3 Quarks Daily's 2009 top three science blog posts
June 27, 2009 11:26 PM Subscribe
3 Quarks Daily's top three 2009 science blog posts As chosen by Steven Pinker: Bands of Iron, The ecological disaster that is dolphin safe tuna and Ten Things You Don’t Know About Hubble. If that's not enough for you, you can read the seven finalists or the 20 20 semifinalists (or the 171 nominees)
Bands of Iron was poetic, and the dolphin-safe tuna post was extremely informative, but I have to say that the Hubble post was the best of the three, and it was the one I was least interested in initially. The author's enthusiasm about Hubble is infectious, and his personal stories about it were great and added a lot to the story. If I wanted to pique the interest of a kid, or anyone else who has interest in the world around them, I would point them to this article.
Also - Yay Science Blogs!!!
posted by smartyboots at 11:58 PM on June 27, 2009
Also - Yay Science Blogs!!!
posted by smartyboots at 11:58 PM on June 27, 2009
The thing about the dolphin safe tuna issue is that as far as I am aware, the other fish and marine animals can't recognize themselves in mirrors, learn a sign language and distinguish difference in meaning based on word order, imitate and learn from humans, or demonstrate understanding of abstract concepts such as "impossible" or "absent".
posted by idiopath at 12:27 AM on June 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by idiopath at 12:27 AM on June 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
idiopath: I think it's possible that some squid, octopuses could do things like that. Wikipedia has an article on Cephalopod intelligence Cuttlefish may be pretty smart as well.
posted by delmoi at 12:50 AM on June 28, 2009
posted by delmoi at 12:50 AM on June 28, 2009
delmoi: yeah I double checked the list of affected species in the tuna article for cephelopods before making my comment, when I said "the other fish and marine animals" I meant the ones with documented mortality rates in those studies.
posted by idiopath at 1:03 AM on June 28, 2009
posted by idiopath at 1:03 AM on June 28, 2009
delmoi: It did not seem (admittedly just from reading the linked blog post and not from pursuing any other sources whatsoever) that squid or octopuses/octopodes/octopi or other cephalopods were endangered or even involved in 'dolphin-safe' tuna-fishing, so the fact that cephalopods can be terrifyingly smart is not necessarily relevant to the moral calculus of dolphin-safe tuna.
posted by mayhap at 1:14 AM on June 28, 2009
posted by mayhap at 1:14 AM on June 28, 2009
The importance of ecological diversity outweighs the intelligence of dolphins. Our moral focus should be on keeping as many species alive as possible, not just the ones we like.
posted by bardic at 1:24 AM on June 28, 2009 [10 favorites]
posted by bardic at 1:24 AM on June 28, 2009 [10 favorites]
Instead of digital detectors, giant glass plates sprayed with photographic emulsion were used.
What a cool idea
posted by mattoxic at 1:26 AM on June 28, 2009
What a cool idea
posted by mattoxic at 1:26 AM on June 28, 2009
The thing about the dolphin safe tuna issue [...]
But if you try to save smart animals at the expense of all the rest, you're not very far from the standard anti-environmentalist stance that only humans matter. Instead of choosing one of three purse seine methods of catching tuna, maybe they should be considering whether they should be using purse seines at all, or even whether they should be catching tuna at all.
posted by pracowity at 1:30 AM on June 28, 2009 [5 favorites]
But if you try to save smart animals at the expense of all the rest, you're not very far from the standard anti-environmentalist stance that only humans matter. Instead of choosing one of three purse seine methods of catching tuna, maybe they should be considering whether they should be using purse seines at all, or even whether they should be catching tuna at all.
posted by pracowity at 1:30 AM on June 28, 2009 [5 favorites]
Although the information presented was interesting, I really disliked that tuna article. The author obviously has an agenda to push, and obnoxiously defines the debate down to two unpleasant choices, because any others are "simply not going to happen in reality" with his preference being the obvious lesser evil
Well gee, I don't think in reality people will accept reverting a law to allow the mass murder of super-cute, intelligent dolphins, so let's take that off the table too. In reality either of his options is going to result in the near-future extinction of tuna. Along with all the other marine species we're driving to extinction, that should leave a nice, barren ocean. I don't understand the logic of saying "we can't stop overfishing, there's 2 billion people living off those fish". So what are those 2 billion+ people going to eat in 20 years when the fish are all extinct?
