Gulf Oil Spill Disaster — Spawn of the Living Dead

grrlscientist writes "A recently published study, intended to provide data to commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico so they maximize their catch of Yellowfin Tuna, Thunnus albacares, whilst avoiding bycatch of critically endangered Atlantic (Northern) Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus thynnus, suggests that the Deepwater Horizon oil leak may devastate the endangered Atlantic bluefin population, causing it to completely collapse or possibly go extinct."

Comments

FIRST TROUT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, Alaskan Salmon!

Re:FIRST TROUT!!!

[Pojut]

Don't you mean bizzaro Alaskan Salmon?

Re:FIRST TROUT!!!

[aquila.solo]

Ignoring for a moment that /. receives visitors from numerous countries, I think the relative comment count says a lot more about the expertise of the typical /. user than it does about their priorities.

Wait. No. That would mean people were only discussing things they actually understood. That can't be right.

Re:FIRST TROUT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice reference

Re:FIRST TROUT!!!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I wonder about the expertise of the researchers.

Pay attention: I hereby predict a small rebound of the Bluefin tuna precisely because they won't be getting caught by fishers in the Gulf.

If this happens, what will it say about the researchers and their prognosticative abilities? Don't answer now. Let's see what happens!

Rectifying interference with more interference?

[elrous0]

Not trolling here, but since when is its mankind's responsibility to save every variety of every species of animal on the planet? I know that we have been responsible for the extinction of many species, but does that now make us responsible for stopping extinction altogether? Huge swaths of species went extinct long before man even came along, and so it seems pretty clear that it's part of the natural order. So are we now supposed to completely stop that natural process out of some sense of guilt (because we have arrogantly decided that we're not part of the natural order)?

I'm not saying we should just go out an hunt every species we feel like to extinction, or poison the water whenever we feel like it. That would be neither responsible nor wise. But I am saying that it's not our responsibility to save every species in the world that happens to exist now, not our place to end "extinction" itself as a process.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[decipher_saint]

It's pretty simple actually, biological diversity is important.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Utini420]

I don't think that's really the point on this one. It isn't an instance of saving the adorable but useless spotted whatever, which we've messed up by destroying its habitat or something. This is an instance of hungry people have eaten up almost all that tasty tasty tune (actually, I hate tune, but that's not the point) and what little is left is about to be rendered unappetizing or dead.

This is actually environmentalism in its most selfish (and thus, from a certain point of view, best) form: if you want to keep eating a species, you've got to take care of them.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ecosystems are notoriously hard to fix once they get out of whack.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[spun]

Straw man much? No one is claiming we should save every species. You yourself say we shouldn't poison or hunt species into extinction. That is all anyone is talking about here, so you could have just said that and left out the straw man completely. It's not as if these tuna were about to go extinct on their own, and now there is a huge campaign to save them. We are responsible, and not to the tuna but to the people whose livelihood depends on them, and to the people like me who find them delicious.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[h4rr4r]

Not save them, how about not killing them all?

This is not some natural occurrence, this is the result of some greedy assholes.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, how about this... we should save the tuna because it's frickin' DELICIOUS on rice. And protecting them through sound environmental policies and sustainable catch quotas ensures thousands of jobs are secure?

Conservation need not be emotional or altruistic.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[h4rr4r]

Have you ever had it properly cooked?
Canned tuna is not very good.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Well, in this case, it is in humanity's self-interest, if nothing else, because bluefin tuna are legendarily tasty.

The ethical duties, if any, of environmental preservation are debatable. The fact that crashing the population of a species you like to eat is stupid and self-defeating isn't.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Pojut]

I don't think it is our responsability to save "every" species...but I think it's our responsability to save species that we have directly endangered through our own actions, whether those actions are on purpose or a mistake.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Dasher42]

Like the other poster said, biodiversity is key. It makes natural systems resilient; it means every ecological niche has a backup plan. Everything's in a web of relationships.

When a species goes extinct, the species in some relationship with it are put under stress or imbalance; it ripples through the system. Eventually the system gets overwhelmed and collapses.

Just to be clear, our petroleum and pesticide-based agriculture can go so far, and you do not want to live on a planet with collapsed ecosystems after you've destroyed it for a quick buck. It'll be like Easter Island - miserable survivors with no wood to repair their boats, fighting and cannibalizing each other.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[dkleinsc]

Not trolling here, but since when is its mankind's responsibility to save every variety of every species of animal on the planet? I know that we have been responsible for the extinction of many species, but does that now make us responsible for stopping extinction altogether?

Some good reasons:
  - They may prove to be resistant to some new disease, providing vital insight to medical researchers trying to keep humans from falling prey to a similar disease.
  - Losing some species can produce an ecological domino effect, where other species who were dependent on the first one now become endangered or extinct. For instance, if honeybees were to become extinct, that would cause massive problems for corn and grain, which would cause massive problems for humans.
  - Last and certainly least, it would allow us to answer certain kinds of space probes.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[DeadDecoy]

There are many reasons to care about the survival of a species. One is so we can feel good about ourselves. Another, perhaps more important reason, is that we don't know how the organisms absence will effect the ecology; and if they're extinct, it makes it more difficult for the environment to recover from the impact. I had a biology professor present an interesting example of the chained effects that occur when a species becomes endangered or extinct:

Over the past century or so, humans have lowered the whale population significantly. Consequently, killer whales, who feed on these organisms had to find another food source, so they started eating otters and sea lions. These creatures have a much lower caloric content than whale fat, so the killer whales ate a lot more to supplement their diet. In turn, sea otters and the like were responsible for eating sea urchins, which eat seaweed and kelp. With fewer sea otters, the urchin populations are not kept in check and they destroy the kelp forests at a greater rate. These forests happen to be the home of other organisms, so the chain of effects continues.

Note, I'm going by memory here, but I could probably dig up the study that talks about this stuff. With regards to the bluefin tuna, if they go extinct, a similar chain of events might occur which will come back to bite us humans in the ass. Again, it's not just about keeping other animals safe, but ensuring we have a sustainable habitat to live in too.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

One reasonable response to this line of thinking is to note that, while you're correct in your assertion that man-kind need not be some sort of blessed guardian of all natural species, the simple fact of the matter is the the vast majority of species which go extinct fall into two categories: (1) species that are effectively made extinct through human action, or (2) species that go extinct outside of man's eye (be it naturally, or through unwitting human action)--there aren't too many species that we know about who are being pushed to extinction /not/ through human action. What I'm trying to say is that while "natural" extinction is fine and all, human-forced extinction is (and has been) occurring at very rapid rates, and is probably not a good thing. Will the biosphere as a whole adapt to whatever mankind messes up? Yeah, probably, in (geological) time. Will it adapt in such a way that mankind is happy with the results? Maybe, maybe not. It's that risk that should temper our approach with nature to at least try to do as minimal amount of harm as possible, lest we end up with a biosphere we cannot live in.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Demonantis]

We don't know what is acceptable diversity though. There have been periods of mass extinction that occur randomly and the ecosystem survives.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[elrous0]

The problem is that, in their guilt trip, biologists have blamed man for the state of pretty much every endangered species on the planet. Can you name a single endangered species (or even variety of species) that man is *not* blamed for right now? I doubt there is even one. So that means that we are supposed to preserve every single species that happens to exist at this particular moment in our planet's history, like some weird zoo where we've effectively stopped natural selection?

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[wizardforce]

but since when is its mankind's responsibility to save every variety of every species of animal on the planet?

Since when does humanity have the inherent right to wipe these species out in the first place? That aside, why is it that a corporation like bp can wipe out an entire ecosystem and destroy a species that so many depend on for making a living? Wiping out a species fails on two counts: 1) biodiversity and 2) property rights violation

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[linzeal]

The ecosystem survives but typically the top predators are all replaced.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Pojut]

The problem is that, in their guilt trip, biologists have blamed man for the state of pretty much every endangered species on the planet.

You are, sadly, correct with this statement. I wish you weren't, but you are -_-;;

So that means that we are supposed to preserve every single species that happens to exist at this particular moment in our planet's history, like some weird zoo where we've effectively stopped natural selection?

Absolutely not...but, as you implied, due to the politicization of the issue, it would be near impossible to only actively work to save the species that we have directly affected.

"In an honest world", and all that.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[h4rr4r]

The reality is man has in one way or another wiped out lots of species, deal with it. This is not a guilt trip, just reality. Stop making emotional judgements about statements of fact. This is not "blame" either just statements of fact. If you run over a cat, pointing that out is not blame just a statement of fact.

The thing we need to do is protect the ones we like, these tuna taste great.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[vm146j2]

Yes, there have: 5 major ones in 4 billion years. The difference this time is we get to participate, both as an agent, and a sufferer!

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[MozeeToby]

No, something survives and a new ecosystem eventually evolves. In the meantime (read: several million years) the survivors are in complete disarray as population numbers fluctuate wildly without the normal predator/prey relationships in effect, something which would not bode well for human civilization. Diversity is good, it is the damping that makes an otherwise unstable system become stable.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[h4rr4r]

So statements of fact are a guilt trip?
STOP MAKING EMOTIONAL VALUE JUDGMENTS ABOUT FACTS. That sort of shit is what makes people ignore oil spills, global whatever and pretty much every big problem.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Jeprey]

Yes, diversity is important, but... If the species is so close to the edge, would anything else have done the job eventually as well? You can argue that man put them on the edge but I'm not sure how often that either actually true or simply a matter of coincidence. In the very long view, I think Carlin pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[ColdWetDog]

The problem is that, in their guilt trip, biologists have blamed man for the state of pretty much every endangered species on the planet. Can you name a single endangered species (or even variety of species) that man is *not* blamed for right now? I doubt there is even one. So that means that we are supposed to preserve every single species that happens to exist at this particular moment in our planet's history, like some weird zoo where we've effectively stopped natural selection?

Wow, slow down! Try the decaf. Some of us are biologists and not every card carrying biologist is a member of PETA. You do have a point as the environmentalist movement tends to hammer hard on every potential species or ecosystem lost and it's usually, as you mention, the result of evil, nasty, smell 'mankind' (as opposed to 'humankind'). Unfortunately, we really don't know why a lot of extinctions take place. Some of the best studied ones do seem to be human caused. Even early humans may have been responsible for numerous large animal extinctions (go look it up). So we have a long track record in this regard. We also seem to be in the midst of another mass extinction and one that is at least partially human caused.

Will 'nature' deal with this 'problem'. Sure will. Come back in a couple of million years and you may find very little sign of homo industrialis. Many people aren't comfortable with that sort of time frame and so they complain, come up with hyperbolic arguments, get elected to Congress and all manner of silly things.

Truth is, it's hard to separate us from them. We are part of natural selection.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[scot4875]

I like how you skipped over every single reply that was to the effect that, "we should save them because we want to be able to eat them in the future" -- which is an entirely pragmatic and reasonable position to take.

