Anon,
Maybe we ought to combine threads? 
This article could be written about any or perhaps all food stocks - animal or plant. We will continue to decimate all available stocks until there is nothing but “farmed” everything. I would suggest that the near future focus should be on creating viable farming methods rather than trying to “save the planet”. We can stave off world-wide starvation a little longer that way. The illusion that we can continue growing population and provide a perpetual source of food is getting to look ridiculous.
Oops, sorry. Which thread?
Yes, the major focus towards the end of the article was on farming methods. Strangely though, farmed salmon is supposed to be ecologically inferior to wild Alaskan salmon, if I’m not mistaken. And on the other hand I admit (though I ought to know better) I find it disconcerting that we can’t simply stop the slaughter of an entire species, so we can have our Saturday night sushi. Vegetarianism versus meat eating is one thing, but this is about many more issues than that. This is about ecosystems, biodiversity, and to be honest, just basic appreciation, even if it is partly romanticization, of wildness - of these incredible creatures. It’s also largely about our almost complete inability to govern international waters. I was utterly depressed as I read this article.
I’m not sure anyone thinks we can, if asked. Yet we act as if we can. I’m pretty sure the starvation of some people is a fact of life that won’t go away, short of a miracle. Either that or I don’t give the human race enough credit. Maybe we’ll get it together someday. But I do think we can do better, on a personal level. It’s unbelievable to me that someone might look at a menu, see the message “Please consider not ordering Bluefin Tuna, as it’s an endangered species” - and actually order it!
Oh well. I know…
Anon,
Check the link in the parts is parts thread in SS. 
Yeah…another reminder of humanity’s insatiable appetite for things.
Kinda reminds me of a futuristic scifi movie where lions only existed as holograms along with many other animals and forms of biodiversity because they were wiped out completely into extinction where the futuristic zoo was called the holo dome.
“This is what a lion would of looked, behaved, and existed like had it still existed today.”
Then there of course is the hunting of whales into extinction that parallels the subject of this thread.
Do you care? If you do, that surprises me . . .
To play the villain, what would be the consequences of wiping out blue fin tuna? Some species of whale have been culled to such a tiny, insignificant fraction of their former numbers, that for all intents and purposes, they’re extinct. Do we fully understand the ramifications of those events? I haven’t been able to read much more than weak speculation masking what Anon referred to as a romanticism of the wild.
I understand that biodiversity would be impacted - and the wiping out of a species is a horrible prospect - but from an anthropological standpoint - and if we can believe National Geographic - many large species have gone extinct, are going extinct, and will continue to go extinct because of human activity on earth.
Are there any reliable studies out there that have measured the impact of these events? Is it even possible?
Anthropologists believe that many large mammals inhabited North America before human beings evolved and eventually migrated over from Asia. The theory is that as those large mammals didn’t evolve alongside human beings as we developed our hunter abilities (like many African and Asia beasts of burden) - they were wiped out in a few generations, much like the Dodo bird. No fear of man means easy eating…
The question remains - what are the consequences?
If nothing else, examples like the Blue Fin should be a case for a complete overhaul of the education system - a re-focusing on economics, philosophy and specifically the consequences of our individual decisions. I do not support further “big brother knows best” interventions to curtail such activity - as time and again it does nothing but create black markets and the problem remains - while crime rises and the public remains apathetic, falsely believing a “solution” has been found.
we don’t know the consequences and it would be myopic to proceed as if there won’t be any. we depend on this planet, and to display disregard for it is foolish.
As you might have guessed, I don’t limit my views on these issues to purely pragmatic arguments. I also don’t think it makes any sense to limit a problem to only its most overt manifestation. So this issue of the bluefin tuna population is not to me only about whether bluefin tuna are still with us in 10 years, or whether the absence of tuna causes great harm ecologically. It’s true that species go extinct all the time, that ecological disasters have always happened “naturally” (i.e. without human intervention), and that it is an impossible dream for the world to exist indefinitely in some sort of ideal state of harmony and balance. But what does it mean, that so many people don’t care about other life forms, except pragmatically? For most of us a tuna is merely a tool to a pragmatic end - whether that tuna represents food, entertainment, romance, an environment that supports human life, etc. More specifically, what does it mean when a tuna is seen as mere food, even by those who aren’t hungry - who always have everything they could possibly need?
I believe that the degredation of the environment is not an issue that exists in isolation, but goes hand in hand with other seemingly non-related issues. It is commonplace for instance that people don’t pay attention to or take pride in their work. I’m in no position to judge any one person - there are many reasons for this to be the case, and every one of those reasons is reasonable. There is a reason for everything. But both environmental negligence and lack of pride in one’s work are reflections of the same mentality. And that mentality is not a healthy one for anybody.
I’m not sure if it’s possible. We are part of this world - we can’t step outside it and objectively assess our decisions. It is for that very reason that love and compassion are so important. Analysis is an important tool, but analysis cannot provide vision or direction.
