I retract the comment about Einstein, as I had in mind a different matter entirely (namely a consensus of scientists disagreeing with Einstein’s physical theories).
For the rest of your response, I note it is largely self-congratulatory and boot-strapping. Particularly this one:
is simply ridiculous. No one said that accepting anything without clear proof or demonstration has to be science, but I defined the argument rather more narrowly than your simplistic presentation.
As for my problem with your cite and your subsequent handling of it, the matter is clearly explained in my previous post (in addition to others’ similar objections).
Concerning your beef with Carson, it’s yet anpother example of non-scientific thinking:
It tells us very little. Even if all such predictions have been proved false to date, that logically does not say anything about any other predictions.
I read in National geographic that the Black Sea is almost devoid of marine life. So is the Meditterian Sea. So there is a great problem, especially with the population of the Earth rising at a billion people every 15 years or so.
Solutions would be “fish farming” fish in ponds, people turning to vegetarianism, EAT CHICKEN! There are a lot of chickens in the world. Chickens are cheap too.
I suppose he is, but that isn’t in any way misrepresentative or less than legitimate.
As I said, if I were doing a paper on Maoist agriculture, and I found a passage in the Little Red Book pertaining to agriculture, I would quote it under the heading of ‘Historical background’ because that is what it was pertinent to. If Mao disagreed with everything I have to say about the future of Maoist agriculture I would still not be misquoting Mao when I used his words to give an historical grounding for the reader. What Mao thought the future held is irrelevant to the conclusions I want to draw. I might refer to him, but I am certainly not obliged to.
Similarly when drawing on the Nat. Ac. Sci for historical information it is not necessary to also draw on them for other sections.
You have written a Ph. D. thesis. You know this. If you refer to one chapter by one author concerning the history of your field, you aren’t obliged to also refer to him in the discussion. That is not misquoting. It’s perfectly valid and neither you nor I would penalise a student down for doing so. We might make it tough during the defence because he was sloppy enough not to adress a position from a reference he had access to, but only if it was novel and not adressed elsewhere. I think Molly makes it perfectly clear that there are authors who believe DDT should be banned and as such the Nat. Ac. Sci. passages you quoted aren’t particularly relevant and not quoting them certainly isn’t mirepresentation.
Yes “He could have quoted the other parts of the NAS report in the other sections…” but the page listed isn’t a thesis, nor is it a journal article. It’s a reference compilation at best and was never represented as anything more.
Don’t follow. What was misrepresented? What was attributed to the author that the author wouldn’t agree with? If nothing then there is no misrepresentation by any standards I’ve ever read.
Correct me where I’m wrong, but we know that Milloy is wrong because he disagrees with the Nat. Ac. Sci., and we know the Nat. Ac Sci is correct because they outnumber Milloy. Yeah? Or are they correct because they disagree with Milloy?
2)Who said it was well balanced? It’s presenting information which anyone making assertions concerning the validity of Carson’s prediction re: Bird Extinction sold be aware of.
I said quite clearly that my criteria for an extreme prediction is that it involve multi-taxon/multi-trophic level extinctions on a global or continental scale. Do you really want me to prove this applies?
Agreed. I’m not advocating dismissing anything. I don’t think that any study should ever be the last word. However knowledge of past success rates is a valid tool by which to judge the reliability of any current assertion isn’t it? (Just as you are applying to Milloy when you say “I know more of Milloy’s misrepresentations from other subjects”).
Well. No. Not all. Lets try a more valid analogy. There are cases such as Ehrlich/WWF’s claims of 50% extinctions by 1990 or the claims about the Great Barrier Reef vanishing that didn’t come true despite no intervention. The cases where things did change but no extinctions resulted there is no evidence to support the prediction of mass extinctions, as in Carson’s case
The analogy is that every time you’ve seen someone gets into an accident lie that on a motorbike they walk away. No one has ever been observed to die. And yet despite this you tell me if I get into an accident like this I’ll die.
That’s the situation we are dealing with. These predictions have never come true ever, with or without intervention. And yet you claim that in some cases the intervention could have stopped them happening.
Exactly like Homer’s logic. Springfield has never ever had a bear, but Homer claims that in recent times there are no bears because of the patrol.
There is no reason to believe such a prophecy will ever come true, and several reasons to believe they won’t.
