flame on, poopman is back.
flame on, poopman is back.
Please, no
you make me so sad omnis dei. what kind of a pretentious name is that anyway, i asked a question for the thread so either participate or shut up kindly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I don't care because I never heard of it and you haven't made it seem very interesting or important so far.
UK here. Pacific there.
Ever heard of Africa? Same deal.
No what is that?
Apparently there's a Texas-sized section of ocean in the Pacific with high concentrations of floating plastic garbage due to the natural currents depositing it all in one spot. Supposedly it's a problem, but I think it's a good thing; it's nature's own garbage disposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Yes, but actually there are about 7 giant islands of garbage in the ocean. IIRC.
They're basically dead zones now coz it blocks all the light and the plastic kills the animals there.
Nobody cares because it doesn't destroy the beaches which we like to throw our rubbish on.
Hawaii?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
This is exaggeration. It probably blocks some light and kills some animals, but "dead zones"? Come on, use your brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
This thread is now about comparing countries to garbage heaps.
Synthetic Nitrogen Run-off creates deadzones. But collective trash islands at the very least create death zones
So do sharks' mouths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
The difference is sharks are predators evolved with built in carrying capacities so they do not threaten the species the same way complete destruction of the environment does -_- but keep defending pollution
I wish you didn't think environmentalism requires that you fabricate biological facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Omnis requires fabricated facts for most of his positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I wish you didn't pose every single statement in the most obtuse and provocative way possible. What exactly did I fabricate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Nothing. It's completely true.
Maybe stating it as "built in carrying capacities" is not correct.
But I assume you meant that they cannot wipe out all of ocean life because they have "flaws" (really a good thing, but can't think of another word)
which means they are simply unable to do so.
All complex biological organisms are designed to live within their means. Human beings are an exception because oil has temporarily engorged our carrying capacity and when we run out it will shrink back down.
But my point was that it's simply laughable that someone would compare a shark with human contamination. And I don't have be some sort of environmentalist to state the factual difference between a poison and a predator.
Half the time I can't figure out why DV members need to argue or debate. What's to argue?
I don't think people don't care - I think they just don't really know about it. They don't know what it is, how big it is, or how it impacts the environment. :(
Also, the saying is true, seeing is believing. Telling someone about a tragedy doesn't spark empathy as much as showing them tragedy. Are there no journalists covering this environmental disaster?
Uuuugh. Care to elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Nope, I'm pretty clear on all of that. Still don't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
told ya, no one cares. pretty disgusting if ya ask me. americans care about football and blowing the shit out of brown people. oh and jesus. thats about it folks.
Killing Jesus? Sounds like fun...
[ignorance] I say let the damned fish die. They're fish. And don't say it'll reduce food supplies. I hate seafood [/ignorance]
What's funny about this post is that literally every statement you made doesn't apply to me: I'm not American, I don't watch football, I don't like killing brownies, and I'm an atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by poopman
I would say ignorance is telling people that the plastic kills fish when there's no evidence to suggest that it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neoquestmoo
cmind. What are on about? You're a hard read. There is a series of enormous patches of plastic waste in the world's oceans, the largest of which is the size of Texas, growing faster than we could conceivably clean up if we tried. How is the reality of this situation OK to you? What's your take on it? Stop trolling long enough to posit your position for once. I'm curious.
Yeah herp derp I know fish aren't birds but does this count as evidence that plastic kills something? I mean there's no doubt in my mind that it kills fish as well but this is just too easy.
http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/fil...-belly-fea.jpg
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/19/birdbody.jpg
http://myecoaction.com/wp-content/up...rd-plastic.jpg
It's not like the ocean surface is literally covered, inch by inch, with plastic. It's more like a "high concentration" of plastic objects. There's still more water than plastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
I'm not trolling, and I shouldn't even be responding to someone with your attitude towards me, but I'll do it this once. Is it ok that there's plastic in the ocean? As Stanley on The Office says, I'm ok with the logic of it. I'm not surprised there's plastic in the ocean, considering it floats. Perhaps you could be more specific?Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
You could also show pictures of dead babies that choked on plastic toys. I don't see the relevance. What I'm trying (probably unsuccessfully) to get you to understand is that the onus is on you to prove that this is a serious problem, and yes that means showing evidence. Pictures of dead birds is not evidence of a serious problem, unless you have a picture showing a million dead birds.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
Why am I being so critical of this? Because if we accept your claim that floating plastic is a problem, then we all know where you'll take the discussion next.
cmind - Sea change | COSMOS magazine
You can read the individual studies if you want.