Instead, you reply to the one appeal to emotion with yet another irrelevant straw man (biologists blame everything on man!). I guess we can assume that you don't disagree that biodiversity is important in an ecosystem, or that it's a good idea to not kill off all of a tasty food source.

If you don't want to have a discussion, fine; state your opinion and your bias. Don't frame your initial post as a question (a leading one at that) and then reply to the one response that takes the bait. It's intellectually dishonest.

--Jeremy

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Pojut]

True, we indirectly or directly affect most living things on this planet due to our technology and waste...but I think implying that we affect everything is just as ludicrous as implying that we affect nothing.

Absolutes aren't really the way to go...

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[2obvious4u]

Is it really that simple? Why is biological diversity important? I mean if you fallow Darwinian logic won't there eventually only be one species? Survival of the fittest and all. Eventual all species should optimize to their environment or die off. Why is it so important to keep species who can't adapt?

Really we just need a variety of plants, cows, pigs, chicken, salmon, talapia and some other basic organisms used to support those animals and we're all good. The rest of the stuff out there just adds flavor to the pallet. I mean I guess you would have to worry about a major disease destroying the food supply (like what happened to banana's), but other than that is biological diversity that important? Do we really need to save the whales? What about the useless manatee?

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Altus]

I don't think you understand. These are very tasty fish.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[NeutronCowboy]

Ask me if I care that the ecosystem rebounds in a few million years. Really, do ask me. Or ask the people whose livelihood depends on a healthy ecosystem.

Can we stop with this idiotic argument that the universe will survive just fine without humans? No shit, Sherlock. Way to state the obvious, Capt'n Obvious. In the meantime, I'd like to make sure that my life is nice and cushy, and that of my kids as well. Unfortunately, that requires a stable ecosystem. And a hallmark of a stable ecosystem is a diverse ecosystem.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[h4rr4r]

I do not care about absolutes, my issue is that people see facts as good or bad. Note your "sadly". the truth is man has impacted many species, if this is good or bad has jack squat to do with it. It is neither it just is.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[sznupi]

Not really "responsibility" however you put it; it's simply in our damn self-interest to keep the surroundings decently nice & stable.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[elrous0]

So your effective argument is that mankind is the only thing causing species extinction now? Because that seems to be the hypothesis that everyone is working under, and I find it ludicrous.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come back in a couple of million years and you may find very little sign of homo industrialis. Many people aren't comfortable with that sort of time frame and so they complain

Of course I'm not comfortable with a time frame that's post humanity. We need to save biodiversity for future humans. After we're gone things will recover, but no one will be there to care. I'm worried about the next few hundred years, which seem critical to getting mankind off this rock. An ecological disaster isn't a good start. Biodiversity isn't for the planet, it's for people!

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Pojut]

I wasn't referring to us affecting things as being sad, I was referring to the fact that many scientists have blamed things on human beings when we have had nothing to to do with.

"Sad" in this case being a more polite way of saying "a fucking disgrace".

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[h4rr4r]

Do you have evidence for this?

I see lots of statements of fact people take as blame. For a quick example, humans wiped out the wisent. We then restored them to some degree. This is a statement of fact, as we have records of them being killed and they finally ceased to exist in the wild at the end of WW2. The retreating Wehrmacht wiped out the last of them in the wild, no one disputes these facts. It is not blame to say we did this, only a statement of fact.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I knew it was those damn spider monkeys.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[h4rr4r]

I made not such claim, but that is a nice strawman you have there. It is not in fact the only hypothesis people are working under, you probably know that too.

I merely stated you made emotional value judgments about facts.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Red Flayer]

Don't frame your initial post as a question (a leading one at that) and then reply to the one response that takes the bait. It's intellectually dishonest.

No need to get worked up. It was just a particularly good troll, I think.

Which is fitting, given that we're discussing a species that has been trolled (and longlined) near to extinction.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Utini420]

Canned tuna looks and smells like shitty cat food. I'll pass, regardless of preparation.

Raw tuna, as in sushi, looks delicious. Alas, looks can be deceiving. Oh, how I've longed to enjoy tuna, salmon, and various other pretty tasty things and be cool like all the other hipsters and edgerunners, but alas, I really can't stand the stuff. I've tried everything from simple salmon-on-some-rice to squid tentacles, so this isn't a case of an American who won't try new things. I've just had to accept that regardless of how tasty it looks, I don't like sushi. Tragic, I know.

Actually, I could go a step further: grilled shrimp, in small quantities, and grilled shark, are the only sea foods I actually like.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[squidfood]

Some of the best studied ones do seem to be human caused.

That's because the best-studied ones are the ones we either eat or compete with.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Swanktastic]

Do you care that the ecosystem rebounds in a few million years?

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

If some guy is chasing you with a knife, it's not my responsibility to help you.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[mrjb]

If you fallow Darwinian logic won't there eventually only be one species? Survival of the fittest and all.

I'm afraid you're mixing up "the origin of species" with Highlander. "Survival of the fittest" implies that within a species, only the ones that are most fit to deal with their environment will survive. Darwin never claimed that "in the end, there can be only one". In fact many species live in mutual beneficial relationships with each other.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[vadim_t]

Is it really that simple? Why is biological diversity important? I mean if you fallow Darwinian logic won't there eventually only be one species? Survival of the fittest and all

Uhh, no?

Just for a start, flying, living in the water, living on the ground, living on the equator and living on the poles all involve different tradeoffs. Any species maximizes something at the cost of sacrificing something else. What does "fittest" refer to? The environment. And it happens to vary widely over the planet.

And if there was only a species left, what would it eat?

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

While I wouldn't use something like a mass extinction event to underscore my point, I think the parent that you are responding to made a legitimate claim in his first sentence:

We don't know what is acceptable diversity though.

This is a genuine point. While we realize that diversity is good, yes, we do not, to my knowledge, have any objective indicator of good/bad bounds on diversity. If you look at the natural history of any area of the world, you will see that species have died off, at almost all levels of the food chain, at various points in time. Sometimes these species died off due to human intervention (like, say, the Moa bird in New Zealand, or the Java Tiger). Sometimes they died off from natural Darwinism or other causes (Giant Sloth of Georgia, or the Dire Wolf of Canada). That said, when animals/species do go extinct, it is very rarely (seemingly) as big of a crisis as the press would have us often believe. After all, we are still here. The ecosystem is still diverse. And thus far, nature hasn't thrown such a violent temper-tantrum so as to cause mass starvation and death.

To address the concern of this particular article, we are talking about the Bluefin Tuna. Well, a Tuna is a large fish that is somewhere in the middle of the food chain. It feeds on creatures lower in the food chain, and is eaten by creatures higher in the food chain. However, it is not the only fish to fill it's particular role in said food chain. In fact, the article and even the summary comments on one of the Bluefin's natural competitor's the Yellowfin Tuna. This is just one example of many other competitors that occupy the same, or very similar ecological roles as the Bluefin. Thus, what I think the parent was trying to get at was that even if the Bluefin population collapses (which, of course, would suck to some extent or another), it would not be some great ecological crisis. In fact, since we don't know exactly what the optimal amount of diversity for a given ecosystem is, claiming, generally, that diversity is good and so extinction is bad is pretty disingenuous. For all we know, a given ecosystem may actually need a particular species to die out so that the rest of the ecosystem may maintain equilibrium.

Now, granted, the oil spill killing the Bluefin would not be a form of natural selection per-say (unless of course you recognize that humanity, and even it's great blunders, are part of nature and, therefore, part of natural selection today involves nature selecting for the best species to coexist with humanity), but it still may not be an utter crisis for that particular fish to die out. In fact, it might be healthy for the ecosystem to some extent...we really don't know. Thus, simply claiming, 'diversity is good,' is nothing more than over simplifying a very complex equilibrium, while pointing out that we don't know how much diversity is actually good diversity seems like a valid point to be made.

And to be very specific, I don't think you, or anybody else, is going to die because one species of tuna collapsed in the North Atlantic.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[sexconker]

Can we stop with this idiotic argument that the universe will survive just fine without humans? No shit, Sherlock. Way to state the obvious, Capt'n Obvious. In the meantime, I'd like to make sure that my life is nice and cushy, and that of my kids as well. Unfortunately, that requires a stable ecosystem. And a hallmark of a stable ecosystem is a diverse ecosystem.

What a typical, pompous, self-important, human dipshit.

By your same fucking argument we shouldn't be wiping out polio or HIV or malaria. WHO KNOWS HOW IMPORTANT THEY MAY BE!?!?!?

You don't give a shit about the environment, nor do you know what is good or bad for it.
You just know what it's like now, and fear any change because it could potentially make you somewhat uncomfortable.

There is zero logical reason for humans to actively "protect" the environment. Not only is our idea of "protection" a simple prevention of any and all change, the idea that we need to do it comes from fear and selfishness, not any inherently good intention.

It is emotion, not reason, that drives you and others to cry about "protecting" the environment as if you are its rightful master. For all you know the current state of the environment is holding back the evolution of a species that will be far superior to ours.

We are here today because the previous batch of dominant organisms did not alter their environment to continue to suit them.
For us to think that we have some right to alter the environment to suit ourselves at the cost of other potential species is hubris. The idea that we have the capability to do so is laughable.

You're not for the environment, you're for your current cushy lifestyle. An unknown, big change is just as likely to be good for humans as it is to be bad.

You simply fear the unknown.

Enjoy your short ride on this rock. Know that you "deserve" nothing more than will be allotted, and come to terms with your inability to change that.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[sexconker]

Have you ever had it properly cooked?
Canned tuna is not very good.

Have you ever had tuna?
Mercury is not very good.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

name a single endangered species (or even variety of species) that man is *not* blamed for right now? I doubt there is even one.

How about the Tazmanian Devil? The contagious cancer is not caused by people.

Just because you can't comprehend than humans are killing their own life support systems doesn't make it false. Everyday, people poisons themselves with lawn poisons, so their lawn looks monotone. How is it that people that poisons their own property and their kids, then battle with infestations of bugs, disease and chemical burns to their lawn, while people that just say "if it's green, it's lawn" never have those problems? It's called biodiversity, and it starts with people's own retarded obsession to kill "weeds".

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[h4rr4r]

A risk I am more than willing to take. I even smoked for years! I also drink. Life is short, have fun.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Zerth]

The ecosystem survives but typically the top predators are all replaced.

Thank goodness for big cats, drop bears, and elevated floor tiles!

Otherwise we'd be on the chopping block at the top of the food chain.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[NeutronCowboy]

For us to think that we have some right to alter the environment to suit ourselves at the cost of other potential species is hubris.

We're already doing it. It's not a question of right, but merely of fact.

The idea that we have the capability to do so is laughable.

What do you think a city is?

You're not for the environment, you're for your current cushy lifestyle.

Correct. I'm also well aware that my current cushy lifestyle depends on a nice, stable environment. It seems that you merely don't understand what constitutes a nice, stable environment.

An unknown, big change is just as likely to be good for humans as it is to be bad.

