Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   The scores for 2012 are now in - Sharks: 7, Humans: 100,000,000   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 58
    More: Interesting, fishing fleets, Stony Brook University  
•       •       •

6107 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2013 at 8:47 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-04 07:12:57 AM  

The Envoy: untaken_name: dragonchild: untaken_name: Ok, just playing devil's advocate here, but if you don't have good data about shark species or populations, and it's hard to quantify the damage being done, how do you know it isn't sustainable?

Because the low estimate isn't sustainable either?  As XKCD says, there's a form of "relevant accuracy" where there's no meaningful difference between 10 million and 100 million.

It's unlikely any of the numbers in the entire range of their estimates is sustainable.  We don't have good data on sharks but we have plenty of other data to extrapolate from, having nearly wiped out other species that reproduce much faster and earlier in life.

Okay, but again, how do you know? If there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sharks, and we're killing 100 million, that's sustainable. What I am saying is, what evidence do we have to suggest that it is unsustainable? I don't just want more assurances that it is. I'm not even skeptical, but how do you convince someone who is? Just more "cause we say so"?

Look at breeding rates combined with natural known ranges of sharks, age etc?  I don't know, I'm not an ichthyologist, I'm just thinking and typing.  While not exact there must be ways to narrow it down.


Well, ok, fair enough. But to be fair, I wasn't asking you. The person I originally quoted made a pretty definitive statement, and then said "but there's not enough data to draw any conclusions from" so I was wondering where the definitive statement came from. I'm pretty sure that's something only they will know.
 
2013-03-04 07:18:33 AM  

untaken_name: The person I originally quoted made a pretty definitive statement, and then said "but there's not enough data to draw any conclusions from" so I was wondering where the definitive statement came from.


I would like to say I'd be happy to discuss that, except I already did discuss that, you turned it into something else, and then repeated your question.  It's as if my first answer, which was complete, never existed.

I don't know if you're a troll or just an idiot, but if there's one thing I've learned over the years on the Internet, it's that there's no point in trying to explain anything to someone who only hears what they want to hear.  Oh, and where to find porn.  Two things.  But in any case, I'm not your sock puppet.
 
2013-03-04 07:31:22 AM  

untaken_name: Well, ok, fair enough. But to be fair, I wasn't asking you. The person I originally quoted made a pretty definitive statement, and then said "but there's not enough data to draw any conclusions from" so I was wondering where the definitive statement came from. I'm pretty sure that's something only they will know.


Who pissed in your cornflakes?
 
2013-03-04 08:09:48 AM  
Working on the precautionary principle when it comes to catching fish is a good idea, as so far we've crashed the fisheries of nearly every single fish we decided tasted good. And keep in mind, most of these fisheries were regulated in some manner, so if anything we should be excessively cautious, as the vast majority of our "regulation" has be ineffectual in preventing the decline of species.

Basically, saying that 100 million is or even could be "sustainable" is practically criminal. Humans are considered to be probably one of the most common large animals on earth, and killing 100 million people a year would send the human population downward at a pretty good rate - 131 million births a year, 55 million deaths, add 100 million more deaths and you are going negative. This is not an unfair comparison, as many sharks don't reach sexual maturity until their teens, and though they may have more pups at any time they also no doubt have a much higher mortality rate in general.
 
2013-03-04 08:55:24 AM  
I posted this same link 3 days ago with the headline "Sharks 17 Humans 100,000,000" (I used 2011 figures)

You owe me at least half a green Plagiarmitter
 
2013-03-04 09:45:58 AM  
phark China.
 
2013-03-04 10:52:16 AM  
Or this hot girl that freaking swims with Great White sharks????  I'd bite in to that!

It's actually sort of artistic looking:

Vid:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOkEd_RQ-WM

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-04 11:22:45 AM  

ggecko: Or this hot girl that freaking swims with Great White sharks????  I'd bite in to that!

It's actually sort of artistic looking:

Vid:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOkEd_RQ-WM

[i.imgur.com image 720x480]


I'd like to see her get eaten, but not like that!
 
Displayed 8 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report