Is it so much to ask that we restrict policy debates to ideas that aren't practically guaranteed to wreck this planet within our own lifetime?
posted by crayz at 1:32 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Well gee, I don't think in reality people will accept reverting a law to allow the mass murder of super-cute, intelligent dolphins, so let's take that off the table too. In reality either of his options is going to result in the near-future extinction of tuna. Along with all the other marine species we're driving to extinction, that should leave a nice, barren ocean. I don't understand the logic of saying "we can't stop overfishing, there's 2 billion people living off those fish". So what are those 2 billion+ people going to eat in 20 years when the fish are all extinct?
Is it so much to ask that we restrict policy debates to ideas that aren't practically guaranteed to wreck this planet within our own lifetime?
posted by crayz at 1:32 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
->"I grow anerobes in mud as a hobby. I have a couple of tanks that even do a closed nitrate cyce."
This is blowing my mind.
posted by olaguera at 1:40 AM on June 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
This is blowing my mind.
posted by olaguera at 1:40 AM on June 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
PS: We should start eating the dolphins, too. Problem solved.
posted by olaguera at 1:41 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by olaguera at 1:41 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Is it worth saving dolphins, who were not and are not endangered, at the expense of sea turtles, sharks, and many other fish species who are endangered?
Yes, because dolphins are cute and super smart!
I'll be honest, I don't give a fuck as long as my supply of WaWa tuna salad shorties with vinegar, onions, and extra mayo isn't cut off.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:20 AM on June 28, 2009
Yes, because dolphins are cute and super smart!
I'll be honest, I don't give a fuck as long as my supply of WaWa tuna salad shorties with vinegar, onions, and extra mayo isn't cut off.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:20 AM on June 28, 2009
Hubble Fact 11: The hubble can not view all 10 hubble facts on one page.
posted by srboisvert at 2:40 AM on June 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 2:40 AM on June 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
The importance of ecological diversity outweighs the intelligence of dolphins.
No, it really doesn't, just as the importance of ecological diversity does not outweigh the intelligence of humans. Ecological diversity is, at best, tertiary to autonomy and rationality.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:42 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
No, it really doesn't, just as the importance of ecological diversity does not outweigh the intelligence of humans. Ecological diversity is, at best, tertiary to autonomy and rationality.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:42 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Ecological diversity is, at best, tertiary to autonomy and rationality.
What are you, brainist?
posted by adamrice at 6:05 AM on June 28, 2009
What are you, brainist?
posted by adamrice at 6:05 AM on June 28, 2009
At the risk of derailing this thread from the tuna vs. dolphin debate, I have to say I thought the Hubble post was great, and touched on things far beyond astronomy. For example:
But y'know, the company that made Hubble's mirror had an awful lot of those same sized mirrors lying around, and there are no other astronomical telescopes (you know, telescopes that point away from the Earth) with that same mirror. So what could those mirrors have been for?
That reminded me of my visit to Green Bank, in the middle of the National Radio Quiet Zone. There were a number of parabolic antennae there, and the tour guides were happy to explain what many of them were used for; for others, though, the response was simply "we can't talk about that one".
Also, when he discusses how they make much of the data freely available, he comments on the one year data embargo:
...data is proprietary to the person who took it for the period of one year, so the scientists involved have time to look it over. It does take some time to process the data, and a lot more time to analyze it; if everyone had instant access to all the data, someone more experienced than you could scoop you on your own observations! However, it's also not fair to let people have the data forever. The compromise is the one year proprietary period; that gives scientists time to look things over, but still motivates them to get things done.
That seems so much more friendly and reasonable than all of the hand-wringing over copyrights that we now see.
posted by TedW at 6:25 AM on June 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
But y'know, the company that made Hubble's mirror had an awful lot of those same sized mirrors lying around, and there are no other astronomical telescopes (you know, telescopes that point away from the Earth) with that same mirror. So what could those mirrors have been for?
That reminded me of my visit to Green Bank, in the middle of the National Radio Quiet Zone. There were a number of parabolic antennae there, and the tour guides were happy to explain what many of them were used for; for others, though, the response was simply "we can't talk about that one".
