|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
If it's true, then it's indeed disconcerting. However, I've become so cynical over time from the sheer volume of lies fed us by governments and intergovernmental agencies and NGO's that I no longer automatically believe anything they say. If they'll lie about WMDs, AGW and swine flu etc. etc., they'll lie about anything.
Anyway, I won't say the claims aren't true (I'm not sure), but where's the evidence that tuna is being "decimated"? Just because Prince Albert II says so doesn't mean I'm going to believe it. I do feel rather skeptical that fishermen (or even large scale fishing companies) would be so stupid as to threaten their entire livelihood just to reap short gain profits driving global fisheries into extinction. The whole thing smacks of "peak oil" to me. Small scale fishermen aren't going have much impact (though they'll no doubt be the first to be banned from making a living), and large scale operations would love nothing more than for artificial scarcity to drive up the prices ($175,000 for a tuna ain't cheap) even if the commodity isn't really scarce. |
Aye the governments do tend to tell fibs, but really? Fibbing to inflate the price of tuna? Is the lobbying power of large fishing companies so strong?
(I'm not being wholly facetious man, if the evidence crops up to suggest it's true then I'll fall in). |
I'm not even making that claim. I'm saying it might be the case (and yes, fisheries is a huge industry that generates huge revenue). More likely though, if I had to guess, is that this is just another instance of the worldwide environmentalist movement trying to portray man as evil incarnate, infringing upon the sacred territory of Mother Nature. These are the same people who have a stated goal of de-industrializing the West (Maurice Strong's own words) and generally view mankind as a sort of plague upon the earth that ought to be killed off for the earth's own good. Hence it's no surprise that they consider the rights of fish to be far more important than the rights of fellow humans.
All I'm saying is that there's an agenda here. It's possible the tuna actually are in danger, but somehow I kinda doubt it. Nautilus posted a link saying the Japanese catch around 3000 tons annually - hardly a mind blowing number (considering the sheer vastness of the oceans). I'd like to see some well documented evidence explaining any declines with balanced points of view, not just listen to the hysterics shouted out in the media. |
Yeah I hear you and what you say about wanting more detailed evidence I agree, I wasn't trying to needle you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
If it's true, then it's indeed disconcerting. However, I've become so cynical over time from the sheer volume of lies fed us by governments and intergovernmental agencies and NGO's that I no longer automatically believe anything they say. If they'll lie about WMDs, AGW and swine flu etc. etc., they'll lie about anything.
Anyway, I won't say the claims aren't true (I'm not sure), but where's the evidence that tuna is being "decimated"? Just because Prince Albert II says so doesn't mean I'm going to believe it. I do feel rather skeptical that fishermen (or even large scale fishing companies) would be so stupid as to threaten their entire livelihood just to reap short gain profits driving global fisheries into extinction. The whole thing smacks of "peak oil" to me. Small scale fishermen aren't going have much impact (though they'll no doubt be the first to be banned from making a living), and large scale operations would love nothing more than for artificial scarcity to drive up the prices ($175,000 for a tuna ain't cheap) even if the commodity isn't really scarce. |
Aye the governments do tend to tell fibs, but really? Fibbing to inflate the price of tuna? Is the lobbying power of large fishing companies so strong?
(I'm not being wholly facetious man, if the evidence crops up to suggest it's true then I'll fall in). |
I'm not even making that claim. I'm saying it might be the case (and yes, fisheries is a huge industry that generates huge revenue). More likely though, if I had to guess, is that this is just another instance of the worldwide environmentalist movement trying to portray man as evil incarnate, infringing upon the sacred territory of Mother Nature. These are the same people who have a stated goal of de-industrializing the West (Maurice Strong's own words) and generally view mankind as a sort of plague upon the earth that ought to be killed off for the earth's own good. Hence it's no surprise that they consider the rights of fish to be far more important than the rights of fellow humans.