Possibly. It’s totally irrelevant. We are discussing the most logical reaction to this claim. I fail to see any relevance in whether claims concerning costs or claims concerning Santa Claus are true or false.
Conceded. And a good point. Though I doubt that any newspaper would print a story on the rising cots of air conditioners very often. It’s just not as scary or newsworthy as mass extinction stories IMO.
OK, substitute “extremist scare tactics” for “lies.
I agree that the various groups pushing their version of the truth acts as a check to the most extremist elements, at least in the US, but extremist scare tactics being used by both sides is hardly our ally in the fight against ignorance is it?
Initially you said that science accepts things by consensus, and then you assert that you never said that accepting anything without clear proof or demonstration has to be science.
I can’t reconcile the two viewpoints. They are mutually exclusive. The definitions aren’t simplistic, they are standard. I’ll happily work with nay definition you care to present, but until you do present it I work with the standard English definitions. Call that simplistic if you wish but I see no alternative.
And clearly refuted as a strawman in my previous post. If you have no legitimate problems with the cite then we can let this rest.
Nor did I say that it did.
Of course if a psychic fails with every single prediction he makes, that also logically doesn’t say anything about any other predictions. So based on this argument Abe a psychic with a 100% failure rate could be right this time. Well of course he could, but I wouldn’t put money on it.
But please answer my question. Based on past performance, where would be the logical place to put money on the outcome of this latest prediction of mass extinctions.
What bizarro world are you living in Blake? This sort of thing could pass as a PhD thesis?!?! This is a piece of advocacy masquerading as science. He has quoted only from scientific studies that support his thesis and only selectively from the parts that support his thesis. Someone could do the same thing to make it sound like evolution or the Big Bang theory was poor science. (Well, okay, they have. And, indeed it is very analogous.)
Well, okay, you have come up with a compilation of stuff (some of it from scientific journals and some not) that was written as a piece of political advocacy and chose its references and the quotations from those references accordingly.
I have come up with studies from the National Academy of Sciences, an organization whose whole purpose is to present policymakers with unbiased summaries of the current state of scientific knowledge.
Do you understand the difference?
Well, we don’t know for certain who is “correct” in the scientific sense since science is not deductive and we can never prove correctness. However, we do know which better represents the current state of scientific knowledge and which is a propaganda effort.
Should these people also be aware of all the arguments that have been made against evolution and against Big Bang cosmology? How much weight should these be given?
Well, I don’t think the OP’s link necessarily makes claims this broad. And, the extinctions that it does worry about possibly happening are compared to ones that did apparently really occur such as woolly mammoth, saber tooth tigers, mastodons and giant vampire bats. We also know that animals such as buffalo and wolves, while not wiped out, were practically so on continental scales (or, in the case of wolves, at least a large portion of the continent). Of course, there are many other more recent extinctions of species although perhaps not on a scale that bothers you.
Well, you haven’t really presented much hard evidence of success rates in this regard. You seem to just make general claims that these things don’t happen. You may be right, and I have admitted that the most extreme claims, by their very nature of being the most extreme, are less likely to come true than somewhat less extreme claims. I have also noted (or, more correctly, an NAS study I referred to has noted) that, on the other side, some things, like the ecological hazards of DDT, have snuck up on us and led to problems that we never anticipated.
First, I would first like to see references to these claims from reputable sources rather than vague claims that they were made. Second, I would note that the Great Barrier Reef is still in trouble. So, all we know (and this based on claims you made that have not actually been supported) is that the most extreme claims about a timescale over which the Reef might vanish have not proven to be correct.
Well, there have been lots of stories, for example, quoting Bush as saying that Kyoto would be too costly for the U.S. economy. And, there have been stories about studies themselves.
Blake, your entire premise here is baloney with respect to the OP. This entire thread has gone completely off the rails.
There is no prediction being made here of a mass extinction being caused by an ecological catastrophe, as with DDT/birds. In this case fish are being wiped out BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO KILL THEM.
I am sure you realize that many, many species of animals have been destroyed or decimated by deliberate attempts to hunt them down and kill them, yes? How many passenger pigeons do you see around? The comparison to the DDT scare simply isn’t valid; this case is closer to the fate of the dodo bird, the bison, the passenger pigeon, et al. Surely you cannot deny that deliberate hunting has destroyed or devastated many kinds of animal?
