• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

World's oceans in 'shocking' decline

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
a777pilot said:
Actually it will.

The waste of any natural resource is anti-capitalism. Clean is better for sales than dirty.



Now that's just too funny......and stupid.

If all the earth's rainforests would be destroyed, it would be a great waste but it would have about zero effect the earth's oxygen supply. Can you guess where most of our oxygen is produced?
Click to expand...

Wild guess, the dying oceans?
 
The opportunistic capitalist will look at this and simply come up with; "I can NOW start selling canned air!!"

Every disaster yeilds profits. This is just another opportunity for some good ol'boy to make more money out of his more money.
 
The liberal looks at this and and simply comes up with 'How can I tax people more to enforce my idea of social justice?!' Every problem yields profit.. er, taxes... with each tax $ comes control.
 
"The IPSO report concludes that it is too early to say definitively.

But the trends are such that it is likely to happen, they say - and far faster than any of the previous five."

Model science right there. We have no actual facts, but we'll guess and come up with some sensationalist garbage because the sheep love it.
 
Macamus Prime said:
The opportunistic capitalist will look at this and simply come up with; "I can NOW start selling canned air!!"

Every disaster yeilds profits. This is just another opportunity for some good ol'boy to make more money out of his more money.
Click to expand...

I don't think the right's response is as much about profiting from this, as it is simply saying 'it costs money to not cause this disaster? Screw that'.

Remember how our National Parks started? People went to Yosemite, looked at the place and said 'we're going to wipe it out for a buck'. Luckily Lincoln said, 'bad idea'.

Remember what happened to the buffalo? 'We'd have to give up profits to cut back hunting'.
 
Last edited:
Not this crap again. The world's ecosystem will continue to decline until the common people go back to living in caves and eating grass, while the overlords fly personal jets to their private islands.
 
bfdd said:
Oh noes an extinction event... they have happened before.and will happen again. The strong survive, those that aren't die. Wah some cuddly animal that just shits in the rainforest might not exist any more. What good was it doing us anyways?


Not that I am for destroying the environment. I quite love our planet, but getinf all up in arms about species.going extinct is stupid.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a species going extinct because it is unfit and from humans changing the environment such that species go extinct.

Industry is so short sighted that it would destroy the environment way beyond anything that we can recover from before they become concerned. Like the old saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. How many superfund sites are there in US? They aren't naturally occurring.
 
JTsyo said:
There's a difference between a species going extinct because it is unfit and from humans changing the environment such that species go extinct.

Industry is so short sighted that it would destroy the environment way beyond anything that we can recover from before they become concerned. Like the old saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. How many superfund sites are there in US? They aren't naturally occurring.
Click to expand...

There isn't a difference, only if you believe humans are unnatural. I never said we shouldn't try to help preserve our planet, we need to if we are going to last long enough to get the fuck off of it. Letting weaker species who cannot cope with our goal, the goal of ALL LIFE, then they must die off for the rest of us to progress. This does not mean we should be destroying environments and polluting like assholes, poisoning ourselves in the process. That is the opposite of what I am saying. Preservation is required, but only to the extent it doesn't hamper our progress.
 
a777pilot said:
p.s., Yes, I want to disband the EPA.
Click to expand...
Your position is indefensible. You have already been told why. The theory, Tragedy of the Commons, predicts that the free market system is a terrible steward of the environment. Then in practice it is confirmed, with US pre-EPA and China (to name just a couple of examples, of which there are the world over thousands to millions), which is destroying its ecosystem because it is chasing money over everything else and "A 2006 review of existing data suggested that one-third of Chinese children suffer from elevated blood lead levels.".

And yet your only retort is some tangential reference to a shuttle crash.

You've taken your support of the free market and extrapolated it to some completely bonkers view about how it's going to cure everything that has ever ailed mankind despite us having thousands of years of history showing it not to be the case.

WTF?
 
Doppel said:
Your position is indefensible. You have already been told why. The theory, Tragedy of the Commons, predicts that the free market system is a terrible steward of the environment. Then in practice it is confirmed, with US pre-EPA and China (to name just a couple of examples, of which there are the world over thousands to millions), which is destroying its ecosystem because it is chasing money over everything else and "A 2006 review of existing data suggested that one-third of Chinese children suffer from elevated blood lead levels.".