I think one consequence which follows from real consideration of others is wealth, in both its narrow and its broadest sense. Short term financial gains at the expense of the conditions which support those gains always leads to poverty.
I agree, and your statement here represents a more political side to my present philosophical ramblings on the issue.
But you do support the “big brother knows best” use of the educational system to direct people’s values?
I can never figure out why people equate appropriate government at the appropriate level as necessarily a “big brother” thing. Governments are like human bodies. There are major organs and minor organs. There are hierarchies. There is a natural orderliness and “rightness” that comes from the proper coordination of the whole thing. The heart doesn’t just decide one day to withhold blood from the little finger. The brain doesn’t take a week off to let the left and right hand fight over which one will do or not do some task. Nations govern their waters. They should govern their waters, as its in the best interests of all who are involved in those waters. There is a major current problem, which affects every person and animal on earth, which is that international waters are under the purview of no effective governance at all, from what I gather. Is it that governments are so imperfect and often terrible institutions that so many people choose to stick their head in the sand and pretend that no government is any form of answer?
Sometimes after writing a long response and then reading something short and perfect like this I feel like an ass. 
I wasn’t suggesting we act as if there were no consequences. What in my post gave you that impression?
An “overhaul” of the education was a misleading choice of words. I don’t advocate any form of “enlightened” oppression - as it remains, inevitably, oppressive. I will continue to advocate for an overhaul of the education system through persuasion. Nothing more.
If I take the long view, I think that the issue finally comes down to a limited range of focus. We are an out-of-sight-out-of-mind species. If a problem isn’t about 1" off our noses, it doesn’t exist. We bumble and fumble our way, ignorant of the consequences of our actions, because as long as it seems to be working, we can ignore the consquences.
The mess in the gulf is a great example. Gas in my car is a good thing, right? I don’t want to think about any potential problems I don’t have. I have enough in my face as it is. The lack of foresiight and preparation for a potential disaster isn’t a problem until it is a problem.
My desire for gas in my car is very likely to drive several animal species past the point of extinction. Oops. Now I have a problem. My desire for a tuna steak grilled to perfection may mean the extinction of the blue fin. But that isn’t a problem - yet. When my favorite sushi bar says there is no more tuna, oops, now I have a problem.
This isn’t just a pattern in the U.S. It is world-wide. It has been and still is the way humans do business. It would be nice if we could be good stewards, but we aren’t.
Yes and no… I have mixed feelings on the issue.
On the one hand it is disturbing the unimaginable and limitless power of human beings to destroy life faster than it can self replicate itself or recover given that our resources only extend to this one planet from which we gather our resources from where through over population somthing of which I do believe exists such resources can become scarce and exhausted through over use with also the extinction of many forms of biodiversity which is not somthing to be supported given that all natural ecosystems need various forms of biodiversity in order to have stable natural cycles to replenish themselves from which our resources derive from.
( Our resources derive from natural ecosystems and their ability to replenish themselves. Without any form of replenishment there is no renewable natural resources.)
If human beings continue to extinct various forms of biodiversity in the end we will only put ourselves to a great risk and disadvantage to our own self preservation. This is why I see there being a need for improved suitable ways for human civilization and the natural ecosystem to coexist although the pessimist in me sometimes wonder if that is even remotely possible with homo sapiens wanting to humanize everything.
On the otherhand the world and the universe is going to end one way or another where it doesn’t really matter either which way…
I’m certainly not a natural romanticist or spiritualist of any sort but I do have a very esteem respect for nature where I am in awe of it’s awsome power.
i took your final “big brother knows best” statement as an implication that there is something wrong with using laws or govt to stop ourselves from driving species to extinction. i would disagree - for practical purposes, i think if we don’t use laws or govt to stop it from happening that’s the same as allowing it to happen. and when most scientists assume that unecessarry disruption of the planets ecosystem is a bad thing, i think allowing it to happen is the same thing as acting as if there will be no consequences.
for now, i think it’s foolish to drive whole species into extinction if it can be prevented - even if that prevention requires impinging upon certain individual freedoms and/or profits
Sure. Whenever human beings try to meddle with natural ecosystems even when it concerns their preservation somthing can always be much more worse than it originally was prior to intervention.
It’s not clear to me what the practical difference is between the two. Maybe my mind is just blanking at the moment. Can you give me an example?
Can you provide an example of this? I actually agree. But I’m not too concerned about the problem. It’s like saying seatbelts can make an accident worse - true, but trivial.
That’s a nice hypothetical example. As a real example, I was thinking of how we use pesticides on certain types of “non-native” vegetation. It’s very unclear to me whether this is good practice or not.
But my point is this - why use such examples as reasons to not get involved? A do-nothing approach would only make sense in a very few situations, where the problem isn’t getting worse and worse because of the ongoing negative involvement of society. Or was it not your intention to be a nay-sayer with respect to environmental improvements?
Ah, ok. I thought I might have misunderstood.
The practical difference between forcing (either physically or through government “coercion”) my opinion on others and simply advertising/vocalizing it?