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.

(Austrian Tribune)   "The case for saving sharks and rays" The Bruins and Red Sox would like a word first   (austriantribune.com) divider line 8
    More: Cool, Red Sox, right to protest, Schrodinger, conservation status, Gulf of Thailand, Rays, sharks  
•       •       •

1103 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2014 at 9:33 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



8 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-23 09:46:09 AM
What exactly did the Bruins save the Sharks from?  Playoff success?

Don't worry, I'm sure Jumbo Joe will finally come through for you one day :)
 
2014-01-23 09:47:27 AM

RumsfeldsReplacement: What exactly did the Bruins save the Sharks from?  Playoff success?

Don't worry, I'm sure Jumbo Joe will finally come through for you one day :)


Came to say something about Thornton, see that's been covered.
 
2014-01-23 09:56:18 AM
Some honourable gentlemen: Hear! Hear!
Sharks and rays are very important, perhaps vital to healthy sustainable marine ecosystems. One, they are high level predators. Second, unlike the land, where small animals make up the larger part of the mass of living organisms, in the seas, the big fish make up most of the mass of coral reefs, etc. This is because the small fish breed very rapidly, while the big fish (and sea mammals are very large and often very old as well.

We have drag-netted and hunted and fished the larger animals to near extinction. 95% of the large fish are gone. If you look at photos of fishing competitions from the 1950s, the fish are gigantic. Today's prize fish are babies compared to them. The same is true of photographs as early as the 1800s taken of fishing vessels and their catches. In those days there were giants in the Earth ... and in the Sea.

Just as we are pushing all the larger mammals into extinction, we are destroying the genetic patrimony of the larger fish, preferred by fishermen and consumers alike.

This is dam foolery and we should have learned our lesson in the Middle Ages when we fished the fresh water and coastal species of Europe out to the extent that sumptuary laws were passed that limited the consumption of large fish such as pike and salmon to the elite members of Church and State. These sumptuary laws were not guided by science but by economics, but in our case the science and the economics agree: you shouldn't destroy your most prized "possessions" by over-consumption and waste.

Even the most primitive peoples were wise enough to not destroy their most prized prey. They either learned to cultivate them (sheep, cattle, horses) or protect them (birds sitting on nests, rare birds and mammals, prized and thus taboo predators, and so forth).

The Bible, for example, has a number of laws that would be considered environmental regulation today.

Conservatives (such as many members of the Sierra Club and "conservations" generally) sometimes recognize this. The duck hunters have promoted their sport at great expense to the taxpayer, for example. When Dick Cheney shoots ducks rather than liberals, he does so on the estates of billionaire chums, where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars are poured into protecting habitat and wildfowl for the benefit of a handful of the elites of today. Not much change since the days when only Abbots could serve pike.

Environmentalism goes way beyond such game preservation, conservation of habitat, etc. It aims at a scientific basis for the protection of species vital to the ecology and to man.

Short-sightedness and prejudice against ugly or predator species should not be allowed to undo our ecologies or the tiny human ecology called economics which thrives or fails within them.

I always say that economics is nothing but a sub-set of ecology--it is the ecology of human activities as opposed to the great wide world's activities.

Economists, however, have long been reductionists working within a feeble moral, ethical, and intellectual framework which blinds them to the greater good of humans, let alone the system of which we are a small but growing and powerful part.

Scientists should always whack economists over the head with a thick book until they smarten up.

In fact, economists should always whack each other over the head until they wise up.
 
2014-01-23 09:57:22 AM
Remember to whack your economists with reality and satire at all opportunities. They will thank you for it because they know perfectly well how ignorant all the other economists are.
 
2014-01-23 09:59:02 AM

brantgoose: Some honourable gentlemen: Hear! Hear!


China's response:  TL; DR, we want our farkin' tasteless, bland soup, biatch.
 
2014-01-23 10:17:51 AM

brantgoose: Some honourable gentlemen: Hear! Hear!


Counterpoint: fark rays. I've still got an easily visible scar on my previously perfect left foot because an asshole ray in La Jolla thought I was too close. An asshole ray with perfect camouflage AND poison mind you.

In conclusion, fark rays.
 
2014-01-23 10:23:09 AM

OccamsWhiskers: brantgoose: Some honourable gentlemen: Hear! Hear!

Counterpoint: fark rays. I've still got an easily visible scar on my previously perfect left foot because an asshole ray in La Jolla thought I was too close. An asshole ray with perfect camouflage AND poison mind you.

In conclusion, fark rays.


letubeu.files.wordpress.com

Approves.
 
2014-01-24 03:03:17 AM
img.fark.net
 
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report