And yet your only retort is some tangential reference to a shuttle crash.

You've taken your support of the free market and extrapolated it to some completely bonkers view about how it's going to cure everything that has ever ailed mankind despite us having thousands of years of history showing it not to be the case.

WTF?
Click to expand...

The EPA needs to be restructured and scaled back, done away with I don't agree with though. Also, can you show me the "thousands of years of history" free markets have?
 
Doppel said:
Free markets to varying degrees have existed since people have wanted to make money, and they've put their profits ahead of much else.

EG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman_period
Click to expand...

putting profits ahead of much else is not a principle of free markets, it's a principle of greed. the best way to assure that happens is to have the exact opposite of a free market, you want a controlled market. one you or those you support control.

i don't believe in purely unregulated markets, but there have been few and far between real free markets in our history.
 
Throckmorton said:
The oceans are in serious trouble. Ever notice that every few years "new" fish show up in grocery stores? They aren't new fish, they're species that used to be considered undesireable that are then renamed and sold as seafood, because the previous fisheries are depleted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-slimehead-fish-renamed-boost-popularity.html
Click to expand...
This is quite true, and is mostly because of overfishing due to very large, very effective, yet inefficient factory ships. But pollution, run-off, and high CO2 levels also stress marine ecosystems. Fish populations cannot bounce back as quickly if pollution, high CO2, etc. cause displacements of their preferred food. This can be direct, as when a species' preferred prey becomes scarce. But it can also be maddeningly indirect, such as when pollution in a particular area causes a particular toxic alga to bloom and kills off (or makes toxic) planktivores necessary as a first food for a species several links down from the species of interest. Thus tuna, obligate pelagic piscivores, may decline because herring are eating (or dieing from gill damage caused by) a particular golden alga which blooms due to pollution.

Regarding private enterprise, there is an industrial park next to me that was one of the most polluted places in Tennessee. They literally excavated trainloads of soil and carted them away to be incinerated. The pollution occurred when it was a government munitions manufacturing plant. The most critically polluted area in Tennessee is probably the area around Oak Ridge, which is heavily contaminated with plutonium and uranium. Again, government. Government is also quite fond of exempting itself from its own regulations - Google "snail darter".

Nonetheless, the EPA is vitally important. Most private companies do wish to be good stewards of the land, but even with the best of intentions may not use effective pollution and runoff controls. Also, any private company intentionally not caring about the environment could out-compete those who do care. The EPA, although subject to abuses like any government organization - indeed, like any human enterprise - still serves a vitally important function.
 
bfdd said:
putting profits ahead of much else is not a principle of free markets, it's a principle of greed. the best way to assure that happens is to have the exact opposite of a free market, you want a controlled market. one you or those you support control.

i don't believe in purely unregulated markets, but there have been few and far between real free markets in our history.
Click to expand...
And this greed is best exercised in either a controlled, rigged market, or a "free" market in which a monopoly will quickly form and rig it also.
Also, any private company intentionally not caring about the environment could out-compete those who do care.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, it's why so many in China pollute.
 
Doppel said:
And this greed is best exercised in either a controlled, rigged market, or a "free" market in which a monopoly will quickly form and rig it also.Absolutely, it's why so many in China pollute.
Click to expand...
Many if not most polluters in China are state-owned.
 
doppel, then it wouldn't be a free market again. you're blaming free markets for people's problems. That is dumb. How can a concept be fucked up or wrong, when the issue with it is people exploiting it? That is the people who are fucked up and wrong.
 
bfdd said:
putting profits ahead of much else is not a principle of free markets, it's a principle of greed. the best way to assure that happens is to have the exact opposite of a free market, you want a controlled market. one you or those you support control.

i don't believe in purely unregulated markets, but there have been few and far between real free markets in our history.
Click to expand...

Yep.
When people don't own the property, don't be surprised when they don't take care of it.

When no one owns it, no one has any incentive to take care of it.
 
a777pilot said:
Actually it will.

The waste of any natural resource is anti-capitalism. Clean is better for sales than dirty.
Click to expand...

I think capitalism thinks of "waste" more as "unused", if people want profit now why not drive the fish to extinction, or cut down all the trees or burn all the oil, they'll be dead before it's really a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top