.
>>>

from a certain POV you are right.

But 5mill evolution back or forth...there are some facts standing..

just ONE example...

() extinction of certain species

MAINLY because of known reasons, be it hunting, or their ecosystems destroyed....by HUMANS.

How many species we have already which are (basically, the last 100 or so years) gone EXTINCT...and they will never come back ?

So..is for sure not a good thing.


RE: The circle of life
By flexy on 11/4/2006 11:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
also...you should keep an emphasis on timeframes here.

Isnt it astonsishing and alarming that basically 4,999999Bil years it really didnt matter.....and only in the last FEW years...say, starting with technical revolution not even 100 or so years ago those problems become apparent ?

100 *tiny* years withing a 5Bil years timeframe...and ALREADY we're talking about 90% destruction of the ocean's resources....global warming..extinction of resources like oil, extinction of animals, nukes :)

And this is NOT alarming ?

There is really no point in making it sound "less alarming" because there is a possibility the earth might regenerate in 2Mill years again...might very well be true.....but kinda pointless to speculate.

It's still legitimate to have a concern about things right now and in the more or less near future.


RE: The circle of life
By timmiser on 11/6/2006 6:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are apart of the greater nature that makes up the earth. Unless the earth breaks apart litterally, whatever we do, life will go on. We can throw nukes at each other and wipe each other out, but given time, the earth will survive and repair itself, just as it has over the eons and accross the billions of years written within its skin.


Yeah right, that is exactly what they said on Mars and Venus!



Re: Edible Fish Gone by 2048
By M9ACE on 11/4/2006 1:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Forthcoming pandemics, wars, and natural disasters will control the population.




RE: Re: Edible Fish Gone by 2048
By Zebo on 11/5/2006 3:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

Peak oil will take care of wanna be fisher men.

Then you have all the muslim fundi's coming on-line with nukes, amageddon of just a matter of time.

If those don't happen you always have liberals who will put peoples out of business to save a fish.


RE: Re: Edible Fish Gone by 2048
By Wwhat on 11/5/2006 7:39:19 AM , Rating: 2
...


RE: Re: Edible Fish Gone by 2048
By number999 on 11/5/2006 8:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
pandemics, wars, and natural disasters will control the population
This Malthusian prophecy need not happen if people stoped acting like the earth was an open endless system where humans can take as much as they want and dump as much as they can.


December 21st, 2012 is it..
By wingless on 11/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: December 21st, 2012 is it..
By PT2006 on 11/4/2006 3:24:58 PM , Rating: 3
So many things wrong ... with your statements.

In 2012 is when the Mayan calendar ends. Mayans do not actually believe the world will end in 2012, it's just that the calendar was not set up to go past that date.

The earth's axis will not shift. There is some belief that magnetic north will flip to the south. This will happen, it happens every 10,000 years or so, but there is no set date.

Your third point.... wow. If you read the report, you'll see the major offenders of overfishing are the US, Russia and South America.


RE: December 21st, 2012 is it..
By ZmaxDP on 11/4/2006 4:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
Though I find such random generalization as "those ASIANS" highly distasteful, I also disagree with saying that the US, Russia, and South America are the major offenders. China and Japan are ALSO major offenders. They have some of the strongest Fish-based food markets in the world, and China certainly has the population to far surpass the US in consumption.

Further, South America has some of the highest concentrations of eastern cultures outside of Asia. My point is that the cultural preference for fish as a food source is something that both Chinese and Japanese people share, and something they have exported along with themselves to many other countries. The countries with the highest populations of eastern immigrants also typically have the highest rates of fish consumption and overfishing.

Also, you might remember that China is a bit defensive of their poliicies, and very restrictive when it comes to allowing researchers access to areas which might reflect badly upon their reputation. I have seen other reports of chinese overfishing that are far more condeming than what this report published.

Last, but not least, is that the study was largely geographical in nature, not political in terms of quantifying it's data set. I can speak from experience that most all of the commercial fishing boats I see off the coast of Costa Rica and Guatemala are of Chinese registry. In Costa Rica, almost all of the violations of their protected fishing waters are by Chinese fishing boats. I'm not going to quote numbers that I don't know, but I can say that I've personally reported at least 15 commercial boats in protected waters a few miles away from Playa Flamingo in CR and every one of them has been of chinese registry.

Geographically, the waters off of South America are very rich, very diverse, and relative to much of the rest of the world, very underfished. It makes perfect sense that countries which have almost totally depleted their natural fish stocks would flock there to make their catch. And, they do.


RE: December 21st, 2012 is it..
By Frank M on 11/5/2006 1:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
please don't group bogus "prophecies" with science.


How?
By INeedCache on 11/4/2006 7:18:31 PM , Rating: 3
How is this article tech news? This stuff is more appropriate in the supermarket tabloids. I guess I'll have to start looking elsewhere for tech news. Perhaps the Star or National Enquirer.




