Welcome to ScubaBoard, an online scuba diving forum community where you can join over 100,000 divers from around the world discussing all things related to Scuba Diving. To gain full access to ScubaBoard you must register for a free account.
As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 500 dive topic forums and browse from over 3,000,000 posts.
Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
Post your own photos or view from 80,000 user submitted images.
Gain access to our free classifieds marketplace to buy, sell and trade gear, travel and services.
Use the calendar to organize your events and enroll in other members' events.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact the ScubaBoard Support Team.
Basic Scuba DiscussionsHave a Scuba related question? Get a Scuba related answer here. Please note: This forum has special rules. This forum is intended to be a very friendly, "flame free zone" where divers of any skill level may ask questions about basic scuba topics without fear of being accosted. Please show respect and courtesy at all times. Remember that the inquirer is looking for answers that they can understand. This is a learning zone and consequently, any off-topic or overly harsh responses will be removed.
Please note: The last reply in this thread was more than 6 month(s) ago.
Garrobo, I assume you're kidding, right? If not, you show an appalling lack of understanding of food webs and ecological systems. If you'd look into the scientific literature, or even the popularized versions of their findings, you would discover just how important sharks are to many marine ecosystems. We are finding that they are far more important in coral reef ecosystems than we ever thought.
Vladimir, that essay ("Tragedy of the Commons") was by UCSB biologist Garrett Hardin and was a classic in the "early" environmental movement.
Ah, mgmonk... I didn't get the sarcasm (but then many don't get my humor either).
Garrobo, I assume you're kidding, right? If not, you show an appalling lack of understanding of food webs and ecological systems. If you'd look into the scientific literature, or even the popularized versions of their findings, you would discover just how important sharks are to many marine ecosystems. We are finding that they are far more important in coral reef ecosystems than we ever thought.
While it appears, (and I hope) he is just kidding/trolling whatever, it may be that he really IS that ignorant. Many Americans have an almost comical ignorance of even basic science (think ID).
Vladimir, I have myt doubts that such a plan can be effective. Most commericially sought after fish migrate, and many into International waters as well. We need a more comprehensive approach that covers an entire species worldwide (or at least the effect populations of a truely global species), and it needs to have real teeth and some way of enforcement.
With sattelite technology being what it is, I don't think it would be too hard to install cameras and transmitters on any major commercial ship that can be monitored real time anywhere around the world. Crew that try to circumvent the regualtions can face stiff fines and possibly jail time for repeated offences.
In the meantime I think people who knowlingly broadcast junk science they know to be weak or false should also be rounded up. What little Americans do know of issues are often clouded with junk science that no classically educated scientist would waste their time on.
Oh, and we need to figure out how to divorce those lawmakers from special interest and lobbyist groups with big pockets.
Dr.Bill et al::::OK, just what do the sharks do that is so important to the ecosystem besides eat other sea life Mr. Oh So Knowledgable?
To start off with all apex predators cull populations of the sick and weak and old. That enables the more robust individuals to reproduce, as well as making sure a population doesn't grow too large and starve itself.
You need ecological balance in order to have healthy ecosystems. If one part of a food web gets too large or too small the whole thing is in serious danger of a collapse. Mother Nature does a pretty good job of keeping such a blalance but then we come in a destroy the whole thing.
For an example, in Australia recreational fisherman are often at odds with salt water crocodiles. In many parts of their range they were slaughtered or otherwise dirven out so people could safely fish those waters. Well, they keep having issues because the areas that still have salties have the best and healthiest fish populations, while other areas are not doing so well anymore.
Dr.Bill et al::::OK, just what do the sharks do that is so important to the ecosystem besides eat other sea life Mr. Oh So Knowledgable?
Sharks are top-tier predators, which means they eat a LOT of fish, yes...and in doing so, they limit the amount of non-piscevores (non-fish-eating fish) as well as piscevores (fish-eating fish). Non-piscevores are largely krill and phytoplankton eaters...phytoplankton are responsible for ~50% of the breathable air in the atmosphere...ergo, fewer sharks = more non-piscevores = less phytoplankton = less breathable air (more CO2!).
Last edited by BlueC5Kitten; May 2nd, 2008 at 03:14 PM.
Do you think that the Chinese give a ph*** about some sharks when they will slaughter their own people over an ideology? Wake up world. And where can I get the recipe?
Not to defend Chinese politics or consumption of shark soup, but please let's not forget that pretty much every country in the world either has or still slaughters people over an ideology. And yes, this does include the United States, a self-proclaimed democracy that uses torture to force their values upon people.
I don't really laugh at my own jokes, by the way. That would just be desperate.
I want to check out this essay. I feel like I've read and heard many things that sprang from it/evolved out of it. It's always good to visit the source every now and again.
While it appears, (and I hope) he is just kidding/trolling whatever, it may be that he really IS that ignorant. Many Americans have an almost comical ignorance of even basic science (think ID)
Not going to be a fight we win I am afraid...
The real battle is ignorance, and yes, I'm afraid it's one we can't win (see below).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrobo
To all my detractors::::::The problem is that none of you can answer my LEGITIMATE question without calling me a troll, ignorant or stupid. You see, you can't stand the light of day. The only reasonable answers I have recieved verifies what I have stated in the first place: THAT SHARKS DO NOTHING BUT SWIM AROUND AND EAT OTHER FISH AND THINGS LIKE SEALS AND HUMANS AND HAVE NO PREDATORS WHICH WILL BOTHER THEM (except humans of course). When an uneducated person cannot defend his silly, knee-jerk ideas he usually resorts to name-calling or "kill the messenger" type ideas like: "Ban him from the board." Several of you have fallen into this habit instead of trying to come up with a thoughtful answer. As far as the moderator banning me, so be it if he thinks that is necessary but so far I think that he realizes that I am putting some of your ideas to the test and you just can't handle it. Thank you for being so kind.