All I'm saying is that there's an agenda here. It's possible the tuna actually are in danger, but somehow I kinda doubt it. Nautilus posted a link saying the Japanese catch around 3000 tons annually - hardly a mind blowing number (considering the sheer vastness of the oceans). I'd like to see some well documented evidence explaining any declines with balanced points of view, not just listen to the hysterics shouted out in the media. |
yeah it's a wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#Instances |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guava
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, well wikipedia (the site that anybody can log in and edit at will) is a start I guess... Got anything that doesn't base its conclusions on reports by the World Bank and the UN though? I don't really see how can we trust much of what the UN says (given the history of lies). Or any of the usual associated (banker funded) globalist institutes for that matter. Anyone who tells you "the time for debate is over" and "we need to act now to prevent catastrophe" is not to be trusted imo.
Basically what I'd like is some kind of report by scientists who actually go out and measure fish stocks over years, balanced by a report from the fishing industry itself. Possibly be a tall order, so I won't be surprised if no one can find such a thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:56 am Post subject: Re: Say goodbye to those tuna rolls |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
Japan has a history of overfishing.They don't know the meaning of "sustainable use".Japanese waters are among the worlds most denuded and overexploited. They are decades behind the west in terms of environmental awareness.
Its a sort of obstinacy and pride thing."We can kill anything we want and it is our right". What they don't get is that many of these species are a shared resource that migrate through the waters of many countries seasonally. Whales still exist only because other countries have put in the effort to protect them.
There is not an "unlimited supply" of tuna, whales, dolphins or any other marine life, and this resource needs to be managed wisely. |
"In the dark green waters off the coast of western Japan, scores of 68kg bluefin tuna glided counterclockwise inside a pen 46m in diameter, the telltale blue streaks on their bodies shimmering just below the surface.
The fish, though, were not just any kind of bluefin tuna, whose fatty flesh is the most prized delicacy at exclusive sushi restaurants in Japan and has set off fishing wars in the world's oceans. They represented the holy grail of fish breeding: bluefin tuna born and raised in captivity.
They were also the lifework of the man shoveling mackerel into the pen from the edge of a boat one recent afternoon, Hidemi Kumai, 71, the head of Kinki University's Fisheries Laboratory. Kumai had spent more than three decades trying to farm the bluefin tuna -- an unusually delicate fish, both physically and psychologically, prone to everything from restlessness to cannibalism -- before succeeding in 2002. Two years later, he began sending it off to sushi counters in Osaka and Tokyo."
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/09/30/2003329854
"But now a farm-raised bluefin called Kindai - the first ever raised in captivity from the egg - offers what some consider a promising new alternative. Produced by a Japanese university fisheries laboratory, Kindai is being touted as a more healthful and more eco-friendly option.
[...]"The flavor is incredible, and it slices unbelievably well. It's not sticky like other farm-raised tuna," says Ron Siegel, chef of the Dining Room at the Ritz-Carlton, who features Kindai sashimi as part of a $110 tasting menu, and Kindai-geoduck tartare with cayenne emulsion as a $25 appetizer.
The Kindai that arrived at IMP one recent Thursday was about 5 feet long, and 130 pounds. It took 3 1/2 years for it to reach this size - and 32 years for it to become a reality at all.
That's how long Kinki University Fisheries Laboratory in Wakayama struggled to find a way to culture bluefin, not an easy task because the aggressive fish bruises easily and is prone to cannibalism.
The laboratory finally succeeded in raising the fish from eggs in pens in the Pacific waters. The first Kindai (the name is a contraction of the university's name in Japanese) were sold to a hungry Japanese public in 2004. "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/21/FDI910LR9P.DTL&type=printable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:12 am Post subject: Re: Say goodbye to those tuna rolls |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
" Kumai had spent more than three decades trying to farm the bluefin tuna -- Two years later, he began sending it off to sushi counters in Osaka and Tokyo." |
-farming a fish locally in small numbers for profit has very little to do with conservation. Your example is equivalent to keeping a few pandas in zoo cages.
What is needed is to protect the species so that it can exist sustainably in the wild. So it can maintain a viable population.So that humans can harvest a sustainable % each year. This requires protecting it at all stages of its life cycle and at various geographical locations- at its spawning grounds, at its non-breeding grounds, and along its migratory circuit.
| Quote: |
| the Japanese catch around 3000 tons annually - hardly a mind blowing number (considering the sheer vastness of the oceans). |
Your perception of fish stocks is very simplistic. A particular species is highly unlikely to be widespread throughout the entire world's oceans in equal density everywhere. Just because you see a big ocean really does not mean that there are a certain type of fish everywhere in it.