Also, when he discusses how they make much of the data freely available, he comments on the one year data embargo:
...data is proprietary to the person who took it for the period of one year, so the scientists involved have time to look it over. It does take some time to process the data, and a lot more time to analyze it; if everyone had instant access to all the data, someone more experienced than you could scoop you on your own observations! However, it's also not fair to let people have the data forever. The compromise is the one year proprietary period; that gives scientists time to look things over, but still motivates them to get things done.
That seems so much more friendly and reasonable than all of the hand-wringing over copyrights that we now see.
posted by TedW at 6:25 AM on June 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
the importance of ecological diversity does not outweigh the intelligence of humans
ha ha. we are so smart we don't need no stinkin' other life forms.
posted by snofoam at 6:28 AM on June 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
ha ha. we are so smart we don't need no stinkin' other life forms.
posted by snofoam at 6:28 AM on June 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
They have those cans in the supermarket that say "dolphin safe tuna" but I don't know why they bother to write that, because it's pretty obvious to me that there's no way the dolphins can hurt the tuna when the tuna are safe in those little cans.
posted by twoleftfeet at 6:56 AM on June 28, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by twoleftfeet at 6:56 AM on June 28, 2009 [6 favorites]
So let me get this straight... someone is slandering "hippie" environmentalists by taking the ethical position of PETA, that the lives of fish are equivalent to that of dolphins?
Do they throw away all the fish they didn't want? I mean, really, it seems like an especially efficient way to catch mahi mahi, which is way more yummy than tuna. And I think I could learn to like shark and sea turtle.
posted by 0xdeadc0de at 7:01 AM on June 28, 2009
Do they throw away all the fish they didn't want? I mean, really, it seems like an especially efficient way to catch mahi mahi, which is way more yummy than tuna. And I think I could learn to like shark and sea turtle.
posted by 0xdeadc0de at 7:01 AM on June 28, 2009
Some of these jokes would be funnier if overfishing wasn't such a serious problem.
In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.
Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are not bringing the world's fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.
Whether you want species to remain alive for the health of ecosystems, or so you can eat them in the future, it would behoove us to do something about the situation.
posted by snofoam at 7:12 AM on June 28, 2009 [8 favorites]
In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.
Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are not bringing the world's fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.
Whether you want species to remain alive for the health of ecosystems, or so you can eat them in the future, it would behoove us to do something about the situation.
posted by snofoam at 7:12 AM on June 28, 2009 [8 favorites]
The Hubble one was, honestly, a bit too specialized for me. I know the Hubble is a Neat Thing, and I remember when they put it up there, but honestly I can't say I pay any attention to it, so to find out "Ah-hah! It can shoot the Moon!" was really not surprising, since I had no idea that it might not be able to do.
The other two I enjoyed quite a bit. The tuna one was a big eye-opener for me. I'm going to feel really guilty the next time I have some delicious tuna salad.
posted by paisley henosis at 7:39 AM on June 28, 2009
The other two I enjoyed quite a bit. The tuna one was a big eye-opener for me. I'm going to feel really guilty the next time I have some delicious tuna salad.
posted by paisley henosis at 7:39 AM on June 28, 2009
Do they really treat mahi mahi as "bycatch"? Mahi mahi is delicious.
Assuming the tuna fishermen aren't throwing back all the other perfectly saleable fish just because they aren't tuna ("No, Bob! Don't eat that! We're tuna fishermen!") then I can't help but feel like he's inflating the numbers a bit.
posted by ook at 8:04 AM on June 28, 2009
Assuming the tuna fishermen aren't throwing back all the other perfectly saleable fish just because they aren't tuna ("No, Bob! Don't eat that! We're tuna fishermen!") then I can't help but feel like he's inflating the numbers a bit.
posted by ook at 8:04 AM on June 28, 2009
I have always wanted to market "Dolphin Safe Maple Syrup".
posted by Xoebe at 8:09 AM on June 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Xoebe at 8:09 AM on June 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
furiousxgeorge: "Yes, because dolphins are cute and super smart!"
Not this one. He blew all his money on lottery tickets!
Futurama provides a quote for every occasion.
posted by JHarris at 8:16 AM on June 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
Not this one. He blew all his money on lottery tickets!