The predictions of loss of the fisheries are not “Scare tactics.” In fact, they aren’t even predictions; it IS happening, right now. The absolute fact of the matter is that only a fraction of the fish remain. If you don’t believe me, go ask a fisherman. Rachel Carson was predicting the wipeout of species before there was any real evidence the species were actually being wiped out; in this case, however, the tuna and cod are far closer to the dodo bird than they are to the cardinal.
You keep claiming “environmentalists” are always wrong with their predictions, which is interesting, because you have not actually provided any evidence this is the case. What’s your data set of predictions from which you drew the “<1%” number?
Nor have you defined exactly what an “environmentalist” is, or whom it is you’re referring to. The people predicting the loss of the fish stocks aren’t Paul Ehrlich types who just make stuff up, they’re professionals in the field publishing the results of honest-to-God science, including the rather clear observation that it’s becoming harder to find fish in the oceans.
Thanks, Rick Jay, for injecting a dose of reality here. I was beginning to feel a little lonely with only Abe and I around to try to keep up the fight!
The example of the passenger pigeon is instructive. Market hunting of the birds was stopped, and the species received a degree of legal protection, at a time when there were still some tens of thousands of passenger pigeons in existence. But the population continued to plummet despite these protections until the species finally became extinct. In retrospect it appears that the birds REQUIRED huge nesting colonies, each containing many tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of individual birds, to stimulate breeding activity. Once the overall population size fell below the point where such large breeding colonies could be formed, the species was doomed - never mind the fact that many breeding-age birds were still alive at that point.
It’s entirely possible that the same sort of situation may hold with some fish species. So far, the cod in the Grand Banks are still showing no signs of increasing their population size despite the cessation of fishing pressure. Those people who think that all that’s required for any species to recover and return to prior population levels is a cessation of harvesting are dangerously naive. And the biology of many of the large oceanic predators, such as tuna and swordfish, is not well-understood at all. We literally don’t know where the “point of no return” lies with many of these organisms. Unfortunately, I suspect we won’t find out for many of them until that threshhold has already been crossed.
Blake’s platform and his equivocations and rationalizations sure did look curious. I see no need to repeat myself, since I’m fairly sure my objections were stated more clearly than his responses would suggest. He puts forward a strange view of science. I must say though I am grateful for pointing out my blunder on Einstein, I’d have hated for that misunderstanding on my part to go unremarked.
I thought the OP had merit, because this is a grave issue. To add to artemis’s comment as well as RickJays and jshore’s references, here is the cold general assesment of FAO in their report, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002:
The language of the report necessarily avoids dwelling on unpleasantries such as extinction, as that is not the focus or intent, but it should be fairly clear that the damage to marine populations is substantial.
Major marine fish stocks or species groups for which information is available to the Food and Agriculture Organization (based on the report quoted above):
25% underexploited or moderately exploited (number is declining)
47% fully exploited (number is stable)
18% overexploited (number is increasing)
10% depleted (number is increasing)
I would say that this report is definitely not one of the alarmist ones and it’s still grim news any way you look at it.
“Only 10 percent of big ocean fish remain” – What’s the solution? "
My solution is to pour as much money as it takes into raising the educational levels of women in third world nations as quickly as possible and to destroy those outdated relics of certain cultures that encourage large families and the cloistering of women in the home, most with no realistic opportunities for a career. Given alternatives, many women will choose to have fewer children and there much actually be a chance of stabilizing the population before nature does it for us. Even this is probably not going to be enough to allow the oceans to recover to former levels of fish populations anytime soon.
In other words, the reason why so few commercially viable food fish are left is that the supplies are being overexploited because there are too damn many humans (and their livestock) on this planet.
Fished above natural replensihment levels, the oceans have offered a onetime bounty of cheap, relatively easily accessible food as well as sometimes big $$$$ profits, but once taken, it is gone.
Well, back to talking about fish. Blake led us wonderfully astray, attempting to negate and disprove the source without even dealing with the actual information.
Even if the data isn’t perfect, and 10% isn’t an exact number, even if as much 15% or 20%, or even 30% of fish stocks remained, would that make everything okay? Don’t you see the problem? We’ve done a thourough and efficient job of draining the oceans, and there’s no forseeable end in sight. The fishing industry has no ethical concerns with emptying the oceans, either, to them it’s merely an economic problem. They’ll be making less money, so they’ll be forced to fish even more, in even more remote locations. They’re not just going to pack up and call it a day. These companies will have to fight to stay alive, but in order for them to do so, they have to catch the rest of the fish.