Each species has its own ecological niche and limited range, as on land, and also in the ocean. They are restricted to certain habitats and depths, and geographical zones and ranges: they follow tight migratory paths. If you take out any one link of this chain, their population will be affected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Ok, well wikipedia (the site that anybody can log in and edit at will) is a start I guess... Got anything that doesn't base its conclusions on reports by the World Bank and the UN though? I don't really see how can we trust much of what the UN says (given the history of lies). Or any of the usual associated (banker funded) globalist institutes for that matter. Anyone who tells you "the time for debate is over" and "we need to act now to prevent catastrophe" is not to be trusted imo.
Basically what I'd like is some kind of report by scientists who actually go out and measure fish stocks over years, balanced by a report from the fishing industry itself. Possibly be a tall order, so I won't be surprised if no one can find such a thing. |
So basically the only sources you will trust are those that tell you the answer that you want |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocket_scientist
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Location: Prague
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm from the Midwest and we do fishery management. Thats where we kill all of the fish in a lake a plant new fish. We can control a particular ecosystem in lakes or ponds but with ocean harvesting, it seems like we still rely on luck and black box thinking. You are comfortable with that?
Until a few decades ago we didn't know where marlin, tuna or even where eels came from. That policy looks reckless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:44 am Post subject: Re: Say goodbye to those tuna rolls |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
" Kumai had spent more than three decades trying to farm the bluefin tuna -- Two years later, he began sending it off to sushi counters in Osaka and Tokyo." |
-farming a fish locally in small numbers for profit has very little to do with conservation. Your example is equivalent to keeping a few pandas in zoo cages. |
No it isn't. It is on a small scale so far because the techniques have been so difficult to develop and it takes time, but the demand is obviously very high (as is the potential to make money) so it is liable to become a viable industry in the future.
| Quote: |
| What is needed is to protect the species so that it can exist sustainably in the wild. So it can maintain a viable population.So that humans can harvest a sustainable % each year. This requires protecting it at all stages of its life cycle and at various geographical locations- at its spawning grounds, at its non-breeding grounds, and along its migratory circuit. |
Again, where's the proof that the harvest is not sustainable? Obviously fisheries are down from the cornucopia days of yore, but to say they're on the imminent verge of collapse is a very serious claim to make (and I'd like to hear both sides of the argument, not just the alarmist UN or WWF lines). Some of the claims seem very dubious to me, like the one that tuna fisheries are down 97% from their peak. If there's really only 3% of what there used to be, then how come they're still able to catch so many fish year after year? If things were as drastic as the environmentalists portray, you'd think the industry would have already collapsed years ago. It just defies common sense.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| the Japanese catch around 3000 tons annually - hardly a mind blowing number (considering the sheer vastness of the oceans). |
Your perception of fish stocks is very simplistic. A particular species is highly unlikely to be widespread throughout the entire world's oceans in equal density everywhere. Just because you see a big ocean really does not mean that there are a certain type of fish everywhere in it.
Each species has its own ecological niche and limited range, as on land, and also in the ocean. They are restricted to certain habitats and depths, and geographical zones and ranges: they follow tight migratory paths. If you take out any one link of this chain, their population will be affected. |
Actually blue-fin tuna are found basically everywhere around the globe, and migrate across entire oceans. Calling my perception "simplistic" (not that I ever claimed to be an expert, but I wonder if you're any more qualified yourself) doesn't change that simple fact. The real issue (which you didn't address) is whether or not 3000 tons per year is actually a lot of tuna or not in relative terms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Ok, well wikipedia (the site that anybody can log in and edit at will) is a start I guess... Got anything that doesn't base its conclusions on reports by the World Bank and the UN though? I don't really see how can we trust much of what the UN says (given the history of lies). Or any of the usual associated (banker funded) globalist institutes for that matter. Anyone who tells you "the time for debate is over" and "we need to act now to prevent catastrophe" is not to be trusted imo.