Futurama provides a quote for every occasion.
posted by JHarris at 8:16 AM on June 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah. Now that I look more closely, only a handful of what he lists as "bycatch" is either endangered or inedible; in fact for some of the rest tuna fishing is the main commercial source for the so-called bycatch.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should be eating less fish overall and that many species are in decline from overfishing. But arguing that we shouldn't use a particular fishing method for tuna because it also happens to catch a bunch of other species which we also eat, just like the tuna, is a pretty misleading way to go about it.
posted by ook at 8:16 AM on June 28, 2009
I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should be eating less fish overall and that many species are in decline from overfishing. But arguing that we shouldn't use a particular fishing method for tuna because it also happens to catch a bunch of other species which we also eat, just like the tuna, is a pretty misleading way to go about it.
posted by ook at 8:16 AM on June 28, 2009
Hi, friends! I'm the original author of the "Dolphin safe tuna" post that's generating such an interesting discussion here.
First of all, thanks to Delmoi for posting this link (and the links to the other winners). We all appreciate the traffic.
I'll address some of the comments about my post that have been made here, but I would really appreciate it if people could comment on the original post- that way my regular readers can contribute to the discussion without having to pay a $5 metafilter membership fee.
The link is above in Delmoi's original post, but can be found again here:
http://southernfriedscience.com/2009/02/16/the-ecological-disaster-that-is-dolphin-safe-tuna/
posted by WhySharksMatter at 8:29 AM on June 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
First of all, thanks to Delmoi for posting this link (and the links to the other winners). We all appreciate the traffic.
I'll address some of the comments about my post that have been made here, but I would really appreciate it if people could comment on the original post- that way my regular readers can contribute to the discussion without having to pay a $5 metafilter membership fee.
The link is above in Delmoi's original post, but can be found again here:
http://southernfriedscience.com/2009/02/16/the-ecological-disaster-that-is-dolphin-safe-tuna/
posted by WhySharksMatter at 8:29 AM on June 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
"the other fish and marine animals can't recognize themselves in mirrors..."
So being stupid means it's ok for them to go extinct? Sea turtles are some of the dumbest animals in the world, and also some of the most endangered. Manatees aren't exactly natures einsteins either.
No one is disputing the dolphins are smarter than wahoo, but dolphin-unsafe tuna does not kill enough dolphins to threaten entire populations, and dolphin safe tuna is threatening the entire populations of dozens of species.
"the author...obnoxiously defines the debate down to two choices"
This post is part of a series of "ethical debates". In EVERY ONE OF THEM, I restrict the debate to make it more interesting. Obviously everyone's first choice is "just don't eat tuna" or "find another way of fishing". If everyone said that, the discussion would be pretty boring.
"Do they throw away all the fish they didn't want?"
Yes, they do. That's why bycatch is such a serious problem- in addition to being environmentally devastating, it's also incredibly wasteful. Some fishing practices have over 95% of the biomass they catch in the form of bycatch, species they didn't want to catch.
"Assuming the tuna fishermen aren't throwing back all the other perfectly saleable fish just because they aren't tuna ("No, Bob! Don't eat that! We're tuna fishermen!")"
That's exactly what they do. They have permits to catch and sell TUNA. Trying to sell other fish is against the law.
"only a handful of what he lists as "bycatch" is either endangered"
Five species of sea turtles, eight species of sea bird, and a dozen species of sharks are threatened with extinction as a result of dolphin safe tuna bycatch. You're saying that this is a handful, while reducing the numbers (without coming close to threatening extinction) of ONE species (dolphins) is significant?
"also happens to catch a bunch of other species which we also eat"
Again, there's the fishing permit issue. Fisherman with a tuna permit aren't allowed to sell mahi mahi, so they just dump them overboard.
posted by WhySharksMatter at 8:39 AM on June 28, 2009 [6 favorites]
So being stupid means it's ok for them to go extinct? Sea turtles are some of the dumbest animals in the world, and also some of the most endangered. Manatees aren't exactly natures einsteins either.
No one is disputing the dolphins are smarter than wahoo, but dolphin-unsafe tuna does not kill enough dolphins to threaten entire populations, and dolphin safe tuna is threatening the entire populations of dozens of species.
"the author...obnoxiously defines the debate down to two choices"
This post is part of a series of "ethical debates". In EVERY ONE OF THEM, I restrict the debate to make it more interesting. Obviously everyone's first choice is "just don't eat tuna" or "find another way of fishing". If everyone said that, the discussion would be pretty boring.
"Do they throw away all the fish they didn't want?"