RickJay, three excellent points, thanks for brining the focus of the thread back to the OP.
I agree. The Japanese excuse of hunting whales in the name of research is disgusting. Even in my teeny-tiny little town of 15,000 people here in rural Japan, you can find fresh minke whale meat in the fish section. (Once in a while, there’s another kind of whale, too, but I’m not sure which because I can’t read the kanji.) I stopped shopping there after I ran across it. I don’t normally visit the meat and fish sections of the grocery, but I got curious one day after reading about Japan’s “taste for whale.” Sure enough, there it was.
I talked to one of my older co-workers, and she said that whale was very popular after WWII, only because it was so cheap. After the war, after rationing ended, and food wasn’t as scarce, people quickly moved away from eating whale. She said it doesn’t taste very good.
I don’t see the relevance here. the nations doing the great majority of industrial-level fishing are not Third World nations; they’re industrialized, rich nations, like Spain, Japan, Canada, Norway, etc.
The rate of population growth IS slowing down.
That is quite obviously false. Humans are eating more and more beef, and yet there is no shortage of cattle. There is no shortage of grain. There is no shortage of chickens or apples or carrots or pigs.
Or what about salmon? That’s a fish, a wild animal caught for food… but salmon aren’t in anywhere near the sort of trouble cod, tuna et al. are in. The problem here is specific to the conservation of particular kinds of fish; it has nothing to do with population and everything to do with there being insufficient effort to keep the fish stocks healthy.
Not fast enough, and demographic momentum is such that populations will likely grow until at least 2100. My point was that, shouldn’t one of the goals of humanity be to raise all people to 1st world standards of living? -If just the billion or so people from developed nations (as you claim) have managed to deplete the majority of the large fish from the oceans in 50 years, what are, and will continue to be the effects of this billion plus the other 5 billion+ people in less developed nations, as fishing fleets continue to harvest every fish they can?
I’d say it doesn’t look promising if you care about the ocean. Unless something is done, for example to enact quotas or moratoriums on fishing, things may very well get worse. Doesn’t this concern you?
It has everything to do with a large population exploiting a limited resource. If there weren’t people who desired to eat these fish in the first place, it wouldn’t make much economic sense to harvest them, and glut the market. Even with a diet made up of 100% fish, a population an order of a magnitute smaller, for example, can only eat so many fish. Second. with some meat-protein sources we have forstalled supply shortages and irregularities, first, in pre-history by domestication, and second by increasingly large farms, which have more in common with factories than the bucolic farms we associate with our agricultural heritage.
From the way I understand it, salmon stocks certainly have been lost or dwindled on many, many of the runs in the Pacific northwest of US and Canada; Worse, Atlantic salmon may be near extinction. That’s not to say that salmon are necessarily beyond saving, but the whole point of environmental awareness is to point out problems and the dire consequences that might result if they are not seriously addressed. Occassionally, the predictions turn out to be wrong; Fortunately, Mother Nature is remarkably resilient. But occassional wrong predictions does not damn the environmental movement to illegitimacy, as some conservative types would like everyone to believe. I think you are deluding yourself if you think the problems discusseed in this thread will resolve themselves without concerned people working very hard to turn things around.
Finally, many of the fish discussed in this thread are not amenable to aquaculture. If you know of ways to grow commerically harvestable quantities of tuna, halibut, cod, etc. on farms, I’d love to hear about it. But until (if) that is a reality, wild fish are going to remain a limited resource that we cannot artificially augment for our benefit, and therefore there marked decline due to the actions of humans is of great concern.
As often stated before, the UN is its member states, there is no “them” and “us”. All that is required is agreement over the terms of a Worldwide Fisheries Treaty to be enforced like any other treaty or protocol.
Unfortunately, I share december’s pessimism since these days it seems that any state might simply opt out of or refuse to ratify a treaty or protocol it does not feel serves its national interest.
This problem is simply a larger version of the EU fisheries quota wrangling which takes place almost continually. Like it or not, the only solution is engagement with a supra-national body.
You know, Dalmuti even though we disagree a lot (since we are at different ends of the food chain:D ) I like the fact that you can argue with someone in one thread/post, and agree in another. Some here can’t do that- disagree with them, and you are their enemy forever.