"The ratio of plastic to zooplankton in some places of the ocean is 6:1 - that's astounding. Zooplankton are tiny and they're lower on the food chain, they're what the animals eat all the way up to the fish we eat," she says.
Another hazard of plastic breaking down is the release of toxins. Since the fish we eat first eat these plastics, humans are potentially absorbing the toxins of their own discarded waste.
edit: I won't post that petty thing I had to say. If you already read it oh well.
It's pretty terrible, and I do care. How dare you accuse me of not caring.
What exactly are you clear on?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Did you think the plastic garbage ball - is about fish?
I think you would care a whole lot more if you understood how it can potentially effect oxygen levels. The largest percentage of oxygen that we breathe doesn't come from trees or grass - but blue green algae.
Very interesting hyperbole, but I want to see some numbers to back up what you've said. And by numbers, I hope you understand that I mean calculations, not just conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
cmind, I'd like to know what type of evidence you're looking for. You have this attitude that there is no evidence to be found that it is a problem, because something has to impact your own life noticably before you can be bothered by it. See we define 'problem' differently. To me, the simple fact of its existence, regardless of damage, is a problem because it's fucking disgusting, a literal pile of shit on a beautiful waterscape, out of sight and out of mind of the people who's waste it is. Unfortunately its obviously not as benign as this, ecological damage has been demonstrated. It's killing birds, fish, endangered sea turtles. Oh, but it's not "millions", therefore you're not bothered. Also, your insistence on bumping the burden of proof further and further up the scientific ladder and refusing to discuss what we've presented is cowardly, you can follow that strategy indefinitely and always make yourself look smart, without ever actually saying much.
Your attitude sucks. You want others to pay for your standard of living and clean up after you. You discredit everything you've said about liberty in all other threads (or, what others have said that you've cosigned to.) Why in the hell is the onus on me to prove that a problem exists? That is complete bullshit. I say the onus is on you to demonstrate why a huge pile of toxic human shit in a marine habitat is not a problem. Tommo provided an article, why didn't you respond to it?
(if I'm wrong about you give me something to know this by.)
You're completely right. Beautifully fucking illustrated. Well done Indie. :D
As conservation-minded and anti-pollution as I am, I'm having a problem with this.
I first encountered this story in 1998 but could find no proper decent aerial survey photos.. which is odd: any oil spill at sea and you get the world's paparrazzi all flying over it and posting their copy;
The story resurfaced (in my life) about 5 years ago and again I could find no proper aerial survey pics;
And here we are again: I've just spent time searching internet image databases and found nothing - plenty of close-ups of patches of plastic flotsam (which could be anywhere) and plenty of photoshoppy stuff, but absolutely no proper official (or otherwise) aerial survey stuff, like you would get of an oil slick. Alright, I only spent nearly an hour and only checked the first 28 pages of Google images, so maybe I missed it?
It doesn't show up in areal photography because it's mostly broken-down little bits by the time it gets drug that far by the current. Here's a good video about the exact nature of the problem:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiro
Capt. Charles Moore on the seas of plastic | Video on TED.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_P...and_visibility
Not buying that.. if it's already "broken-down little bits" then what's the problem? Rubbish rafts of any description are visible from the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
So.. this "Captain Charles Moore" just happens to be the founder of "The Algalita Marine Research Foundation", (completely unofficial) from which body stems all this stuff about giant Pacific rubbish rafts. It's all getting clearer.. and there he is, punting for money. More delving reveals that he was the originator of the whole story.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
I wonder if it's a registered charity yet?
Where are the proper official studies? (Rhetorical).
Please don't quote Wikipedia "references" at me. It's unreliable and biased. Any research foundation devotee can post what he/she likes.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
I smell lots of fish.
I dig your skepticism.
Is NOAA more convincing?
Marine Debris Program - Marine Debris Info
In my lifetime I expect everything edible in the oceans to be either eaten or killed by pollutants. I expect resources to dwindle to levels capable of major wars being waged for them. I expect climate changes to render great swathes of the Earth uninhabitable. And I also expect that come doomsday there will still be people with their fingers in their ears shouting 'This doesn't affect me.' I don't really care though, misanthropy ftw.
Well, they certainly corroborate my suspicions about "Captain Charles Moore":Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
QUOTE:"The “garbage patch,” as referred to in the media, is an area of marine debris concentration in the North Pacific Ocean. The name “garbage patch” has led many to believe that this area is a large and continuous patch of easily visible marine debris items.. This is simply not true."