Yes, they do. That's why bycatch is such a serious problem- in addition to being environmentally devastating, it's also incredibly wasteful. Some fishing practices have over 95% of the biomass they catch in the form of bycatch, species they didn't want to catch.
"Assuming the tuna fishermen aren't throwing back all the other perfectly saleable fish just because they aren't tuna ("No, Bob! Don't eat that! We're tuna fishermen!")"
That's exactly what they do. They have permits to catch and sell TUNA. Trying to sell other fish is against the law.
"only a handful of what he lists as "bycatch" is either endangered"
Five species of sea turtles, eight species of sea bird, and a dozen species of sharks are threatened with extinction as a result of dolphin safe tuna bycatch. You're saying that this is a handful, while reducing the numbers (without coming close to threatening extinction) of ONE species (dolphins) is significant?
"also happens to catch a bunch of other species which we also eat"
Again, there's the fishing permit issue. Fisherman with a tuna permit aren't allowed to sell mahi mahi, so they just dump them overboard.
posted by WhySharksMatter at 8:39 AM on June 28, 2009 [6 favorites]
That's exactly what they do. They have permits to catch and sell TUNA. Trying to sell other fish is against the law.
My god. That's insane. I had no idea. Thank you for clarifying that.
(I guess my followup question then would be, why the heck isn't the debate about how we could utilize the bycatch, instead of just wasting it? Why don't the tuna fishermen just buy mahi permits too, as long as they're catching them anyway?)
Five species of sea turtles, eight species of sea bird, and a dozen species of sharks are threatened with extinction as a result of dolphin safe tuna bycatch. You're saying that this is a handful, while reducing the numbers (without coming close to threatening extinction) of ONE species (dolphins) is significant?
Not at all. I was saying that including commercially viable and non-endangered fish like wahoo, mahi, and rainbow runners in your stats appeared to be padding the numbers in favor of one side of the argument. (Bear in mind that I was under the false impression that those fish were being utilized, not just wasted.)
posted by ook at 8:50 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
My god. That's insane. I had no idea. Thank you for clarifying that.
(I guess my followup question then would be, why the heck isn't the debate about how we could utilize the bycatch, instead of just wasting it? Why don't the tuna fishermen just buy mahi permits too, as long as they're catching them anyway?)
Five species of sea turtles, eight species of sea bird, and a dozen species of sharks are threatened with extinction as a result of dolphin safe tuna bycatch. You're saying that this is a handful, while reducing the numbers (without coming close to threatening extinction) of ONE species (dolphins) is significant?
Not at all. I was saying that including commercially viable and non-endangered fish like wahoo, mahi, and rainbow runners in your stats appeared to be padding the numbers in favor of one side of the argument. (Bear in mind that I was under the false impression that those fish were being utilized, not just wasted.)
posted by ook at 8:50 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Ook,
Thanks for clarifying, what you were saying makes sense now.
In many cases, you CAN'T buy permits for another type of fish. There are different legal requirements on how to catch those other kinds of fish, and if one boat was catching two types of fish it would take jobs away from another type of fisherman.
posted by WhySharksMatter at 8:59 AM on June 28, 2009
Thanks for clarifying, what you were saying makes sense now.
In many cases, you CAN'T buy permits for another type of fish. There are different legal requirements on how to catch those other kinds of fish, and if one boat was catching two types of fish it would take jobs away from another type of fisherman.
posted by WhySharksMatter at 8:59 AM on June 28, 2009
I'm gobsmacked. That's far more shocking to me than the initial point about dolphin-safe vs. non-dolphin-safe fishing. How unbelievably wasteful.
posted by ook at 9:07 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by ook at 9:07 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'd written up something else but decided not to post it right away since WhySharksMatter showed up. Good on you for coming by to defend your argument.
I've got a single sort of two-part question:
Is your argument against dolphin-free tuna predicated on the idea that purse-seine fishing, as an industry, is sustainable? And if so, how do you square that with research telling us that we're within a few decades of essentially emptying the oceans of viable commercial fisheries?
posted by gompa at 9:11 AM on June 28, 2009
I've got a single sort of two-part question:
Is your argument against dolphin-free tuna predicated on the idea that purse-seine fishing, as an industry, is sustainable? And if so, how do you square that with research telling us that we're within a few decades of essentially emptying the oceans of viable commercial fisheries?
posted by gompa at 9:11 AM on June 28, 2009
Hi, Gompa!
