Expert prognosis for the planet

[Irace86.2.0]

[Irace86.2.0]

Study Finds Staggering Decline in Marine Fishery Biomass

https://www.geographyrealm.com/study...shery-biomass/

When a study claiming that marine fisheries were going to be completely depleted by 2048 first appeared 14 years ago, the idea still seemed to be in the domain of apocalyptic sci-fi.

However, the new 2020 research confirms that we are, unfortunately, rushing towards the foreseen scenario.

The team assessed biomass of over 1320 fish and invertebrate populations of 483 species, inhabiting the 232 coastal marine ecoregions around the world. The focus was specifically on species known to be exploited by fisheries.

The trends were derived using the Bayesian CMSY stock assessment method, applied to the global fisheries 1950–2014 catch database for every maritime fishing country. The database was reconstructed by the Sea Around Us, a research initiative at The University of British Columbia, to improve current issues in fish catchment statistics.

The mechanism behind the plummeting numbers is simple: seafood is being caught at rates that exceed its capacity to replenish. Consequently, the fishers are catching fewer animals over time, despite fishing longer and harder.

Of all the analyzed populations, 82 percent are below the levels that produce maximum sustainable yields. Out of these, 87 percent are in the “very bad” category, with biomass levels of less than 20% of the biomass needed for maximal sustainable fishery catches.

The greatest declines were found in the southern temperate and polar Indian Ocean and the southern polar Atlantic. Since 1950, fishery populations there has shrunk by over 50 percent.

One of the rare regions that are bucking the trend, having higher fishery biomass than in the 1950s, in the northern Pacific – specifically the polar-boreal zone. In polar and subpolar zones, the population biomass increased by an impressive 800 percent. In the temperate zone, the increase is more modest but still substantial – around 150 percent.

The authors suggest that the positive impact on fish populations occurred due to environmental changes in the region, in combination with sensible fisheries management.

However, although they have something to teach us about the value of good management, the improvements in few locations remain an almost incidental exception in a concerning big picture.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Suggesting that we need to ABANDON eating meat because we are destroying the planet by doing so is just... well.... wrong on so many levels.

I don't see why it is wrong "on so many levels". There are 3 issues that immediately come to mind but I see don't see any of them as being "wrong".
1/ Effect on the economy by reducing the meat industry.
2/ The attitude that "I'm not making much impact".
3/ We've always done this so we should continue to do this.

First point. Economies change and there are always winners and losers with change. If (and given your country's record of social service I don't like your chances) a government looks after its citizens people would be catered for.
Second point. A huge number of people making a small difference can have a large impact. Of course individual rights are much more important than the collective so f*ck you all.
Third point. Times change.

Disclosure: I am not vegan.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I am open minded to the extent that people have reasonable and universal perspectives on morality [1]. I don’t subscribe to the notion that people can choose their own morals individually, culturally, etc, so rape, slavery or murder could never be justified to me just because a person, group, society, culture, religion, etc says it is apart of their morals and practices. [2] Either actions cause harm or they don’t. [3]

I suspect I am going to be arguing out of my depth here but here goes.
1/ I disagree with the notion of universal morality. "Reasonable" is very subjective. Are you saying it is ok to impose your values upon others?
"No, there is no such thing as a universal morality, and it is somewhat surprising that people are still asking this question in the 21st century. Then again, that doesn’t mean that anything goes, a la moral relativism. Of course, much depends on what one means by “universal,” so let’s try to parse things out a bit."
Is there a universal morality?
2/ You and I live in countries where killing people is allowed under certain circumstances.
3/ Some actions might not cause harm but still be taboo or illegal.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Maybe famine or wars or environmental impacts would lead to deaths naturally, but these are probably not the type of futures anyone wants,

I have read in popular media that both the US and Australia have reported on the potential for global conflict due to climate change. Already Somalia and Egypt have had words because there isn't enough water flowing down the Nile to support both countries. China has dammed the Mekong River so Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia are at the mercy of China.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I suspect I am going to be arguing out of my depth here but here goes.
1/ I disagree with the notion of universal morality. "Reasonable" is very subjective. Are you saying it is ok to impose your values upon others?
"No, there is no such thing as a universal morality, and it is somewhat surprising that people are still asking this question in the 21st century. Then again, that doesn’t mean that anything goes, a la moral relativism. Of course, much depends on what one means by “universal,” so let’s try to parse things out a bit."
Is there a universal morality?
2/ You and I live in countries where killing people is allowed under certain circumstances.
3/ Some actions might not cause harm but still be taboo or illegal.