QUOTE:"The name “garbage patch” is a misnomer. There is no island of trash forming in the middle of the ocean nor a blanket of trash that can be seen with satellite or aerial photographs."
QUOTE: "Concentrations of marine debris have been noted..Due to limited marine debris samples collected in the Pacific it is still difficult to predict its exact content, size, and location."
QUOTE: "Because of this no one can say for sure how large these areas are, especially since they move and change, sometimes daily, and no accurate estimate exists of how much debris is out there."
QUOTE: "The reported size and mass of these "patches" have differed from media article to article. Due to the limited sample size, as well as a tendency for observing ships to explore only areas thought to concentrate debris, there is really no accurate estimate on the size or mass of the “garbage patch” or any other concentrations of marine debris in the open ocean."
Did you read this before posting the link? Looks to me like that "Captain Charles Moore" likes to use hyperbole for cause-aggrandisement (= financial).
Anyone know of the tax status of his "Foundation"? What salary he draws? Is this public access in the US?
People like him do no end of damage to those conservationists with integrity, imo.
Yes. If you think I would have withheld it had I known it didn't corroborate everything I've said, you misjudge me. Nobody else is supplying references from either perspective here except me (and tommo), so hold off on thinking I have an agenda. Please.
Of course you have an agenda.. you wouldn't be posting here otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
Don't assume that I think your agenda is a negative one - I don't.
But you have to wise up a bit: you've let yourself be distracted from the core problem in all this, which is that we (humans) introduce certain chemicals/structures into the environment which are detrimental to said environment.
My opinion is this: rather than throwing money at private organisations and people (mostly men) who want us to believe that treating the symptoms of these problems is the way forward, we should be harassing the Manufacturing Industries who make the plastic items and packaging. We should, at government level, be stringently forcing said manufacturers into putting a set level of their annual budget(s) into research into new materials. Offer them tax concessions if they do it.. and threaten them with tax penalties if they don't.
They are the problem: any non-degradable (or very slowly degradable) detritus is their doing. Change it at the source, because one sure as hell will not stop people throwing away litter of any description - we have to change the "structure" of the litter, if we are to have any chance of stopping plastics pollution.
Some people may respond with words to the effect of "but so-and-so is already doing it.." IMO, any current "efforts" are cosmetic - hammer them where it hurts: in their pockets. Then maybe we'd see some action.
You read too much into my thoughts by the links I posted. I didn't post that TED video or that Wiki link for any other reason than to answer your very specific concern, of why there aren't pictures of the trash patches (hell, I didn't know ether. I come here to learn, tbqh). Yes, both sources came with their own baggage, but thats got nothing to do with me. I've not advocated any specific response other than giving a fuck, certainly not sending money to Captain Chuck. :D
I totally agree with you about the shortcomings of treating the symptoms instead of the cause. But I'm also really still afraid that the manufacturers can too easily pass the blame on to the demand of consumers. I'm not too sure what to do about that.
Let the "blame" go to whoever..Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
Get the money. Hit the manufacturers right where it hurts.
Off topic but I just wanted to address this fallacy ...
This is a myth that is attributable (I would assume) to people that like to believe that the universe was perfect before western civilization developed. Don't get me wrong as I'm not a huge fan of western civilization but I recognize that it has brought incredible benefits. Can't wait to get beyond it without tossing out the baby too though ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
The fact of the matter is that most organisms will expand to the (ever shifting) carrying capacity of their environment and then keep trying to reproduce beyond that. The lack of available food ratchets up selection pressures for getting food and many members of the species in question suffer and die. At the same time the abundance of consumers ratchets up the selection pressures on whatever the organism in question feeds on and many members of those species fail to make the cut, suffer and die. Populations crash. Populations rebound. Repeat. All species in question evolve due to the selection pressures created.
Nature is a cold, impersonal system that doesn't care about the suffering of the constituent organisms. This seems to be pretty clear. Humans undergoing a population boom by exploiting oil is in principle no different than wolves exploiting an abundance of carribou.
I agree with this completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
As for the rest of the post, I think it is true most of the time. But you can't deny that there are some predators that simply are incapable of destroying entire species.
Whales, for instance, mostly eat krill. But there's so much krill, it doesn't matter that the whales need tonnes of them a day.
Some sub-systems are in balance. Most, are clearly not though.