Argument from ignorance - specifically, argument from ignorance about the state of knowledge about biology, climatology, physics and game theory.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[NeutronCowboy]

And to be very specific, I don't think you, or anybody else, is going to die because one species of tuna collapsed in the North Atlantic.

Very true. But at some point, the accumulation of species extinction is going to hit us, and especially if that species happens to be a keystone species. God help us all if krill happens to become extinct. It'll be Soylent Green for all of us.

The point is that arguing that a) in the long run, it's all a wash and b) it's just one species manages to both be way to far-sighted and way to short-sighted. The collapse of the blue-fin Tuna has to be seen in the context of the collapse of a lot of other fish species. It's not that it is just one species that might disappear, it's that it is another one in a long line of species.

Finally, the big problem is that disappearance of one species indicates that more issues might be afoot in the environment, which could cause more species to disappear.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[NeutronCowboy]

I can't help to ask what makes you think we humans are so much more special than dinosaurs that we deserve to survive as a species

Absolutely nothing. This is merely self-preservation talking, just like for every other species. I'm pretty sure if dinosaurs could write, we would have found loads of discussions around the theme of what to do with the dying, the cloud ash, and how to survive the dark and burning skies.

Reality is simple: Nature is tough, and we have but two choices: deal with it, or check out.

Spot on. I'd prefer not to check out. Which requires dealing with nature, which in turn requires making sure that nature has a place for us in it. Unfortunately, we haven't figured out how to survive without nature (see the failed Biodome experiments), so we're stuck with making sure that we don't need a biodome.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[ultranova]

Not trolling here, but since when is its mankind's responsibility to save every variety of every species of animal on the planet?

Since when we realized that every snapped link in the food web makes it weaker and more likely to collapse completely, which would be rather unpleasant for us.

I know that we have been responsible for the extinction of many species, but does that now make us responsible for stopping extinction altogether?

Yes. Every extinction weakened the balance of the ecosystem, making it more prone to chaotic changes. Since we don't know when we reach the critical point - when the cycle of extinction starts feeding on itself, with each change killing more species, which causes more change, which kills more species and so forth - it would be a really good idea to do something while we still can.

Huge swaths of species went extinct long before man even came along, and so it seems pretty clear that it's part of the natural order.

Yes, mass extinctions occur every now and then and typically end up wiping out the dominant megafauna. That means us.

But I am saying that it's not our responsibility to save every species in the world that happens to exist now, not our place to end "extinction" itself as a process.

It's our place to do whatever we damn well please with this world, or can you give a single reason why it wouldn't be? And it would be best for us to keep it as close to as it is, ecosystem-wise, since that's what we're evolved for and can likely deal with best.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

We are responsible, and not to the tuna but to the people whose livelihood depends on them, and to the people like me who find them delicious.

You know, I find it very interesting that we are the only species that claims responsibility for its role in the extinction of other species. It is not as if we are the only creatures to cause the extinction of another species on this planet. Ten thousand years ago or so, various species of wolf out-competed the Dire Wolf and drove that animal to extinction. Yet, those wolves display no natural tendencies or abilities to rectify such a situation (if, rectification is indeed necessary).

Now, granted, we humans are much more intelligent than most species on this planet (at least, by our own definition of intelligence), and we certainly have accounted for numerous extinction events in our short time here on this planet. However, it seems to me that very few people address the idea that, perhaps, this too is part of the natural selection process in the long run. Humans, like any other animal, put a burden on their ecosystem by existing within it. As such, certain parts of that ecosystem, that are unable to compete with a human presence end up collapsing. However, this occurs quite often when new species are introduced to different ecosystems (either by specification, or migration, or whatever). The only discerning question between humans and other species seems to be one of quantity. We humans tend to spread out and involve ourselves in many ecosystems, so our impact occurs more often and, thus appears more drastic. Nonetheless, that can easily be attributed to the fact that human beings have a very large population, and we exist at the top of most food chains. This means we can have a very heavy impact on the ecosystems in which we exist.

Now, when you look at things from that perspective, it begs the question of whether or not humans can be considered, part of the natural selection process. I mean, it's not as if there is some divine law handed down from on high (or wherever your favored source of authority exists) that says natural selection does not include human beings. Knowing that, is it fair, or reasonable, to say that human existence is, indeed, a small portion of the current process of natural selection paradigm? In other words, do the pressures exerted on an ecosystem due to humanity qualify as appropriate selective criteria in determining which species will thrive and which will die of?

Hell, maybe in the big scheme of things (as if there is one) humans are merely a mechanism enabled by natural selection to inhibit the unsustainable growth of diversity on the planet (not saying that the current diversity is unsustainable, but it's an interesting thought). I mean, think about it. If natural selection simply allowed for the forking of species continuously, without natural checks and balances, then, eventually, such diversity in an ecosystem could potentially cause harm one day (for the compy geeks out there, think of the over-polluted *nix repos that make it difficult to determine which software to use). That being the case, it would make sense that natural selection had an in-built mechanism that allowed an over-consuming species to evolve every once in awhile. If each iteration of specification allowed for better collection of necessary resources, eventually a species would naturally occur that is the best at gathering too many of those resources. That over-consuming species would then out-compete/dominate many other species in the ecosystem, causing many extinctions. The species would then grow to be unsustainable itself because it would have grown too populous and would no longer have a supporting food chain beneath it. This could allow that over-consuming species shrink or collapse entirely, leaving a much reduced level of diversity in an ecosystem. Thus, natural selection would continue based on a smaller subset of initial competitors and, if the ecosystem had indeed been growing too diverse, this wo

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

this is the result of some greedy assholes.

Greed has demonstrated itself to be a very effective trait in ensuring a human's survival in the modern world. Perhaps greed is nothing more than another specialization trait that allows humans to compete very effectively in the current global ecosystem. Are there any studies linking a particular gene or genes to an overdeveloped coveting response (like some chemical reaction in the brain that is more powerful in 'greedy' individuals because their genes specified a particular over-sized gland or something?

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Chowderbags]

We're blamed because, quite frankly, we've been the single biggest coherent force on this planet for the last 12000 years (give or take a few thousand depending on how remote a location is). Yes, you'll see a few volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and asteroids, but they're either not particularly harmful, not widespread, or not continuous over a long period. Individually we're not powerful, but we've been diverting large rivers, clearing jungles and leaving deserts, introducing new species that overwhelm the local food web (Kudzu, Argentine Ants, the various domesticated animals that killed the Dodo) or even just changing wilderness into plowed fields and suburbs. The areas we don't inhabit long term, we toss our junk into without a second thought (see the garbage patches in the ocean).

Yes, if we disappeared tomorrow, the planet would be back to it's old self in a million years. But we won't disappear tomorrow. We'll still be here. And the day after that. And the day after that. And short of a disaster that wipes out every other vertebrate, we'll probably keep on going somehow. But we have to ask ourselves if we really can't do any better (and no, I'm not a neoluddite here, I just hope to live awhile). Should we prefer slightly cheaper gas or beaches that aren't contaminated with oil?

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[IndustrialComplex]

Now, granted, we humans are much more intelligent than most species on this planet

Let's cut the self hate. We ARE the most intelligent species on the planet. With that intelligence comes an understanding of certain activities.

1.
We like to eat bluefin tuna. Making adjustments to keep them from dying allows us to eat them in the future.

2. Killing off the Bluefin Tuna could have drawbacks. It makes sense to understand these drawbacks before we continue on our course of exterminating them. Maybe the drawbacks aren't so bad. Maybe they will result in us all dying of cholera.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I do not care about absolutes, my issue is that people see facts as good or bad

Well there might be a reason for that. As you said, many people apply a quality judgment to statements of fact. Perhaps this very ability is the direct descendant of some naturally selective pressures in mankind's evolution from long ago. The ubiquity of emotional responses to the world we have today strikes me as a mountain of evidence that perhaps such a selective process did occur at one time. Now, that being said, why is it, 'better,' to stick to just addressing the facts and not having an emotional response to them?

In other words, what evidence, exactly, can you site that says that we should respond to statements of fact logically and not emotionally? It seems to me that, since humans do respond to statements of fact emotionally, and since humans are still rockin' out at the top of the food chain, then perhaps that is, indeed, the better way to respond to statements of fact.

What is it that makes logic and fact the absolute god that is to be held in value above all else? Do you have any intrinsic facts to show that the logical discussion of facts is, indeed, the, 'better,' form of behavior?

PS: If you try to cite Slashdot discussions for your evidence for logic being better, then you win the internet award for ironic self-pwning.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are especially delicious with a touch of Mercury, enjoy!
        - the coal industry.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Yuan-Lung]

I've tried everything from simple salmon-on-some-rice to squid tentacles.

Would you conclude all hamburgers are bad from eating every kind of burgers in McDonald's and Wendy's?

I am not saying everyone should love sushi, just trying to point out, even the simple salmon/tuna, there can be massive difference depending on what you are getting from where. IMHO, anything made from farmed Atlantic salmon should go straight into a can of cat food, or just into the can. Albacore tuna is just a slimy and tasteless mess. However, I would never say no to a piece of properly made nigiri sushi topped with blue-fin tuna or wild sockeye salmon (although, both are now close to depletion).

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Truth is, it's hard to separate us from them. We are part of natural selection.

That was very well said and I would like to hear your (a Biologist's) perspective on a notion I voiced in one of my long-winded rambles above: here

If you have the time, and you're bored, I would be curious to hear your thoughts regarding my thoughts that a species like humans could be a natural form of checks and balances for natural selection. Specifically, if you have ever heard anything similar voiced, I would be curious to know the source (perhaps someone already wrote a book or something discussing this? I mostly address that point near the bottom of my post so you can read just that if you like (or none at all) but I really would like to hear what a biologist thinks about that notion.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[ultranova]

However, it is not the only fish to fill it's particular role in said food chain. In fact, the article and even the summary comments on one of the Bluefin's natural competitor's the Yellowfin Tuna. This is just one example of many other competitors that occupy the same, or very similar ecological roles as the Bluefin. Thus, what I think the parent was trying to get at was that even if the Bluefin population collapses (which, of course, would suck to some extent or another), it would not be some great ecological crisis.

Having two fish species compete in the same ecological niche means that you can lose one of them without catastrophic consequences. However, it also means that if you do lose Bluefin, and then something happens to Yellowfin - a plague, for example - there are no more Bluefins to take over.

Having multiple species that fill the same role is good precisely because it makes the ecosystem more robust; ergo, losing those redundant species makes ecosystem more fragile, even if it doesn't collapse oturight.

In fact, since we don't know exactly what the optimal amount of diversity for a given ecosystem is, claiming, generally, that diversity is good and so extinction is bad is pretty disingenuous. For all we know, a given ecosystem may actually need a particular species to die out so that the rest of the ecosystem may maintain equilibrium.

No. All data we have points to more diverse ecosystems being more robust. The only exceptions are situations where a species has been introduced to outside its normal ecosystem and lacked any natural enemies to keep it in check in the new environment.

And even if your speculation was correct - and there's no reason to think it is - there would still be no reason to assume that it applies to Bluefin and to this situation.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[elrous0]

You didn't hear? The Tasmanian Devil is going extinct due to aboriginals and early European settlers hunting them. Our fault as always.

Johnson, C.N. and Wroe, S. 2003. Causes of extinction of vertebrates during the Holocene of mainland Australia: arrival of the dingo, or human impact? Holocene 13:941-948

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[ultranova]

That aside, why is it that a corporation like bp can wipe out an entire ecosystem and destroy a species that so many depend on for making a living?

Social Darwinism, also known as the survival of the richest.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[jonadab]

> bluefin tuna are legendarily tasty

What universe do you live in? Where I come from tuna is a byword for cheap protein that's more or less edible if you're not picky. Almost nobody will eat it without mayonaise. I don't think I've ever met anybody who actually *likes* it.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[yurtinus]

Contrary to popular belief, tuna comes in many forms beside "canned."

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[jonadab]

> I don't think it is our responsability to save "every" species...
> but I think it's our responsibility to save species that we have
> directly endangered through our own actions, whether those
> actions are on purpose or a mistake.

As a Christian, I agree with that.

But I have a hard time seeing how an unbeliever could reconcile it with an evolutionist worldview. If you actually understand and buy into Darwinism, the logical conclusion would be that anything that goes extinct for any reason was "deselected" because it was unfit. If humans evolved from lower life forms, and some of those lower life forms go extinct as a result of humans, that would be the expected natural and desirable result of evolution at work, if you believe in that sort of thing.

To believe that we should protect a species from extinction at the hands of human actions, you'd have to believe that we are responsible for them. Responsible to whom, if you don't believe in a creator? You'd also have to believe that we're not better off without them, that every kind of organism that exists is here for some reason, some purpose. Whose purpose, if you don't believe in a creator? You'd have to believe that genetic information should be retained, even if it's apparently inferior to our own, because it won't simply be replaced by newer and better stuff.

Conservation of biological diversity doesn't fit with evolutionism. It's inconsistent. In fact, it's more or less the opposite philosophy.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Think "sushi" not "can".

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Pojut]

But I have a hard time seeing how an unbeliever could reconcile it with an evolutionist worldview.

That's ok, I don't understand how someone can be a Christian without banging their head against the wall over the plot holes in the Bible ;) I kid, I kid.

If you actually understand and buy into Darwinism, the logical conclusion would be that anything that goes extinct for any reason was "deselected" because it was unfit. If humans evolved from lower life forms, and some of those lower life forms go extinct as a result of humans, that would be the expected natural and desirable result of evolution at work, if you believe in that sort of thing.

I personally feel that humans are both exactly the same as other animals (in that we are nothing more than flesh and bones) and something more (an "advanced" state of consciousness driven by self-awareness rather than pure reflex.)

To believe that we should protect a species from extinction at the hands of human actions, you'd have to believe that we are responsible for them. Responsible to whom, if you don't believe in a creator?

Ourselves. "Animals" do not have the ability to distinguish between whether we should live or die...they either attack us because they think we are a threat, or don't attack us because they don't think we are a threat. Exercising our ability to consciously choose is part of what makes us human.

You'd also have to believe that we're not better off without them, that every kind of organism that exists is here for some reason, some purpose. Whose purpose, if you don't believe in a creator?

Dung beetles are a good example. They help prevent us from being covered in shit. I'd say it's in our best interest to keep them around.

You'd have to believe that genetic information should be retained, even if it's apparently inferior to our own, because it won't simply be replaced by newer and better stuff.

Newer isn't necessarily better. Mother nature is a cold hearted bitch, and she isn't always right. If we have the ability to change her decision, why shouldn't we?

Conservation of biological diversity doesn't fit with evolutionism. It's inconsistent. In fact, it's more or less the opposite philosophy.

On the contrary, if we are to be considered higher beings than animals (something that Christianity subscribes to), then it is our duty to exercise that by choosing to save certain species. Not because we have to, but simply because we can.

Arguably, the same could be said for your God.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[tthomas48]

While I don't agree with your point, it's unrelated to the topic at a hand. This is a VERY popular animal for eating. That's why it's over-fished in the first place. So a massive point of saving them is - so we can continue eating them. This isn't really an environmental question. It's a business and quality of life question.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[bhagwad]

Have you considered that we might be like bacteria thriving on an organism and ultimately killing it off? That's natural too right? The only difference is that bacteria know how to spread from one person to another, while we're stuck on this planet. Killing it finishes us off too.

Evolution and natural selection aren't some external agencies like gods that we have to follow. There is no "big scheme of things." We're in this universe. Everything around us is dead and doesn't give a fuck what happens. We're the only ones that care. We have the ability to look ahead and modify our behavior unlike the other animals who finished of certain species.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Beardo the Bearded]

If you fallow Darwinian logic won't there eventually only be one species? Survival of the fittest and all.

I'm afraid you're mixing up "the origin of species" with Highlander.

Mr. JB, this is the best quote on evolution that I've ever seen. Note that Darwin never states "survival of the fittest". The Theory states that those most suited to their environment have a greater chance of survival, and thus reproduction.

"You're mixing up 'Origin of the Species' with 'Highlander'." Classic.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Planx_Constant]

An unknown, big change is just as likely to be good for humans as it is to be bad.

That is massively untrue. An unknown, big change is much more likely to be bad for humans. When you're dealing with a hugely interconnected web of an ecosystem, big unknown changes are likely to alter the system, such that it stabilizes in a different state. The current state of the world is very nice for humans. An end to many easily caught food species will not be so nice.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't our responsibility to prevent all extinctions, but it's pretty important not to contribute too many extinctions to the count. Technically you are correct, but I'm not sure that point is relevant to the BP oil spill.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[TheMidnightHobo]

From what I've read, prior to humans' entrance on the scene, and excluding the mass extinctions, the normal extinction rate is about 1 species every year for every million species on the planet. This is of course an estimation, since we do not know every species on the planet. The problem is that recently (in the past few hundred decades, say, since the start of what we would call "civilization"), extinction rates have skyrocketed (I could not find an actual number here, I apologize. However, everything I've read agrees with this). I believe most of the causes of this increase can be quite easily traced back to human activity. So no, humans have never been the only thing causing extinctions. From what we can see, though, humans are very likely behind the start of this most recent bunch of mass extinctions.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[sexconker]

You're a retard.
We are not significantly altering our environment. There's pretty much the same amount or land sea and air, the temperatures are pretty much the same, volcanic and seismic activity happens at pretty stable rate, we're just as likely to get hit by a comet.

If we were able to significantly alter the environment we wouldn't have wildfires in California every year. Old people in Florida wouldn't be whisked away by hurricanes. Volcanoes wouldn't halt air traffic in Europe.

You're a typical myopic fuck who thinks only on the small scale. Building a city is not fundamentally altering the environment any more than a a bear taking a shit in the woods.

Climatology? You mean the fucks said "The Earth will freeze! No, boil! No freeze! No, neither! No, just give us money!"?

Physics? You mean an area of actual science that has no official opinion on hugging whales, fucking trees, what have you, because it's a SCIENCE, and not a hippie love-in or political swamp?

Biology? You mean that field of science that says life adapts and changes and that CHANGE has gotten us to where we are now? You think they're advocating for STOPPING the phenomena that got us here?

Game theory? So you really DO think you're entitled to an environment to host yourself. Protip: Even if the Universe were a game, you're a pawn, not a Player.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[sexconker]

A risk I am more than willing to take. I even smoked for years! I also drink. Life is short, have fun.

Yeah, yours will be.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Where do you come from? I'm pretty sure based on your answer its not Japan, Italy, New York, LA, Hawaii, Seattle, or Miami. Tuna is delicious ( when not served out of a can). Mayo is *not* welcome on my Tuna steaks or sushi.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[matfud]

Well said, Humans are renowned for not acting on facts let alone logically. Logic requires correct apriori information which I think the GP was lacking. And most people would bias acts based on logic with personal feelings anyway.

As for facts. well then you get into the whole scientific debate that seems to be going on (evolution/ID). Most facts are not totally provable and never can be; but they are pretty damn close to the observations that exist.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Dolphinzilla]

the more likely outcome is that the Tuna population will do better because the fisherman will quit fishing and go after damages from BP instead

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

If I could edit that, I would. I didn't mean to be so dismissive of your tuna related ignorance. If you take offence, I apologize. While at the same time, you might as well consider broadening your horizons as well. Bluefin is so widely demanded, that its on the verge of being fished to extinction. I assure you, none of it ends up in a can.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[morari]

Not trolling here, but since when is its mankind's responsibility to save every variety of every species of animal on the planet?

It probably started when we began to personally and directly drive species into extinction, while allowing our own population to explode and grow fettered and unnaturally.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Greyfox]

Because they are tasty and delicious and I'll be sorely pissed off if I can't eat any more of them. As if the devastation of the gulf coast oyster industries won't be bad enough...

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[elrous0]

Ditto. But I do share the Japanese love of robots. Rape porn and hentai, not so much.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[elrous0]

Poetic justice, that. Think of it as payback to the Brits for burning our White House in 1814.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, we've simply reordered natural selection according to taste. ;p

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[NeutronCowboy]

Ignorance on display is always a sad spectacle. Especially since ignorance tends to be so loud. Bonus points for the cussing.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[matfud]

To be honest though we don't know a huge amount about the species extictions going on until humanity realises that a species exists (deforestation and changing climate). Then it seems we do try to make that species extinct (fishing for example). If they are edible or in the way then they die in vast numbers.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[matfud]

Sorry to reply to my self but I should clear that up a bit.
We kill off lots of species unintentionaly by our actions. Tastey or got in the way. We know those species. However there are many we don't know and never will because we never got to find them before we killed them all or they became extinct for other reasons.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Dahamma]

Ten thousand years ago or so, various species of wolf out-competed the Dire Wolf and drove that animal to extinction.

And yet another straw man/unproven argument on this topic...

First, Dire Wolves died out 10,000 years ago, so any explanation for their extinction is speculation.

Second, humans migrated to the Americas at LEAST 15,000 years ago (possibly more). So you could just as easily argue that humans were the cause.

Third, the most common hypothesis (which is still largely guesswork) about their extinction is that the it was for the same reasons much of the other megafauna of the Americas died out - the leading ones being climate changes - and possibly human hunting - causing extinction of the prey megafauna, leaving their natural predators with nothing left to survive on.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[catmistake]

You've obviously never tried the bluefin. Seriously, it's unfuckingbelievable.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Bing Tsher E]

That aside, why is it that a corporation like bp can wipe out an entire ecosystem and destroy a species that so many depend on for making a living?

It almost sounds to me like you're defending the people who've overfished the blue-fin to near the point of extinction. Poor, poor fishermen. They were only doing what comes natural to them, and it's horrible that BP may have given the final little nudge. Their way of live (driving the blue-fin to near extinction) is at risk.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Sir_Lewk]

Yours will be too. Nobody lives forever (yet) and as you near the end of your life you too will eventually realize just how short life really is.

And really, tuna isn't going to negatively impact your life expectancy in any meaningful way...

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[adolf]

Cool.

So it's really not about saving the Bluefin Tuna after all, but about preserving existing diversity so we humans can continue to thrive within it in ways that we're already familiar with.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Mr Bubble]

It is in our own interest to save the species. Seems odd that that would have to be explained. Besides, we poisoned the ocean out of carelessness and greed. Yes, we should worry that we may have endangered a magnificent species that can help us survive and help the oceans be healthy. Again, it is really weird having to explain such a basic fact.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[TheMidnightHobo]

That is true, and is an excellent reason for us to watch ourselves carefully, and maybe listen to ecologists more closely when they predict the outcomes of our actions. We have no idea of the full ramifications of what we do, though what we CAN see does not bode well for what we cannot.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as if these tuna were about to go extinct on their own, and now there is a huge campaign to save them. We are responsible, and not to the tuna but to the people whose livelihood depends on them, and to the people like me who find them delicious.

You want the bluefin tuna to stick around and not go extinct?

Then the people whose livelihood depends on bluefin tuna need to catch fewer bluefin tuna, perhaps even stop catching bluefin tuna altogether for a good long while. And the people like you who find bluefin tuna delicious need to stop eating bluefin tuna and stop paying the frankly retarded amounts of money for bluefin tuna that induce the aforementioned fishermen people to continue catching bluefin tuna.

Frankly the way things are right now I do not see either of you, fishermen or eaters, stopping or curtailing your behavior voluntarily. I doubt government will do much to intervene to stop or curtail your behavior either. So stopping your behavior will be up to the bluefin tuna who will eventually stop your behavior by going extinct.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[dontbgay]

Your post makes it seem like you have a problem with that. You're welcome to go elsewhere and do otherwise while we try to continue our species. We may be doing it wrong, but self-preservation is a pretty strong instinct. Personally, I think it's a good idea to try to save as much diversity as possible.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well smoked tuna can be nice, but to drink tuna!?!

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Yoozer]

There is zero logical reason for humans to actively "protect" the environment.

There is also zero logical reason for humans to shit where they eat. Yet that's exactly what we're doing here.

Building a city is not fundamentally altering the environment any more than a a bear taking a shit in the woods.

Correct. However, the people in the city need water and food - try cutting of NYC's water supply for a week and you'll need to be Snake Plissken if you want to go in there and return. You'll have to create farmland, and for water, you have to divert a river or pump an aquifer dry. So, that one city impacts a way bigger swath of land and resources than you propose. Of course, you knew this already and I'm not telling you anything new, but it'd have helped your argument if you included this.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Pseudonym]

Huge swaths of species went extinct long before man even came along, and so it seems pretty clear that it's part of the natural order. So are we now supposed to completely stop that natural process out of some sense of guilt (because we have arrogantly decided that we're not part of the natural order)?

The thing about extinction events is that species often go extinct together. The biosphere is so interconnected that the extinction of one species may trigger a huge cascade of other extinctions. Given the number of species on the planet and the complex net of dependencies and interactions between them, it's often not obvious what those trigger species are until it's too late.

You're right that we are indeed part of the natural order. There is nothing about h. sapiens that's special, and that's precisely the problem: if we accidentally kill off a trigger species that eventually results in our extinction, Mother Nature won't give a damn.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Pseudonym]

We are not significantly altering our environment. There's pretty much the same amount or land sea and air, the temperatures are pretty much the same, volcanic and seismic activity happens at pretty stable rate, we're just as likely to get hit by a comet.

First off, temperatures are not pretty much the same. Where have you been?

Secondly, as one counter-example, there's some evidence that cities are more like to be badly flooded than they once were because of our fetish for paving. Water soaks through soil, but apparently not through bitumen and concrete, so heavy rains tend to mean that water disappears only as fast as our human-made drainage systems can cope, which is often not as fast as a patch of grassland.

Not that a heavy rain is likely to be what finishes us off, of course, but this is just an illustration.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[SecondHand]

Yes, species have disappeared in the past, too. Only, this time, the pace of extinction is a 1000x faster. Don't know what that will lead to.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[jandersen]

... since when is its mankind's responsibility to save every variety of every species of animal on the planet? I know that we have been responsible for the extinction of many species, but does that now make us responsible for stopping extinction altogether?

As far as I can see, we have taken on that responsibility; if you want to be religious about it, the myths of the Christian religion say pretty explicitly that God set us to rule over all the other animals. And so on.

But from a more enlightened point of view, I think it follows thus: We have the power to cause extinctions - and we have done so for a long time, millennia, even, which is why most industrialised nations don't have much in the way of large fauna. We now also have the insight to avoid it, which is a good thing, because every time we kill off yet another species, we are in effect removing another stone in the foundation that we have built our existence on; one day it will be one stone too many, and then it will be too late to do anything about it.

So it is our responsibility to save as many species as possible; not out of bad conscience or romantic ideals, but in order to avoid an extinction event that will involve us in a very tangible way. You may not realise this, but we have already removed so many fish from the oceans, that fishing industries all over the world are having trouble catching enough to make it worthwhile - that ought to give us pause for thought, I think. Big problems are a lot closer than most of us imagine. We can do something about it - and therefore we have the responsibility to do so.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[JosKarith]

Maybe, but we eat the tuna so it's important.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[adolf]

You've got it all wrong.

I like tuna. It's delicious.

I'd rather be dead due to a global lack biodiversity, than live in a world wherein I cannot consume tuna.

In conclusion: Give me tuna, or give me death.

That is all.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[AlterEager]

Think of it as payback to the Brits for burning our White House in 1814.

BP (not British Petroleum, BP is the result of a merger between British Petroleum and Amoco) is 39% American owned (40% British).

BP employs 29,000 people in the states and about 10,000 in the UK.

Who pays the payback?

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[mcvos]

Eat albacore tuna. That one is not endangered.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[cparker15]

I accidentally slipped a cocktail of poisons into your drinking water. Does that now make me responsible for (preventing) your death?

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[sexconker]

Beavers impact the environment in exactly the same way.

That's not a fundamental change. You're thinking on such a small scale. The environment covers the entire globe. Moving stuff around isn't a fundamental change.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[sexconker]

Temperatures have been pretty stable for, oh, I don't know, all of human history.

If you're one of the dipshits crying "Oh no it's a few degrees colder / warmer!", then you simply don't understand anything about the Earth's history.

Rain destroying a city? Who gives a shit? This does not proves by any measure that man has the ability to fundamentally alter the environment.

Hell - the biggest thing we've done is that oil leak that's going on right now. It's the equivalent of popping a zit on the Earth's ass.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[shiftless]

You're a typical myopic fuck who thinks only on the small scale. Building a city is not fundamentally altering the environment any more than a a bear taking a shit in the woods.

So what effect would you say the Gulf Oil Spill has had, or will have on the environment and on the Gulf ecosystem? you typical myopic fuck?

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[sexconker]

Wrong.
It was change that got us here.
It will be change that gets us further.

Whether or not you choose to refer to the results of that change as "human" is irrelevant.

I for one would welcome a mutation that allows me to breathe under water.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sarcasm aside, why is this a bad thing? I'm sick of all you Slashdot folks talking about how the death of humanity is welcomed. How about you go and die, the rest of us can live happily.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[sexconker]

It's the equivalent of popping a zit on the Earth's ass.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, since we don't know exactly what the optimal amount of diversity for a given ecosystem is, claiming, generally, that diversity is good and so extinction is bad is pretty disingenuous. For all we know, a given ecosystem may actually need a particular species to die out so that the rest of the ecosystem may maintain equilibrium.

I think there is one species that fits this description and it is us. We are artificially knocking our environment out of equilibrium, and statements like this only reinforce the idea that people have to "die off". Whether this is physically or we change our behaviour in such a way that we are no longer the same people we used to be.

Your statement encapsulates the arrogance with which humans behave. "Who cares if we cause species to go extinct, who's to say that's a bad thing?" It's not a bad thing until it is, then the debate stops and we're royally fucked.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

RAID of fish...

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Deosyne]

You shush. Save it for after we've completed the invasion.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Deosyne]

That shredded shit in a can is to tuna what cockroaches are to lobsters. Do yourself a favor a go to a decent sushi restaurant (not in a mall, strip or otherwise) and order some yellowfin sashimi and a tuna roll. THAT is how good tuna is served.

Sorry if that came off harsh in any way other than to canned tuna, as it's not my intent to dog you personally. I just grew up on that stuff and never realized what I was missing out on and figure you're in the same boat.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Deosyne]

You should detail that out and publish it as, "The Flavors of the Species."

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Deosyne]

You're not taking into account the observer effect. Unlike all other species (as far as I am aware) humans are the only creatures to have conscious awareness of concepts such as evolution and biological diversity. Therefore, by definition we are no longer blindly subject to it, and in fact have not been for a long time. Even though we did not have these concepts defined as part of the common vernacular throughout most of human existence, we have made conscious decisions to guide evolutionary change by implementing selective breeding programs of animals and plants and by developing adaptive environments for climates that nature failed to otherwise equip us.

By taking the observer effect into account, the recognition of the importance of biological diversity to our quality of life is, in itself, an evolutionary trait of the species. It has grown from a kernel in early agrarian societies where the seed from more robust crops were favored for planting to the modern day, where we actively study and recognize evolutionary factors at the genetic level. We have superceded the lower levels of Maslow's heirarchy of needs, where most life still dwells, and have introduced creature comforts and emotional satisfaction as factors that are considered for "fitness." Therefore, the desire to have delicious bluefin tuna available for consumption, the guilt over having a role in events that directly threaten the existence of other species, and the satisfaction derived from moral relativism are all evolutionary "fitness" factors that are unique to humanity. Should a catastrophic event occur that wipes out all technology and strikes us all retarded then our evolution will once again be driven almost solely by the only factors that you associate with "fitness," but until then we're pretty much well beyond those concerns.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you've come full circle on the original question. I think everyone agrees that extinctions are a bad thing. I read his question more like, "do we have to go to the ends of the earth to bring every doomed species back from the brink".

Does this particular species play a major role in the ecosystem, or is it a tiny, relatively unimportant role that will be filled by another species, like many millions that came before?

Maybe that's what we're really debating here? As schoolchildren we're taught that every species has a massive, irreplaceable role in the ecosystem. That sudden doom will befall mankind if such-and-such species were removed from the food chain. But is that true? Again, I think we're agreed that biodiversity is important, but it also seems that everything went on pretty smoothly after the last dodo died... or no?

Just a thought that I never really see people bring up... a bit too close to heresy to talk about maybe.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[adolf]

Dear AC,

I think you misinterpreted my sarcasm.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Pseudonym]

If you're one of the dipshits crying "Oh no it's a few degrees colder / warmer!", then you simply don't understand anything about the Earth's history.

Nah, I'm just someone who knows enough about climate science not to be affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're including the striped bass here, I see...

Re:Rectifying interference with more interference?

[gronofer]

Not trolling here, but since when is its mankind's responsibility to save every variety of every species of animal on the planet? I know that we have been responsible for the extinction of many species, but does that now make us responsible for stopping extinction altogether? Huge swaths of species went extinct long before man even came along, and so it seems pretty clear that it's part of the natural order. So are we now supposed to completely stop that natural process out of some sense of guilt (because we have arrogantly decided that we're not part of the natural order)?

I'm not saying we should just go out an hunt every species we feel like to extinction, or poison the water whenever we feel like it. That would be neither responsible nor wise. But I am saying that it's not our responsibility to save every species in the world that happens to exist now, not our place to end "extinction" itself as a process.

Because it's a favourite food fish? If humanity can't even be bothered protecting that, what hope is there for any other living thing on the planet?

Corporation reserves the right to end species

[Apocryphos]

Bluefin just catchin the blow-by. No immediate consequences for destroying species.. maybe we'll learn to enforce preservation of life soon, or maybe we'll just capitalize ourselves out of the water too.

Don't see

[SnarfQuest]

I'm sorry, I just can't see a can of tuna eating my brains. I guess tuna in the can sorta looks like brains.

Title?

[Ltap]

While it is a serious issue, I'll give Slashdot readers enough credit to actually read this story based on its importance, rather than an exaggerated, attention-grabbing title.

So which BP exec do I go make my claim too?

[h4rr4r]

So which BP exec is going to pay for this?

It is was already bad enough that I only eat them once a year or less since the damn Japanese eat them all, but now you bastards are going to extinct the best fish. BP execs should be ground up and used as tuna feed on pacific blue fin farms.

Fuck you BP.

Re:So which BP exec do I go make my claim too?

[lowrydr310]

Aw crap, it's time to start eating the next tasty endangered species: Dolphins and Whales.

Re:So which BP exec do I go make my claim too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had whale, and tasty is not the word I'd use. It's like steak, only... musky? Ever smelled a whale tank at an aquarium? Marinate a steak in it and you've essentially got whale meat.

Ummm, no

[$RANDOMLUSER]

When a single bluefin tuna can bring $75,000 at market, it's not Deepwater Horizon, no matter how horrific, that's causing bluefin tuna to go extinct.

Re:Ummm, no

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The fact that Bluefin are valuable has been responsible for the 80%-90% reduction in numbers; but also for the fact that people get real touchy about anything that threatens the last 10% or so.

The trouble here is that Bluefin like to go to the Gulf to spawn. If the delightful mixture of hydrocarbons and toxicologically troublesome dispersants turns out to poison eggs, sperm, or tiny juvenile fish, you could easily get an ecological impact equivalent to massive harvesting of the adult population; but without even the compensatory sushi.

Re:Ummm, no

[spun]

How do you know that the dispersants don't taste like ponzu sauce? Because that would be awesome. Except for the cancer.

Re:Ummm, no

[treeves]

Seems like your cause and effect are a bit mixed up here. Since when do high prices, in and of themselves, cause people to buy things?

Re:Ummm, no

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Other way around. High prices reflect scarcity and demand.

Re:Ummm, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop making fucking excuses. Tuna is going extinct because of *people* *eating* *it*. It's that bloody simple.

90% reduction in number is a catastrophic population collapse warranting that population to be put in CITES Appendix I, banning all international trade. But, alas, that cannot happen with tuna now, can it? Most Japanese are oblivious to what their sushi dish is doing to tuna population. But whatever is happening will continue.

Here's an article from one "biased" but accurate source,
        http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/bluefin-tuna-cites-19032010/

Read this from what happened in Canada,
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2580733.stm

Same thing happening for tuna. And now you have the gull to blame BP over this? Total bullshit.

Re:Ummm, no

[jmv]

Then again, it could also save the specie. If we're lucky enough, there'll be just enough oil to give a bad taste (and/or to exceed the safe concentration for humans), but not enough to kill the tuna population.

Re:Ummm, no

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Obviously fishing gets the bulk of the blame.

That doesn't change the fact, though, that a major toxic release near the spawning grounds is very likely to have an effect on the population equivalent to a huge amount of fishing. A mass kill of sexually mature adults and their gametes or early-stage juveniles is about the most efficient way of hitting a population good and hard.

Even without the BP spill, we'd probably still be hunting them to extinction, one adult at a time; but this could accelerate the decline substantially.

Re:Ummm, no

[ladadadada]

He didn't say "high prices", he said "valuable". He also didn't say "buy things", he said "80%-90% reduction in numbers"

The high value causes more fishermen to go out and hunt the Bluefin Tuna and attempt to sell them for high prices at the market. The prices go up because the demand exceeds the supply. The high prices cause the perceived value to go up and even more fishermen decide that Bluefin Tuna are the best choice of fish for them to catch. If the price goes high enough, some of the Bluefin Tuna won't be sold and will simply go to waste, but that still contributes to the 80%-90% reduction in numbers even though nobody bought anything.

Any misjudgements about the levels of supply and demand end up with dead fish and poor fishermen.

The supply and demand dynamics are circular so it's very easy to get confused about cause and effect when the effect is, in turn, the cause of the original cause.

Re:Ummm, no

[treeves]

If the demand exceeds the supply, then there shouldn't be much going unsold, except that caused by inefficiency in getting the product to the customer combined with short shelf life, and it still sounds to me like the high prices induce fishermen to go after them. The 'valuable' is reflected in the high price as it should be, so what's the distinction? If the tuna is priced high, fishermen are not going to go out and catch them and then NOT try their best to sell them, and if they're going unsold, it will cause pressure to reduce the price, and induce the fishermen to not fish for them.

When they came for the bluefin I said nothing...

[vm146j2]

Because on /. nobody can tell that you're Deep Sea Frilled Shark , and when they finally found out, I was gone.

Movies vs. Real life

[NetServices]

The living dead are cool in the movies, not in real life. Lets hope they get this cleaned up quickly

Re:Movies vs. Real life

[miller701]

My son and I were watching Godzilla vs. Hedora (aka the smog monster) last night. He didn't ask about it so I brought up the Gulf oil spill. No there won't be a giant monster (thank goodness because there's no real Godzilla to fight him for us). Later on I thought to myself, in a way the effect is the same, places get ruined, things die, and we did it to ourselves..

"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

before any of you free market lunatics blurt out anything, BP vouched for the viability of the oil well operation by a PRIVATE report they prepared, and government has approved. perfectly 'private sector' style, 'free market'ish.

just like how PRIVATE companies which were doing business with wall street, vouched for and 'regulated' wall street.

this makes two, just in the span of 1.5 years. if there are still morons who can say 'free market regulates itself', it means they need to be 'regulated' with a thick stick.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I really have to agree with this sentiment. Both of these are Tragedy of the Commons events, where single individuals (corporations) are overexploiting all of us, consequences be damned. Unfortunately, we've built a system where corporations have no responsibilities to anything or anyone beyond their own profit motive.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[roman_mir]

Right, your government overlords have done a great job there at MMS 'regulating' the underpants, gifts, money, hookers and crack off the toaster ovens.

I am a Free Market 'lunatic' by your definition, but my definition of the Free Market includes the government, which does the job of suing the shit out of violators, punishing for any criminal offenses, doing the work that it is supposed to do: punishing the guilty.

Take the BP's money, take the BP management's money, put BP management to prison, put MMS workers to prison.

Take all BP money and use it not to fix the problem and as reparations and as an incentive for other companies to behave.

Government knows jack shit about anything in any actual real business. Government does not understand economy or leaky pipes. Government should do one thing and excel at it: punish the guilty severely. Everything else government will butcher and put an impossible price tag on.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

before any of you anti-free market lunatics blurt out anything, "free market" is different from "anarchy". In "free market", barrier to entry into the market is made as low as possible. In "anarchy", there are no rules. There's a difference, here - but are you smart enough to understand it?

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Mex]

Aren't they "sort of" regulating themselves, tho? Didn't a lot of Wall Street types go broke, and a bunch of companies disappear?

The problem is that this self-regulation is not exactly the one we'd hope for... they'll fuck up the world before they're gone.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

are you smart enough to understand that its not about 'entry', but what they do AFTER they enter the market ? seems not.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

no good punishing anyone does, after an entire ocean and god knows what percentage of global ecosystem is fucked. what is needed is prevention.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[asc99c]

Why is everyone so fixated on BP's management and failings, when they were just leasing a rig owned and operated by Transocean? Yes, the fact they were getting the profits from the rig means they have a duty to pay the costs of the disaster, and they are doing so with very little complaint. But sending BP's management to prison? It seems like Transocean were the offshore drilling experts, and hadn't made any complaints that BP were asking them to act recklessly in any aspects of the rig operation. I think BP should continue paying for the clearup, but I don't see any evidence that they were criminally negligent.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[roman_mir]

the only single way to stop such incidents in the future from happening is to punish, punish, punish and punish more and punish severely for any transgressions.

without punishment that is severe swift and strong there are no incentives for anyone to do the job right, this includes the regulators who are also people and will also corrupt the process.

i am against any and all regulations at all, there is not a single regulation i am for. there is only one thing that governments need to do: punish.

There is no regulation that government can come up with to stop all players in all industries from doing some new form of butchery. government does not have man power, money and it does not want to regulate.

regulation = work. regulation = less money for the government.

regulation = corruption.

the only way to achieve balance between the public and the private corporate sector is through severe and swift consequences.

give me the permission and a gun and i will personally execute every single person responsible for this disaster, i promise not to stop for a lunch break either. i will shoot in the head twice always.

this would really put some fear into the rest of the bunch and make them actually do more work on preventing and fixing disasters that destroy public resources, such as the ocean (and eventually the food supplies and the air)

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Trip6]

Mod parent up. I love how the right is blaming Obama for this, when years of cozy relationships between Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, the oil companies, and OPEC have served to dismantle any sense of control and regulation over these greedy fucks. Drill, baby, drill!

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason that punishment won't work as a deterrent is that corporations are fundamentally sociopathic and lack a sense of fear. As institutions they will take risks that individuals don't ... and in some cases the individuals will take risks too.

Let's put it this way. The penalty for playing Russian Roulette and getting unlucky is death. If I offer someone a million dollars to pull the trigger, though, plenty of people will do it. You think threatening to punish corporations which get unlucky when they take risks, AND unlucky enough to get caught, is going to stop the problem?

You could send every last director of BP to a concentration camp, and after the shock wore off, corporations would start to take increasing risks until someone rolled a 1. You don't even need to explicitly put risk-addicted sociopaths in control. It's enough that the upper layers reward people in the lower layers who get results by cutting corners.

This is why we must have oversight and regulations in addition to effective punishment. What we need is enough citizen participation in the governmental process to reverse and then guard against regulatory capture. When a bunch of angry citizens start hammering their congresscritters to fire the foxes from hen-house watch duty, things change for the better.

People keep pointing this problem out to you, and you keep continuing in your assumption that you can come up with some magic set of rules that will allow the system to function on its own, without people like you and me getting their hands dirty. It doesn't work like that, because people are smarter than systems of rules.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[h4rr4r]

Educate yourself. BP management had transocean do things in non normal ways to cut corners and reduce the time to production.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

punishment doesnt work. punishment never worked. back in 1560, penalty for smuggling, trading with non royal companies in spanish main was death, yet, everyone smuggled.

the punishment for numerous corporate crimes is death in china, yet still many ceos are committing those crimes.

punishment doesnt work. its stupid to punish something, after a crime is committed.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

they arent regulating themselves at all. noone went broke, because the dividends and bonuses were already distributed. any company that is bankrupt now, will be founded under a new name by the perpetrators, to repeat the cycle again.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

transocean, bp doesnt matter. its about corporations NOT regulating themselves here.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[roman_mir]

Punishment does not work if it is not done correctly. Punish the management and it will work.

More importantly than that, in life people may not necessarily pay attention to possibility of punishment because they may believe they will get away with murder or anything else.

But in a large company, with MANY people working there, if the blame for the problem can be assigned to more than one person and everybody is aware of the possible consequences punishment will work.

It will work because in case of a company it concerns not a single individual but many people.

Probably one of the most important steps in punishment though is confiscation of all money and property. This must be part of the punishment to severe forms of crime like the one BP, Transocean and Halliburton have committed here.

oh, and shooting in the head is not optional.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

>if there are still morons who can say 'free market regulates itself', it means they need to be 'regulated' with a thick stick.

Except that your stick has been mandated and regulated into a toothpick. While my FreeMarket Stick is still large and powerful. So bring it on, bitch. Meanwhile, I'm going to go build an even bigger stick just because I can.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[roman_mir]

You are wrong, in case of corporations punishment is a much better deterrent than in case of any single individual.

It is highly unlikely that all parties that can bear part of the blame in case things will go wrong will take very cavalier attitudes towards their responsibilities.

when it is one person committing a violent act, murder or burglary or whatever, then it is only one person that needs to step over the line.

In case of a corporation many people need to step over that line.

If punishment involved actual confiscation of money and property as well as prison time and possibly dis-assembly of the corporation, then punishment on that scale would generate enough 'common sense' in a corporation. Many people don't want to lose everything, money and power and freedoms and lives.

People working in corporations are not actually that immoral, they just feel that they are part of the machine. If the rules changed, and the machine could not protect them and they did not feel that the machine would protect them, they would not be as cavalier about their responsibilities as they are now.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Scatterplot]

But who decides who is guilty? If the government is in charge of punishment, surely they would need to know who to punish, which would mean that they'd need to understand the crimes. If the government doesn't understand business or oil spills, how are they supposed to figure out who to blame? The local BP owner down the street shouldn't be punished, but who gets to draw the line here?

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[roman_mir]

The government does not understand business of oil drilling or business of food preparation or business of doing eye laser surgery or business of car manufacturing or business of ore extraction or business of pan making.

Government can understand damage to health of people, amage to environment on public property as related to barrels of oil spilled.

It is possible to say what kind of damage was done, in fact it is even possible to put a dollar amount on it.

Example: how much money does it take to grow as much fish doing it by human hand as will is dying in the Gulf right now? How much money would it cost to produce as much oxygen and put it into the air as was done by plankton in the Gulf?

Those are measurable, answerable questions.

When BP management insists on not doing proper tests, when BP and Transocean management decides not to repair the Blowout preventer, when BP and Transocean and Halliburton do not cement the drilling shaft correctly, those are measurable answerable accusations to bring forward against the management ladder and any individuals involved. It is even possible to accuse people of doing the wrong thing by association with the wrongdoers and by not preventing the wrong things from happening. Anybody on the director's board, in the management ladder associated with this particular project must be brought to justice. This has nothing to do with any separate BP gas station.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since your ass seems to be smarter than you, I'll address this to your posterior.

Dear Ass,

At least they went through the motions. As you might know, the alternative to private companies is public ownership. And that would solve all problems ... or would it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

All public managed endeavors with spotless results (by spotless, I mean entirely black, no spots).

You see, at least with private there is (theoretically) an independent body (government) that makes rules and enforces them. A government owned and run operation reports to no-one.

Oh, and using all CAPS doesn't make you an authority. It just means you haven't learned any HTML.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

oh geee. THREE disasters, that happened globally.

do i need to count the number of disasters that private organizations bestowed this planet, ranging from numerous exxon valdezes to poisoning of millions by pfizer production plants in india ? or, would you like my ass to do it for you ?

moron.

the aim of regulations is not to ELIMINATE disasters. since everyone is human, there WILL be mistakes and mishaps. its aim is to MINIMIZE disasters and wrongdoing.

you know, like the SCAM that wall street perpetrated by pedding hedge funds and engaging in default credit swaps, over NONEXISTENT MONEY. leave aside what madoff did.

go fuck off back to 1950s. you would fit in only there.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because some people seem to be stuck in the habit of only voting for either Lizard Party A or Lizard Party B (because otherwise the one they dislike more might win!), doesn't mean that a government is by definition incapable of running things efficiently.

There are plenty of examples of government-controlled services which are effective and efficient, if perhaps not in your own country.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama must be pretty ineffectual if 'Bush/Cheney/Halliburton' are still the main force behind government policy after eighteen months...

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[roman_mir]

Government is not in any business.

Unless your political system excludes capitalism as the form of economy and excludes private enterprise then there is no reason expect government to be able to compete in such activities.

Government running businesses will end up as government running businesses as inefficiently as possible. 'Businesses' ran by government will end up with the worst people, they will end up subsidized by taxes or by printed/borrowed money. Those businesses will stagnate and no matter what happens in the industry they will continue be ran because of the government unions.

Basically a government can take over and then kill any business they like, but this will not end up being efficient. Government can change laws and print money or increase taxes in order to kill or forbid competition to their 'businesses'.

When there is no competition, what exactly is the incentive to be efficient? There is none. Government businesses will all die in the long term when the government gets destroyed by the policies it creates that end up ruining the economy.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[asc99c]

Which things and how? I can't find any answers and I'm really interested in what went wrong here. I had a bit of an investigation online - I even found a useful article and discussion here which appears to have a number of knowledgeable people:

http://www.drillingahead.com/forum/topics/transocean-deepwater-horizon-1

But still nothing really clearcut. A lot of interesting titbits on the BOP, and how that might have failed. It's worth a read if you're interested.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[ladadadada]

There's something wrong with your maths:

regulation = work. regulation = less money for the government. regulation = corruption.

Therefore:

corruption = less money for the government.

and

work = corruption

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[sesshomaru]

You know, every Chicago School stalwart needs to watch the episode of the Simpsons with the Monorail. Lyle Langley is the epitome of the modern capitalist, sad to say.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Just Another Poster]

oh geee. THREE disasters, that happened globally.

Merely three examples, out of countless ones.

do i need to count the number of disasters that private organizations bestowed this planet, ranging from numerous exxon valdezes to poisoning of millions by pfizer production plants in india ?

Not nearly as many as socialism has produced.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

yeah countless ones. bring me those countless ones. i have approx 10 oil disasters by private corporations flat out of my head. lets see how many global countless disasters of GOVERNMENT entities you are going to bring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disasters

oh gee. dominated to the fullest by PRIVATE corporations ? i wonder why ...

moron. you alan greenspanists are far worse than radical islamists to discuss with.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't bother to read the link you gave, did you? Most of the list consists of government screw ups. Let's start running down the list:

Government encouraged settlement
Government dams and irrigation projects
Govenment encouraged settlement
Mao's Great leap forward
university bee research
Aral sea water diversion by government
Dirty Dairy - Hey finally, a privately caused problem.
Hedgerow removal - Hey, a second!

So that's what, 6 to 2? And the two are dairy and hedgerows? Pitiful. Shall we do the whole list? You realize all the nuclear accidents listed are government, right?

You might not realize it, but quite a few of the corporations listed aren't private, they are government owned. As for your oil disasters, how many were from government owned enterprises? My quick research shows at least half.

Do you realize for your last sentence you argued against yourself? The alternative to private is government. Yet Alan Greenspan was a government appointment and overseer of a federally chartered organization. So private is bad and government is ....?

Grow up. Seriously. You sound like a little kid who heard someone give a talk, but hasn't had a thought of their own. Private companies aren't evil. Government isn't evil. Both are made up of people and people are inclined to screw up. At least private companies have to answer to government. Governments answer to no one.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Just Another Poster]

The Soviet government routinely dumped fresh high level radioactive waste directly into runoff drains, rivers and harbors. Entire towns and villages were literally removed from the map after chemical or nuclear incidents. In the United States, it's the Federal government that's the largest polluter, contaminating more sites, with greater cleanup costs than sites contaminated by private industry.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

ooooh. great logic there. first example is a totalitarian autocratic state that declared its first and only priority to beat the west in arms and space race in 1960s and justified doing EVERYthing for that end, including leaving its citizens desolate poor, the second, is an article by a private corporation that has been owned by numerous conglomerates, not surprisingly attacking government in regard to environment. actually you could do better - if you had went about any mouthpiece owned by fox, you could find even more 'studies' bashing the government and beautifying private institutions. private institutions, and corporations which, do everything in their power to hide their pollution stats and info from public. just looking at how bp is PRIVATELY able to prevent american people's right to know, their right to information and news by hiring private guards to cordon off beaches to prevent journalists from entering, preventing anyone from talking to those who work in cleanup, hiring adwords keywords to spread propaganda to fool the public, dont you think it is outright stupid to come up with a PRIVATE corporation piece accusing government ?

really. its stupid. its so 1950, its so mccarthy, its so alan greenspan, its so OLD. WAKE up.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[Just Another Poster]

Ad-hominem: when you can't refute the source, attack it. No matter that the Boston Globe's source for the story is the government's own surveys and reports.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

i dont even need to discuss this with you. i can debunk/negate a particular source on and on. you can give soviet union and china as examples on and on.

its pointless to debate with you 'free market' fools. you are as zealot and 'believer' like radical islamists. exhibiting the exact behavior patterns in a discussion.

have a nice day. keep believing in a derelict church.

Re:"Businesses can regulate themselves" my ass.

[unity100]

not to mention that, most of the data they are using there are from bush era, the very government which wanted to discredit and minimize government in all respects, being a puppet of the very private interests they put them there. i dont even know what the hell that 1999 dated photo/signature does at the top of the pdf. not to mention too, that the majority of the polluting part of the government is department of defense, which is basically the part of government which does everything through private companies. and maintains, well, doh, an ARMY.

in any eventuality, a shitty article compiled from data from an anti-government administration period, appearing in a private mouthpiece editorial does not defend your argument.

governments of sweden, denmark, norway, finland, iceland, france, greenland, spain all stand there, with the very pro-government, pro-regulation, outright socialist past in the 60 years of their near political past, and the positive effect they had in minimizing private horrors as compared to 'fuck me badd' us corporatism.