RE: How?
By flexy on 11/4/2006 10:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
>>>
A study published recently by the National Center of Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), at University California and UC Santa Barbara, indicates an accelerating loss of biodiversity in the world's oceans with largely unknown consequences.
>>>

and this is NOT tech-news ?

Not that it is "news" for me anyway....but sry i dont get YOUR point...maybe you REALLY should stay with your tabloids ? :)


RE: How?
By glennpratt on 11/8/2006 3:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
Put it this way, if this were USA Today, would this article fall under Technology? Doubt it.


Another one of you.
By Dilmore on 11/4/2006 1:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
Please can we chill with the oh woe is me Humans are so terrible stuff.
I understand we have done bad stuff but we have also done good.




RE: Another one of you.
By xsilver on 11/4/2006 1:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
lol -
name one thing
and then watch as countered by 10 things related to it that outweigh the single good.

eg. we discovered penicillin to prevent disease
counter: we discovered biotoxins that have killed more than their fair share.
their are definitley more counters, I'll just leave it up to people who are more diligent than me.


RE: Another one of you.
By Leona on 11/4/2006 2:13:13 AM , Rating: 2
We discovered biotoxins long before we discovered penicillin.


Soluton!
By judasmachine on 11/4/2006 6:22:48 AM , Rating: 2
Kill yourself. All of us, hey, don't shoot me, I'll get around to that, but hey it'd solve pretty much all of our problems.




RE: Soluton!
By xsilver on 11/4/2006 6:58:00 AM , Rating: 3
YES! it is a great solution....

one small problem, most people in the world dont believe that they are the cause of the problem either, rather its the other guy. Hence the reason for all violence, murder, war in the world.


Daily Tech Just became Slashdot
By shamgar03 on 11/5/2006 9:31:22 AM , Rating: 3
I like reading slashdot...until I read comments about articles which pretty much end up with the kind of bullcrap about how "religious right wing choice-stealers are causing all the problems." Which is what *this* acticles comments seems to be preoccupied with.




RE: Daily Tech Just became Slashdot
By Xietsu on 11/9/2006 2:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
Where the hell did you fashion yourself the concept that the majority of this website's comment-base have bases in anti-right wing ideologies? It may have been just me, but the only time you could ever make blanket statements referencing majority, the proportion of the aforementioned statistic need at least surpass fifty percent. And honestly, I see only about 3-4 posts here with such a perspective in mind. Regardless, is it not pathetic that you somehow (Wow, what happened to the sapient, logical, pragmatic thought process [lol, I was kidding myself, that never existed {Okay, I was joking; it exists, just not in this fellow.}]?) show here the facade of expectancy, holding to the position that DailyTech ought develop some administrative team to squelch and stomp out any peep of views in opposition to yours?

Seriously, you come to an area of public domain and then suppose amazement when you discover the horrendous uncovering that, in the travelings of yours across the internet, you may encounter views conflicting with your own? How can you possibly discount any open forum for possessing perceptions it has no control over and/or need to dissipate? If anything, you should be lauding DailyTech for allowing this collaboration and congregation of varying viewpoints. Nonetheless, I still perceive it to be a tad lamentable that you are claiming you are "reading DailyTech" when you decide to venture forth into the unchartered territory of an audiences' expressions.


That's the price we pay
By fliguy84 on 11/4/2006 4:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
That's the price we pay for world peace and harmony. We need another world way :P




RE: That's the price we pay
By flexy on 11/4/2006 10:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
we have world peace and harmony ? :) Oh..ok ...




On the plus side
By Merry on 11/4/2006 9:50:08 AM , Rating: 4
Nobody can give that priceless piece of advice 'theres plenty more fish in the sea' </humour>

But seriously, I doubt it will get as bad as they are predicting, although I'm sure they have more information at their disposal regarding the matter than I do.




You're missing the point
By JNo on 11/7/2006 4:29:53 AM , Rating: 2
What don't you understand? The world's fish populations are at serious risk from depleting to dangerously low levels! I don't care too much about all the conspiracy theories or what possible flaws in their arguments or statistics you may guys may have been able to detect in the very short summary at the top of this page.

This is a extensive scientific report. And many other such scientific investigations have been corroborating this for a long time.

Please America, just sign the goddamned Kyoto treaty. Eliminate the system where all your politicians can get so much funding/backhanders from the oil companies. And by the way, there is a link between HIV and AIDS. And smoking is linked to cancer.




RE: You're missing the point
By glennpratt on 11/8/2006 3:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
What would Kyoto solve here?


Hardly surprising
By Hypernova on 11/4/2006 1:32:05 AM , Rating: 3
Humanity is already the most destructive source of extinction since that big rock that fell on the dinos.




