Thread: What is the Great Pacific trash patch? And why dont you care?

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.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Please, no

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?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tommo

Yes, but actually there are about 7 giant islands of garbage in the ocean.

Hawaii?

Originally Posted by tommo

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.

This is exaggeration. It probably blocks some light and kills some animals, but "dead zones"? Come on, use your brain.

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

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Synthetic Nitrogen Run-off creates deadzones. But collective trash islands at the very least create death zones

So do sharks' mouths.

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

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

I wish you didn't think environmentalism requires that you fabricate biological facts.

Originally Posted by Xei

I wish you didn't think environmentalism requires that you fabricate biological facts.

Omnis requires fabricated facts for most of his positions.

Originally Posted by Xei

I wish you didn't think environmentalism requires that you fabricate biological facts.

I wish you didn't pose every single statement in the most obtuse and provocative way possible. What exactly did I fabricate?

Originally Posted by Xei

I wish you didn't think environmentalism requires that you fabricate biological facts.

Uuuugh. Care to elaborate?

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.

Off topic but I just wanted to address this fallacy ...

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

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.

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 ...

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.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

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 ...

I agree with this completely.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by juroara

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.

Nope, I'm pretty clear on all of that. Still don't care.

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.