First of all, "good on you"... are you an Aussie? I spent six months in Townsville and loved it.
Purse seine fishing, as an industry, CAN be sustainable, though not in its present form.
"Dolphin safe" purse seine fishing is devastating dozens of species, INCLUDING tuna. It kills thousands of times as many sexually immature tuna as "dolphin unsafe" fishing does.
"Dolphin unsafe" fishing primarily kills dolphins and adult tuna- adult tuna who have already reproduced.
So, in addition to killing two species (none of which are endangered) instead of dozens of species (several of which are endangered), "dolphin unsafe" tuna is more sustainable for tuna.
How do I reconcile that with this research that shows that we'll be out of fish by 2048? Simple- while "dolphin unsafe" fishing isn't perfect, it is FAR MORE SUSTAINABLE than "dolphin safe" fishing by any measure.
posted by WhySharksMatter at 9:19 AM on June 28, 2009
First of all, "good on you"... are you an Aussie? I spent six months in Townsville and loved it.
Purse seine fishing, as an industry, CAN be sustainable, though not in its present form.
"Dolphin safe" purse seine fishing is devastating dozens of species, INCLUDING tuna. It kills thousands of times as many sexually immature tuna as "dolphin unsafe" fishing does.
"Dolphin unsafe" fishing primarily kills dolphins and adult tuna- adult tuna who have already reproduced.
So, in addition to killing two species (none of which are endangered) instead of dozens of species (several of which are endangered), "dolphin unsafe" tuna is more sustainable for tuna.
How do I reconcile that with this research that shows that we'll be out of fish by 2048? Simple- while "dolphin unsafe" fishing isn't perfect, it is FAR MORE SUSTAINABLE than "dolphin safe" fishing by any measure.
posted by WhySharksMatter at 9:19 AM on June 28, 2009
"(I guess my followup question then would be, why the heck isn't the debate about how we could utilize the bycatch, instead of just wasting it? Why don't the tuna fishermen just buy mahi permits too, as long as they're catching them anyway?)"
It's to stop people from back dooring closed fisheries. IE: I'm fishing for non-endangered species foo not endangered species bar; that I catch almost as much bar as foo is strictly coincidence and bad luck.
You're right though that there should be a way of combining these two fisheries.
posted by Mitheral at 9:21 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's to stop people from back dooring closed fisheries. IE: I'm fishing for non-endangered species foo not endangered species bar; that I catch almost as much bar as foo is strictly coincidence and bad luck.
You're right though that there should be a way of combining these two fisheries.
posted by Mitheral at 9:21 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
How do I reconcile that with this research that shows that we'll be out of fish by 2048? Simple- while "dolphin unsafe" fishing isn't perfect, it is FAR MORE SUSTAINABLE than "dolphin safe" fishing by any measure.
But if both approaches fall off a statistical cliff within a generation or so, wouldn't the best option be to begin managing the transition to smaller-scale, truly sustainable methods now, while we have the time and resources, instead of waiting for the collapse and social devastation that can itself lead to several generations of further inertia?
I'm not even taking into account the recklessness of continuing with a somewhat less damaging approach that we're pretty much certain ends in ecological disaster. Just in human terms, isn't it massively counterproductive to the long-term health of aquatic and human populations to perpetuate this fishery? I mean, this is essentially the approach taken with the Atlantic Canadian cod fishery - let 'em keep fishing while they can, don't rock the boat too much, make only cosmetic changes to what we knew was habituated overfishing - which in addition to bringing an absolute end to one of the richest fisheries in the earth's history also created a socioeconomic catastrophe that still hasn't been fully sorted out. (By the way, good-on-yous notwithstanding, I'm a Canuck, not an Aussie.)
We know, in other words, that the world's oceans can't support another 40 years of fishing at purse seine scale. So why prop it up for another 10 or 20 before initiating the process of change? (This is my fundamental problem with the very phrase "more sustainable" - it's a bit like claiming to be less pregnant. You either are, or you aren't.)
posted by gompa at 9:34 AM on June 28, 2009
But if both approaches fall off a statistical cliff within a generation or so, wouldn't the best option be to begin managing the transition to smaller-scale, truly sustainable methods now, while we have the time and resources, instead of waiting for the collapse and social devastation that can itself lead to several generations of further inertia?
I'm not even taking into account the recklessness of continuing with a somewhat less damaging approach that we're pretty much certain ends in ecological disaster. Just in human terms, isn't it massively counterproductive to the long-term health of aquatic and human populations to perpetuate this fishery? I mean, this is essentially the approach taken with the Atlantic Canadian cod fishery - let 'em keep fishing while they can, don't rock the boat too much, make only cosmetic changes to what we knew was habituated overfishing - which in addition to bringing an absolute end to one of the richest fisheries in the earth's history also created a socioeconomic catastrophe that still hasn't been fully sorted out. (By the way, good-on-yous notwithstanding, I'm a Canuck, not an Aussie.)
We know, in other words, that the world's oceans can't support another 40 years of fishing at purse seine scale. So why prop it up for another 10 or 20 before initiating the process of change? (This is my fundamental problem with the very phrase "more sustainable" - it's a bit like claiming to be less pregnant. You either are, or you aren't.)
posted by gompa at 9:34 AM on June 28, 2009
You're right though that there should be a way of combining these two fisheries.
Now I kind of want to buy a mahi mahi boat but no nets; I'll just follow the tuna guys around and take whatever they don't want. Easy living.
I'll name my ship the "You gonna eat that? I'll eat that"
posted by ook at 9:36 AM on June 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
Now I kind of want to buy a mahi mahi boat but no nets; I'll just follow the tuna guys around and take whatever they don't want. Easy living.
I'll name my ship the "You gonna eat that? I'll eat that"
posted by ook at 9:36 AM on June 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
Very good points, Gompa.
Personally, I would love to stop using industrial-scale fisheries right-the-hell-now and go instantly to long-term sustainable fisheries practices.
However, there are political realities that we need to consider.
1) According to the U.N., billions of people get a significant portion of their protein from seafood. Many of these people are desperately poor and can barely afford to pay present prices for food.
2) Sustainable fishing will result in MUCH more expensive seafood. I've convinced my family to buy "Marine Stewardship Council" approved sustainable seafood, but even though we aren't desperately poor, there was a huge initial debate because of the drastic increase in price.
3) Lots of people are employed by industrial scale fisheries. Gradually easing them out of it while providing training and opportunities for new jobs is preferable to all of a sudden firing hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.
Again, the reason I restricted the debate in my original post to two types of purse seining is NOT because I believe these are the only two options. I did that because this post was part of my "ethical debate" series, and I ALWAYS restrict the debate to take the boring options off the table. Obviously everyone would prefer to stop purse seine fishing entirely, but if everyone said that, it would be a boring discussion.
posted by WhySharksMatter at 9:43 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Personally, I would love to stop using industrial-scale fisheries right-the-hell-now and go instantly to long-term sustainable fisheries practices.
However, there are political realities that we need to consider.
1) According to the U.N., billions of people get a significant portion of their protein from seafood. Many of these people are desperately poor and can barely afford to pay present prices for food.
2) Sustainable fishing will result in MUCH more expensive seafood. I've convinced my family to buy "Marine Stewardship Council" approved sustainable seafood, but even though we aren't desperately poor, there was a huge initial debate because of the drastic increase in price.
3) Lots of people are employed by industrial scale fisheries. Gradually easing them out of it while providing training and opportunities for new jobs is preferable to all of a sudden firing hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.
Again, the reason I restricted the debate in my original post to two types of purse seining is NOT because I believe these are the only two options. I did that because this post was part of my "ethical debate" series, and I ALWAYS restrict the debate to take the boring options off the table. Obviously everyone would prefer to stop purse seine fishing entirely, but if everyone said that, it would be a boring discussion.
posted by WhySharksMatter at 9:43 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Again, I and my regular readers would appreciate it if people posted their questions about the dolphin safe tuna article on the original post. That way, my regular readers won't need to pay the $5 metafilter membership fee to contribute to the discussion.
http://southernfriedscience.com/2009/02/16/the-ecological-disaster-that-is-dolphin-safe-tuna/
If you want to write the same thing on metafilter, I'm happy to respond in both places.
posted by WhySharksMatter at 9:55 AM on June 28, 2009
http://southernfriedscience.com/2009/02/16/the-ecological-disaster-that-is-dolphin-safe-tuna/
If you want to write the same thing on metafilter, I'm happy to respond in both places.
posted by WhySharksMatter at 9:55 AM on June 28, 2009
I'll be honest, I don't give a fuck as long as my supply of WaWa tuna salad shorties with vinegar, onions, and extra mayo isn't cut off.