Hardly.
By StevoLincolnite on 11/4/2006 10:20:13 AM , Rating: 3
Allright, I'm living in the fishing capital of Australia, in a small town located on the Eyre Peninsula. A-la Port Lincoln! Over fishing in 40 years? Doubtfull, I'm not sure about other countries BUT here, they have fishing quotas, And they are not allowed to fish any more than a set given amount, also Fish under certain sizes are not allowed to be caught, There was a local study, and before the fishing quotas came in, the bluefin tuna was in horrible decline, And would probably be rather scarce by now, Now fprward back to today, the quotas are getting more leanient, more companies are allowed to fish more, Why? because the population has grown significantly. And the Oyster farms over in Coffins bay, a small town about 30 minuits drive away, the temperatures have risen a few degrees' But guess what? The Oyster arent under any threat what so ever! Now here in Port Lincoln, We have Dolphins, Shags, Seagulls, Penguins, Seals, Tuna, Great White Sharks, Whales You name it! And if its the fishing capital of Australia, surely alot of these animals would be scarce. Alot of fishermen have also been making artificial reefs using old car tyres, Like the one down at the end of billy lights, the tyres attract the fish, the fish carry bits of coral etc - and the ecosystem grows from there! All along scientists have been screaming "oh no we are running out of fish! the oceans are in danger!" Bullshit, if alot more fishing towns and citys would take the proper precautions, place restrictions like fishing quoatas, ban certain areas to fishing, and having fish size limits would surely allow the populations to remain stabalised. and making artificial reefs is not a hard thing to do. The planet is changing, and we cannot expect it to stay the same forever.




Soylent Green
By lennylim on 11/4/2006 1:12:18 PM , Rating: 3
Subject says all :-)




Oh, Oh .....
By cscpianoman on 11/4/2006 3:18:34 PM , Rating: 1
Can I hold a doom's day sign too!!




RE: Oh, Oh .....
By flexy on 11/4/2006 10:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
uhm...there might VERY WELL be a "lot" money be made...and honestly i wouldnt mind *in this case*.

There is a lot of money "to be made" elswhere too...so what's the point ?

If there are actually reports that

() maybe in <50 years we will have a problem because a majority of the ocean's resources will be gone

() in XYZ global warming might be that bad that we get increased rates of skin/whatever-cancer

() [fill in your favorite prediction here]

So would it NOT be worth putting money THERE, and even also in being an "alarmist" ?

Ironcially, things like GW actually *ARE* a reality already...as are "smog-warnings" and "recommendations" not to drive cars in certain urban areas on certain days (due to extreme high emission)

so are increased rates of skin-cancer and various other forms of cancer, increased allergies, asthma etc and other illnesses *easily* linkeable to various forms of bad things which have been "predicted" YEARS/DECADES ago.

And even seeing that reality, hearing the announcements on the radio...etc..etc...still people are blind what is actually going on.

50,60 years ago....NOONE cared about putting on sun-screeen in the sun to avoid skin-cancer...and noone really cared about "high emissions" and smog..or eating fish and being concerned about mercury levels...and (i guess) countless other things which are a reality now. Whether one likes it, denies it or whatever. If you cant see the reality you *do* have a problem !



WHO BELIEVES THIS SHIT
By Sharky974 on 11/5/2006 4:14:30 PM , Rating: 1
These "studies" get stupider by the day.

Who in the hell honestly thinks there wont be fish by 2048?

I guess the government just had some more extra money to waste for this "study"

Predictions of drastic ecological consequences are always many years into the future, that way they can never be proved, because they're wrong.




By Cascading Darkness on 11/7/2006 7:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to throw a wrench into your theory
quote:
These "studies" get stupider by the day.
Who in the hell honestly thinks there wont be fish by 2048?

It seems you may have missed the entire point of the article in your eagerness to rant. The title was
quote:
Study: Edible Fish Gone by 2048


Edible being the key point. Not fish that will kill you or give you more brain damage than anyone may be born with.


Don't play with nature
By rez4girls on 11/4/2006 3:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
You play with the nature and the nature plays with you!




AGENT SMITH WAS RIGHT ALWAYS
By fthomas on 11/5/2006 8:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
Cool comments above. Just wanted to add few more.

Agent Smith was always right. He told THE TRUTH.
Checkout the Final part in Matrix trilogy, where Neo admits it. The END has begun when the BEGIN began.

Have YOU ever been 100% satisfied with anything and said "this is it, and i dont want anything more out of life" ????
Never. Thats the reason for Humans being the best and also the worst living being.

Lot to think ABOUT. More comments please... i like reading those .... aw man




LA Times
By Slaimus on 11/5/2006 4:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't know about toxic algae, or want a more visual presentation of almost the same information, check
http://www.latimes.com/oceans




You must bend yourself...
By encryptkeeper on 11/6/2006 8:41:45 AM , Rating: 2

There is no fish...




DailyTECH?
By SuperSix on 11/6/2006 9:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
What the hell does this have to do with "Daily TECH ?




The solution
By ig88 on 11/9/2006 9:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
START EATING OTHER HUMANS!!! it would control our population and give us plenty of food. Otherwise, Im gonna keep having babies and eating fish. Mayber one of those babies will solve the problem




By Supa on 11/4/2006 11:40:37 AM , Rating: 1
If it happens, then they can claim they are right, if it doesn't, the they can claim the awareness raised by the study prevented it ...


---




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki