101–110 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related: there’s a new documentary on Netflix called Seaspiracy It has some staggering numbers regarding the amount of by-catch caught every day
I already know it doesn't bring up China's global fishing flotillas, who overfished China so roam the world stripping other coastlines, even protected areas like the Galapagos. One of the top reason for overfishing today. Or does it talk about this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related: there’s a new documentary on Netflix called Seaspiracy It has some staggering numbers regarding the amount of by-catch caught every day
I saw the preview for this last night and on the one hand I want to watch it because I feel that it’s important to know this stuff, but on the other hand I really just want to bury my head in the sand. Over the past year I’ve realized just how much we are killing the planet and how powerless I am so do anything at all about it and it’s depressing me every time I think about it and not in a figurative sense.
So... One individual out of 28 is known to be 400 years old. There is a subadult population bulge. Any way of estimating natural life spans from this? Could be some very, very old sharks out there. I wonder how big the 400yr old one is, relative to max known size.
You’d need to know the probability of death as a function of chronological age. If the probability is constant, you can model the lifespan as an exponential decay - there is no real upper limit, but the population of older individuals is very small. For most animals the probability increases as they age, and becomes very high towards the end of their life, but this is not the case for all animals. https://en.wikipedi…
"(probability) becomes very high towards the end of their life."
This is, ultimately, what we want to know. At what age do they start to die of old age? Oldest living vertebrate is interesting, but I think it's mostly interesting because of what it says about the species?
Is it possible that a large vertebrate doesn't have an old age point, where probability of death is very high?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not powerless - ethical buying, if everybody did that then things would change as companies run on money, so vote with your wallet. Effort to research and may find in some area's it's down to picking the best of a bad choice, but little by little mindsets are changing and you do have the power. Business runs on money - vote with your wallet as that is your power, use it, don't loose it.
>vote with your wallet as that is your power, use it, don't loose it. When you tell people to "vote with your wallet", you are implicitly admitting that people with bigger wallets have more votes. Literally millions of times more, in many cases. Don't vote with your wallet. involve yourself in local government, because legislation is the only way to solve problems like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not powerless - ethical buying, if everybody did that then things would change as companies run on money, so vote with your wallet. Effort to research and may find in some area's it's down to picking the best of a bad choice, but little by little mindsets are changing and you do have the power. Business runs on money - vote with your wallet as that is your power, use it, don't loose it.
>vote with your wallet as that is your power, use it, don't loose it. When you tell people to "vote with your wallet", you are implicitly admitting that people with bigger wallets have more votes. Literally millions of times more, in many cases. Don't vote with your wallet. involve yourself in local government, because legislation is the only way to solve problems like this.
Seeing the world as it is, is a precondition to changing it. You don't have to like it, but you do have to understand it.
In this case I both disagree and agree.
Disagree: Yes, rich people have a lot more money. But they don't eat more food than anyone else. Their threat to not buy certain fish is worth about as much as mine.
Agree: These kind of boycotts rarely accomplish much. The fishing system needs to be reformed away from free for all hunting, and legislation must do that. Iceland and New Zealand has decent systems in place now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most studies tend to look at biomass, either on a single-species or multi-species basis. Humans have displaced over 90% of all terrestrial vertebrate biomass (land animals with a backbone). http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Terrestr... Most of the human + livestock biomass is utterly dependent on Haber-Bosch process derived nitrogen fertiliser, produced via nonrenewable natural gas (methane, a fossi…
What does displaced mean? Why are terrestrial vertebrates preferred in this analysis? Why is the horizontal scale in that chart nonlinear? What is peakoilbarrel.com? The goalposts seem to have shifted from the person I replied to.
If you look at the linked chart, humans have increased net terrestrial biomass, yes, but virtually all of it now exists as just eight species: cattle, pigs, chickens, sheep, horses, goats, cas, and dogs. Variants of the original chart highlight this.
https://www.survival.org.au/images/world-terrestrial-vertebr...
That is:
- Naturally-occurring vertebrate bodymass surviving on sustainable current-process nitrogen fixation has fallen precipitously, by ~99%.
- Net genetic diversity within and among those populations has similarly fallen, possibly below sustainable values for many species. Numerous species have gone extinct, many previously small, some prolific (passenger pigeon).
- A terrestrial vertebrate population of thousands of mammals and tens of thousands of overall species ... is now utterly dominated by about nine species. (The eight livestock/pet classes above, and humans.) A few other human symbiotes (rats, mice, deer) have also likely increased. All are dependent on nonsustainable nitrogen fixation among other nonrenewable or nonsustainable practices and inputs.
- Dense and interlinked populations are breeding grounds for novel trans-species disease, among other hygenic consequences. These affect both humans and livestock. The principle can be extended to plant onocrops as well, from tobacco to trees (in the non /r/trees sense, generally).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>vote with your wallet as that is your power, use it, don't loose it. When you tell people to "vote with your wallet", you are implicitly admitting that people with bigger wallets have more votes. Literally millions of times more, in many cases. Don't vote with your wallet. involve yourself in local government, because legislation is the only way to solve problems like this.
> When you tell people to "vote with your wallet", you are implicitly admitting that people with bigger wallets have more votes. Seeing the world as it is, is a precondition to changing it. You don't have to like it, but you do have to understand it. In this case I both disagree and agree. Disagree: Yes, rich people have a lot more money. But they don't eat more food than anyone else. Their threat to not buy certain…
Otherwise completely agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>vote with your wallet as that is your power, use it, don't loose it. When you tell people to "vote with your wallet", you are implicitly admitting that people with bigger wallets have more votes. Literally millions of times more, in many cases. Don't vote with your wallet. involve yourself in local government, because legislation is the only way to solve problems like this.
Not true for lot of cases. Every time you decide carry your water bottle and not buy a new plastic bottle, Bill Gates isn't buying 1000s of more bottles. For lot of consumables, gap between median and 99th percentile is very low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related: there’s a new documentary on Netflix called Seaspiracy It has some staggering numbers regarding the amount of by-catch caught every day
My first paid job was an internship at a research institute where I had to examine buckets of bycatch and count how many of various species had been caught. I think it was from shrimp fishing and the bycatch was just small fish (1 to 6 inches). For some fish, we would figure out their age by looking at some tiny bone pieces under a microscope and counting rings, similar to tree rings. I have no idea how I ended up in…