It depends on the values. Like I said, we do this with all types of actions with laws and regulations. We don’t allow rape, murder and theft. We have laws against speeding, polluting, etc. Not everything that is a law is inherently moral or immoral, but I use these as examples of people in a society imposing their will as a unified body on individuals for the good of the society. Individuals aren’t free to do whatever they want to who or whatever they want. We all intrinsically understand that morals stem from harm and suffering avoidance. We layer culture, religion, etc on top of that, but it is in our ability to recognize suffering in others as a similar experience that we would not want to experience that drives our basic, universal morality. See below:

Murder is not allowed. Killing in self-defense is sometimes not allowed or is punished. Killing accidentally is often punished. Capital punishment is barbaric, but it does exist. Regardless, we subscribe to the idea that an action doesn’t stand on its own as being moral or immoral—intent matters. Along this discussion, I am not subscribing to moral absolutes; there are gray areas. Again, there is a universal moral thread, but the conundrum seems to be how to reconcile the grey areas or dealing with those that like to rationalize obviously immoral behavior. As it pertains to the topic, we already have laws against poaching, killing endangered animals, animal abuse, dog fighting, eating certain animals, having certain exotic pets, etc. We just lack consistency because we rationalize an unnecessary diet. The degree and scale of animal abuse, pollution and ecology destruction would not be rationalized in many other contexts.

On your third point, what are you thinking of?

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Murder is not allowed.

When I made my comment I was thinking of governments sending defence personnel overseas to fight wars.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

On your third point, what are you thinking of?

Childless sexual relationships between consenting siblings.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

When I made my comment I was thinking of governments sending defence personnel overseas to fight wars.

Childless sexual relationships between consenting siblings.

I think you could extend that argument to presidents ordering an air strike where there will be known collateral loss of lives. That is far less direct and is also killing in self-defense. The moral argument is consequentialism—the end justifies the means. This is the hope that the action leads to the most good for the most people, therefore, it is moral. Kant would argue that such an action could be necessary, but it wouldn’t make it moral—murder is murder. Actions stand on their own. Both are true and neither philosophy brings us to the correct answer, but this doesn’t imply that we can’t find an answer or that morals are an illusion. Returning to my point, there is a universal experience of suffering and pain that everyone experiences when they stub their toe, lose a family member, get cheated on by a partner, feel stabbed in the back, etc. Our ability to experience theses things similarly means we have the capacity to know what could hurt others and what they would want or not want. This extends to animals too. Empirically we know that there are universal expressions and emotions. We can tell when a dog is afraid, happy, sad, depressed, etc.

Age appropriate consenting siblings? What about age appropriate consenting parent and child or whatever? I understand the reasons behind the taboo. Besides potentially leading to birth defects, it often creates uncomfortable dynamics in the family and society, but in general, I don’t find this immoral. If we were bonobos then we might consider refraining from family fornications as odd, but even they look for genetic variety, as does most species, but incest in the animal kindom is not uncommon. Maybe it is telling that we have/had more states that allow people to marry their first cousin than marry a same-sex-partner (older pic):

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

... Maybe it is telling that we have/had more states that allow people to marry their first cousin than marry a same-sex-partner (older pic):

Your infographic there is a little out of date in regard to same sex marriage @Irace86.2.0, given same-sex marriage is legal and performed in all 50 states as of June, 2015.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Your infographic there is a little out of date in regard to same sex marriage @Irace86.2.0, given same-sex marriage is legal and performed in all 50 states as of June, 2015.

That’s why I said “older pic”, but it isn’t really that old or an irrelevant photo to my point:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...mp/ncna1137936

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That’s why I said “older pic”, but it isn’t really that old or an irrelevant photo to my point:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...mp/ncna1137936

I mean, using a picture to make a point, and that picture and point being accurate are two different things...

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That’s why I said “older pic”, but it isn’t really that old or an irrelevant photo to my point:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...mp/ncna1137936

OK, sure, but that must be ancient. CA legalized Gay Marriages in 2008.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I mean, using a picture to make a point, and that picture and point being accurate are two different things...

My example was there to provide evidence that there might be far less taboo in our society than might be obvious. It is telling that so many states allow 1st cousin marriages. While this isn’t the same as siblings marrying, it isn’t too far off socially, even if it is a decent jump genetically (barely). While sentiment for same-sex-marriage has significantly improved in the last ten years, the relationship between the two is less important than the general illustration that interfamily marriage is far less taboo than some may realize.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

OK, sure, but that must be ancient. CA legalized Gay Marriages in 2008.

See my response to Spuds above. The point of the pic was missed apparently.

Also, read up on Prop 8. It isn’t that old unless ten years is old.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008...ion_8#Overview