Then start giving a fuck, because the supply of whatever the fuck "WaWa tuna salad shorties" are, like all sorts of tuna products, is in danger: CNN, NPR, NY Times, etc.
Hang on. I did manage to google it up. A "Tuna Salad Shorti" from a Wawa convenience store gets a C- nutritionally, so maybe you ought to cut back anyway. Better for you and better for the world.
posted by pracowity at 10:00 AM on June 28, 2009
Then start giving a fuck, because the supply of whatever the fuck "WaWa tuna salad shorties" are, like all sorts of tuna products, is in danger: CNN, NPR, NY Times, etc.
Hang on. I did manage to google it up. A "Tuna Salad Shorti" from a Wawa convenience store gets a C- nutritionally, so maybe you ought to cut back anyway. Better for you and better for the world.
posted by pracowity at 10:00 AM on June 28, 2009
3) Lots of people are employed by industrial scale fisheries. Gradually easing them out of it while providing training and opportunities for new jobs is preferable to all of a sudden firing hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.
This right here is my preferred option. That's what I meant by time and resources. Try to do this in the midst of a panic in say 2025 with oil at $300 a barrel in the wake of the worst mass bleaching event in the history of the world's coral reefs, and you're doomed to failure. So begin, now, by taking not the "boring" options but the business-as-usual case off the table. Begin the conversation with: We know we have to change. Let's talk about how to make it happen in a way that works for all of us.
Otherwise, all due respect, but if you leave it at Environmentalists miss the point - even if valid, as it evidently is w/r/t dolphin-free tuna - it feeds into a decades-old stereotype that reinforces the anti-change status quo.
(Also, cross-posting this stuff at your site doesn't really work, since it's a back-and-forth conversation with multiple participants and if I just posted my own questions they'd seem disjointed and random. That said, if you want to post my comments with your responses over there, have at it.)
posted by gompa at 10:17 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
This right here is my preferred option. That's what I meant by time and resources. Try to do this in the midst of a panic in say 2025 with oil at $300 a barrel in the wake of the worst mass bleaching event in the history of the world's coral reefs, and you're doomed to failure. So begin, now, by taking not the "boring" options but the business-as-usual case off the table. Begin the conversation with: We know we have to change. Let's talk about how to make it happen in a way that works for all of us.
Otherwise, all due respect, but if you leave it at Environmentalists miss the point - even if valid, as it evidently is w/r/t dolphin-free tuna - it feeds into a decades-old stereotype that reinforces the anti-change status quo.
(Also, cross-posting this stuff at your site doesn't really work, since it's a back-and-forth conversation with multiple participants and if I just posted my own questions they'd seem disjointed and random. That said, if you want to post my comments with your responses over there, have at it.)
posted by gompa at 10:17 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Maybe they should be using the Hubble telescope to find these big schools of tuna.
posted by Flashman at 10:58 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Flashman at 10:58 AM on June 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Then start giving a fuck, because the supply of whatever the fuck "WaWa tuna salad shorties" are, like all sorts of tuna products, is in danger: CNN , NPR, NY Times, etc.
Hang on. I did manage to google it up. A "Tuna Salad Shorti" from a Wawa convenience store gets a C- nutritionally, so maybe you ought to cut back anyway. Better for you and better for the world.
THANKS BUDDY I WAS ENTIRELY SERIOUS ABOUT THAT.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:24 PM on June 28, 2009
Hey, it's sometimes hard to separate the hurf from the durf in these threads.
posted by pracowity at 3:46 PM on June 28, 2009
posted by pracowity at 3:46 PM on June 28, 2009
"we are so smart we don't need no stinkin' other life forms."
That's the opposite of what I wrote, dumbass.
posted by bardic at 5:17 PM on June 28, 2009
That's the opposite of what I wrote, dumbass.
posted by bardic at 5:17 PM on June 28, 2009
NAVY BEANS!
posted by dirigibleman at 6:37 PM on June 28, 2009
posted by dirigibleman at 6:37 PM on June 28, 2009
« Older Now you, too, can become a Jedi! | Jennifer stood there, quietly ovulating. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by delmoi at 11:28 PM on June 27, 2009