Wow, I really thought you were trolling. Apparently I gave you too much credit. Nevertheless, I agree that your posts should not be censored in any way, as they fall within the TOS. I think they offer a good example of the paucity of scientific knowledge in the electorate, which makes addressing an issue like over-fishing politically difficult. Did you study any biology in high school? Do you believe in evolution? I am legitimately curious.
Dr Bill:: I'm still waiting for a good example of how sharks help or benefit the underseas ecosystems. All I've gotten so far are generalizations like "studies have shown" etc. Still waiting.
Healthy ecosystems have food chains that obey certain laws of biomass (the amount of living matter at each feeding step). Producers are the most abundant with herbivores coming in second. Each feeding step has less biomass than the previous since only about 10% of the energy from one step is available to the next. Top predators like sharks are necessary to keep the system is check. Without them the population of their prey grows unchecked.
One major problem with this is a cycle called "boom or bust". Without giving an entire lesson in ecology, this cycle reduces biodiversity and ultimately the health of an ecosystem.
We have experienced this already with the removal of top terrestrial predators like the wolf. Here in Colorado we have major issues in Parks where hunting is not allowed. We have now been forced to "manage" ecosystems in which we have removed top predators. What this would look like in a marine ecosystem I don't know, but I fear we are heading in that direction.
Personally, I'm never for banning anything that could be sustainable with reasonable limits. If people want to eat shark fin soup, fine. The problem is the oceans cannot sustain 100 million sharks being killed every year. Without limits and some protection, we may be creating a disaster we don't know how to fix.
It seems that your arguement is that sharks just swim around and eat other fish, so overfishing of sharks, and their subsequent decline, isn't really such a big deal. To me, that is a false choice. Either shark overfishing is a true ecological crisis, or it is not a problem at all. The fact that some species of an apex predator are dwindling in numbers toward extinction is a problem all by itself --simply because we may not know the exact impact.
Personally, I believe data, such as that listed in the link, indicates there is a true ecological problem with shark overfishing --much of which is from finning. Fewer sharks mean the species they predate grow larger, eventually causing an imbalance in other ecosystems.
Since this thread appears to have degraded just a little [edit: (it's picking up now again it seems)] allow me to indulge my philosophic bone and rant just a little. Laugh if you wish, but I'm in a freestyle scrawling mood tonight. I'll have more coffee tomorrow morning so I can return to my usual amazement and puzzlement of humanity's (including my own) delusions and unconscious plodding through life.
The funny thing to me is that we humans are very often so arrogant in thinking we can do just about anything we want and ignore the consequences so long as we get our immediate lusts slaked. Blah to the consequences - I won't be here when the ecological balance falls flat on it's face so why should I care.
Cypher said it in The Matrix like this: "I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss."
Then he sells out to the agents: "I don't want to remember nothing. Nothing. You understand? [pause] And I want to be rich. You know, someone important, like an actor."
That's what this world is being reduced to when we allow attitudes of arrogance and indifference to mix. It seems some of us would even be happy and content in our ignorance; we'll even consciously choose to lobotomize our minds to forget about the consequences of our actions even while we know that we are choosing oblivion - a life devoid of responsibility, and so we become the very architects of our own demise. Oh, but let us just not be cognizant of that reality, of the blood on our hands. Would Shakespeare hear us too cry "Out, damned spot! out, I say!" when we look back at the reality we have authored for ourselves and find that it is too late? Being that our excuses, justifications, and reasonings are all fake - because we'll be blissfully ignorant of that awful reality, even if we have to make ourselves ignorant by eliminating everything and everyone that reminds us of it, that very same reality we created, and drown, even murder our consciences in the euphoric fashion drug of the day. Let's go to our doctors, they will happily prescribe and provide for our Vicodin needs, and we'll top it off with our Scotch on the rocks, our means to ensure that we "remember nothing. Nothing."
Today some of us apparently know that we are alone in the Universe because they would argue that we would have found something already, after decades of scientific research, if there were any evidence that we have some alien civilization as neighbors that could threaten our dominion over this water planet and our rights to freedom and injustice. What then shall we say when we discover that there really are aliens on some distant planet and they have really been abducting us to experiment on us for their own dark satisfactions and amusements? Why, then we'll kick up one mother of a fight because how dare they threaten our "peaceful existence," threaten our rights to not have probes stuck up our orifices, to not have our bodies cruelly mutilated, to not have our privacy or freedom violated. Maybe we'd be the ones being sliced up to provide some texture for some extraterrestrial delicacy then, and then may the gods hear! There will be a firefight because we would have been wronged then!
And when you've finished scoffing at my perhaps hyperbolized rant, then look in the mirror because today you, me, the person behind us, next to us, in front of us, we are the aliens who deem it perfectly fitting to needlessly slaughter life on this planet just because we want to have some texture in our Shark Fin Soup. May we then one day wake up and realize that we do have a choice, a red pill or a blue pill - and that what choice we now make will determine whether we sink into oblivion where we will remember nothing; nothing, or where we will fight, not for a point of view but for our, and our children's existence and an opportunity to live longer on this planet where we can enjoy it's beauty and breathtaking marvels in peace and joy.
What pill are you taking today? Red or Blue?
__________________
"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." - Desmond Tutu