Re:karma is real

[h4rr4r]

Dude you're not a genius just a nutbag.

There is no Karma this is just greedy assholes being greedy assholes. No amount of you whining and playing hackysack is going to fix it. Only laws against this sort of shit and maybe hanging a few fat rich bankers.

Re:karma is real

[spun]

Perfect storm? It hasn't happened yet, but if Micheal Bay is to be believed, hurricanes will soon be kicking up a flammable mist of oil and igniting it with lightning. Be prepared to face a hurricane of flaming alligators soon.Hehe, xkcd is pretty funny. But you know what isn't funny? Fucking spiritualists on their high horse condescendingly preaching to the rest of us without bothering to find out what we think, making blanket generalizations, and acting generally holier than thou. Nine times out of ten, said fucking spiritualist has their head firmly up their own ass, but you might just be that one in ten who doesn't, so here's a tip on the off chance you aren't a complete fraud: your spiritual practice does not make you better than anyone else. Here's another tip: talking down to your audience alienates them, which causes them to reject what you said no matter how right, meaning you just wasted your time and theirs.

properly cooked tuna... ISN'T cooked

[alexander m]

Here in Tokyo the idea of cooking tuna (except maybe to sear it a bit, 'aburi' style) would be severely frowned upon... ;-)

Re:properly cooked tuna... ISN'T cooked

[h4rr4r]

That is the only proper way to cook it. What sort of heathen would cook it another way?

I myself prefer totally raw, but I figured you may be an american and they often can't deal with that. Not a value judgment just an observation. On the coasts it seems more common.

Re:properly cooked tuna... ISN'T cooked

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post reminded me of Stuff White People Like: Japan.

Maybe you're not white, but I am laughing right now.

“this place is pretty good, but living in Japan really spoiled me. I’ve had such a hard time finding a really authentic place.”

Re:properly cooked tuna... ISN'T cooked

[Darinbob]

I don't like it raw. I can eat it, but it's bland bland bland with an awful texture. But cooked, it's awesome. Same with salmon. Not fond of the seared stuff either, tasty tuna in one layer, squishy goop in the other.

Critical

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, biological diversity isn't just important, it's critical. Not just for "the earth", but for human beings.

Genetic archival?

[Mathinker]

Does anyone try, for example, to archive tissue samples (and/or genomic sequence info?) of interesting species like the bluefin so we might have a chance of "resurrecting" them (at least approximately) after we advance enough in our knowledge of biology?

For such an economically valuable species as the bluefin, I would be surprised if someone wasn't doing this. Anyone have any info?

Re:Genetic archival?

[h4rr4r]

We have them in Aquariums and there are efforts to breed and farm them. I am going to bet those folks have plenty of the samples you want.

Re:Genetic archival?

[IndustrialComplex]

There are efforts, but so far I've only heard of one success in breeding them. From what I understand Tuna is a very hard fish to farm.

Extinctions are a symptom

[sznupi]

(btw, if you link to Permian-Triassic, you might also to this one)

Continuing survival, in decent form, of as many species as possible would be a damn good sign - it would basically mean the environment on which they depend is in moderately good shape; and stable.
Now...we also depend on quality and stability of surroundings. We might be one of the last among the megafauna to get hit, with our high adaptability, but we can get hit eventually, too.

But instead we're in the middle of...a mass extinction, one of most rapid ones in the history of this planet (apparently around 100 times above background level), with quite possibly half of existing species gone by the end of the century...

I don't care much about those species per se, even if they are cute. Causes of their extinction OTOH warrant a closer look and some concern...

Re:When they came for the bluefin I said nothing..

[spun]

Mmmm, deep fried sea shark.

Re:karma is real

[Anonymous Coward]

but in the end you know what the guy says is true, you just suppress it and go "lalalala" because thats something You can't do shit about so it's better for You to ignore it, over your secular high horse.

"What has science done" to stop the oil spill? I would like to ask. Were not talking about religion here

religion=!karma

Re:karma is real

[spun]

Dude you're not a genius just a nutbag.

It's fortunate for me that you believe this.

Only laws against this sort of shit and maybe hanging a few fat rich bankers.

Laws are not effective measures for preventing deeds. The wicked don't follow them and the virtuous don't need to.

What about the vast majority of people who are neither wicked nor particularly virtuous? Nearly every society since the ancient Babylonians have found laws useful. If you have a practical replacement for a system of laws, I'd love to hear it.

Re:karma is real

[spun]

What the guy says is trivial, it amounts to 'causation is real.' Well, duh. As for science, well, every single thing done to stop the spill is a result of science. Last I checked, praying for the spill to end hasn't worked.

Re:karma is real

[Lithdren]

People like you belittle actual issues, and make anyone who feels the preservation of something unique and important to look insane because they 'agree' with you on some level. You're doing nothing more then hurting your own arguments, by trying to link Uranium rounds in Iraq with laser eye surgery and the golf oil spill. Sadly, you start to hurt everyone elses as well.

I don't think that's how karma works...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also pretty sure ravaging the indigenous species of the Gulf of Mexico isn't really karma teaching anyone a lesson; except those species. Unless you mean all those fish were horrible people in past lives and this is karma sorting them out. That would be a good example of karma.

Re:karma is real

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a practical replacement for a system of laws, I'd love to hear it.

Probably it's about everyone becoming highly spiritual and finding the only one truth, blablabla.

Re:karma is real

[ultranova]

Laser eye surgery can correct defects in the organ of the eye, but what technology will correct a defect in your awareness?

Direct high-bandwidth interface between my brains and computer chips, allowing the addition of extra lobes? Reaching first singularity should be a huge improvement. Me wanna...

Karma is real - it is the relationship of causes and effects that ensures that war brings war, death brings death, immorality brings immorality, and ignorance brings ignorance.

So why are the BP executives still living and unharmed, while people who had nothing to do with the whole mess suffer?

And "karma" refers to the Hindu concept where what you do affects you reincarnation (specifically, what you get reincarnated as). What you are talking about - consequences in this life - is called "justice", or would if it actually got inflicted on the guilty party rather than innocents...

Re:When they came for the bluefin I said nothing..

[Anonymous Coward]

With fresh butter. Oh, wait, that's not butter...

Gawd hates shrimp!

[Thud457]

But I like them!

Guess I'll have to develop a taste for oil company executives.

Re:Honeybees

[Anonymous Coward]

Corn and grain are one of the few food crops that would _not_ be affected by the loss of honeybees. Wind-pollinated plants like wheat and corn don't need bees to reproduce. But tomatoes, apples, etc. certainly do need insects for pollination.

overfishing

[Anonymous Coward]

so they wipe out 98% of the species by overfishing it, then get to blame BP for the extinction after the perilous last 2% die off. brilliant tactics guys! let's go our for sushi to celebrate!

Re:karma is real

[Anonymous Coward]

you dost protest too much I thinks. comment hitting a little bit too close to home for your comfort?

aka .. chill the fuck out mother fucker. it's just a post on a website.

Re:karma is real

[ladadadada]

He's right. Laws do not change the way people act in any way whatsoever. Wicked people break the laws and virtuous people already follow them.

A police force/legal system that enforces the laws is required as well.

Then the wicked people get locked up or fined or banned from owning a business or whatever.

Re:karma is real

[spun]

Chill out? Tell that to the fellow who really needs to chill out, aka czarangulus. And his post would have to make more sense in order to hit close to home, as I don't live in crazy-town.

Ok, you went wrong in the first sentence.

[sean.peters]

If bluefin tuna were naturally going extinct, that would be one thing. But we're actually driving them to extinction through overfishing (primarily) and habitat destruction. This is not a matter of trying to save species that nature is killing off. This is an effort to stop actively killing off entire species.

Then there's the fact that bluefin tuna are an extremely valuable commercial item - so making them go extinct is going to have costs beyond pure esthetics.

That's the thing...

[sean.peters]

This article is specifically about bluefin, but if you do more reading, you find out that virtually ALL the large fish in the ocean are being overfished. As an example, the fishing industry on the Grand Banks, once thriving, is now all but gone. The reason? We caught all the fish. And I mean literally, almost every single fish. An area of the ocean that used to be teeming with life, is now an underwater desert. And all the people who used to make a living on the water... the ones that couldn't make the move to another industry are now mostly unemployed. The same thing happened to the Pacific sardine population (think Cannery Row).

There are real economic consequences to our tendency to mine the ocean of fish. And more importantly, no one knows what's going to happen to the ocean ecosystem if we don't stop.

Corn and wheat are wind pollinated

[sean.peters]

... not bee pollinated. But your point stands. And in the case of the bluefin, there's another factor in play - they're rather delicious. So it's to our advantage to keep them around.

Re:karma is real

[Anonymous Coward]

god i love hackysack

Re:karma is real

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another tip: talking down to your audience alienates them, which causes them to reject what you said no matter how right, meaning you just wasted your time and theirs.

lol!

We are.

[happyfeet2000]

Of course were responsible. In the human being social evolution has replaced natural evolution. Things that were instinctive are now done following a thought process. And were interfering with the natural evolution that rules the rest of the animal and vegetal kingdom. Our best thinkers, lets say the representatives of this new process, say we need to intentionally balance nature. So, in doing so, were fulfilling natures new role for us.

oh gee

[unity100]

so you returned to the anonymous posting again.

no. i didnt know aral sea was dried up due to mismanagement. that is why i posted that link to you like a MORON would, so that you could blabber even more. and mao's reengineering projects this and that.

does that seem logical to you ? it probably may, since your mind is not quite of capacity of valid, relational reasoning. therefore, i will tell you - IT IS NOT LOGICAL.

for every single mishap that is in the list that is done by TOTALITARIAN COMMUNIST countries, there are 4 or more PRIVATE disasters. sit down and count. the oil spill disasters themselves up to date number around 10 or more alone. leave aside union carbide india poisoning, monsanto horror, and many others.

ah by the way, you may have noticed the terms in caps above. i put it in caps, in order to correct a stupid brainwashing that was built into you by faux news network, and people like their shill, glenn beck :

USSR, CHINA, VIETNAM WERE COMMUNISTS. NOT 'SOCIALISTS'.

the thing you term and MISUSE, ignorantly, as socialist, is a VERY broad political spectrum, which also includes MANY european countries, including norway, sweden, denmark, finland for the majority of their political history in the last 60 years, and very often france, italy and spain. practically, half of the world aside from united states of privatizationia had been SOCIALIST for the majority of the last 60 years.

in that respect, you appear beyond stupid, bringing up the mismanagements that were done by ussr and china as socialist.

learn the shit you are going to talk about first, instead of ridiculeing yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Ummm....

[Renegade Iconoclast]

Is there a longer proof, written in the margins? What was that, proof by ass-duction?

And so help me pink unicorn, if even one of you asswipes says whoosh.....

I have an idea...

[__aatirs3925]

Throw a ping-pong ball in the ocean and tell me what happens.

how does that clean up BP's mess?

[Anonymous Coward]

dufus