Basically what I'd like is some kind of report by scientists who actually go out and measure fish stocks over years, balanced by a report from the fishing industry itself. Possibly be a tall order, so I won't be surprised if no one can find such a thing. |
So basically the only sources you will trust are those that tell you the answer that you want |
Yeah I know, the nerve. I'm so close-minded and unreasonable for not giving your amazing wikipedia article the respect it deserves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Did I just get called a nutjob by a grown man who babysits lower middle class Korean kids as a "vocation"? |
What's with the jibes regarding teaching English? I can't speak for any other English instructors, but quite a few of my students show reasonable retention of the English they learn in my lessons. If that's babysitting, then what constitutes real education? |
And on this forum of all places. |
Don't make fun of educators. Not cool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:11 am Post subject: Re: Say goodbye to those tuna rolls |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
The Japanese I hadn't actually realized this. It seems I was in error regarding the Japanese ability to effectively fish the Atlantic variety of this tuna. Thanks for the correction. Where do they catch them? |
Well it isn't necessarily Japanese who catch them, it is merely fishermen that then ship their fish to Japan. For instance, JAL increased its nonstop service from Tokyo to Toronto back in the 70s. Why? Because of the fish it could haul back to Japan.
I highly recommend The Sushi Economy: Globalization and the Making of a Modern Delicacy by Sasha Issenberg. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: Say goodbye to those tuna rolls |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The Japanese I hadn't actually realized this. It seems I was in error regarding the Japanese ability to effectively fish the Atlantic variety of this tuna. Thanks for the correction. Where do they catch them? |
Well it isn't necessarily Japanese who catch them, it is merely fishermen that then ship their fish to Japan. For instance, JAL increased its nonstop service from Tokyo to Toronto back in the 70s. Why? Because of the fish it could haul back to Japan.
I highly recommend The Sushi Economy: Globalization and the Making of a Modern Delicacy by Sasha Issenberg. |
Thanks, I'll definitely try to check the book out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
What is your problem with protecting threatened and declining species visitorQ?
Ask yourself why your instinctive reaction to anyone trying to protect the worlds dwindling biodiversity is ridicule, suspicion and dismissal. FYI it is neither macho or impressive to not care about other lifeforms or the resources we depend on, it is suicicidal.
Because it really appears you have little knowledge of, appreciation for nor experience of the natural world at all. You are part of the modern generation cut apart from nature, raised in urban areas, who know very little of the natural world and thus neither care for it. Your reality is human-centred. Everything is explicable and traceable to the workings and conspiracies of politicians.
now there is abundant scientific data to show that stocks of Pacific Bluefin Tuna have declined dramatically. According to the ICCAT, it has declined by 97% over the past 4 decades.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/facts-faits/tuna-thon-bluefin-eng.htm
They conduct these stock asessments by a variety of means, including radiotagging individual fish to locate breeding grounds etc. You seem to think they just make up a figure for political purposes. Even if they did err on the alarmist side it would be justified because the quotas have continually been exceeded and ignored.
But its pointless to show you science, because you immediately dismiss it as the decietful puppet of conspiratorial politicians- a paranoid disposition linked to a certain personality type. So its pretty hard to win with you then isnt it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| What is your problem with protecting threatened and declining species visitorQ? |
I have no problem with it. I just value human rights more than those of fish.
| Quote: |
| Ask yourself why your instinctive reaction to anyone trying to protect the worlds dwindling biodiversity is ridicule, suspicion and dismissal. FYI it is neither macho or impressive to not care about other lifeforms or the resources we depend on, it is suicicidal. |
Wow, that's quite a lot of strawman packed into a single paragraph... Let's see here: ridicule? Nope (the ridicule came from your end if I recall). Suspicion? Yes (with good reason). Dismissal? No, I did no such thing (skepticism and not agreeing with you is not the same as dismissal). Macho and impressive? No idea where you came up with that idea.
| Quote: |
| Because it really appears you have little knowledge of, appreciation for nor experience of the natural world at all. You are part of the modern generation cut apart from nature, raised in urban areas, who know very little of the natural world and thus neither care for it. Your reality is human-centred. Everything is explicable and traceable to the workings and conspiracies of politicians. |
Ok, so I guess if I know nothing about the natural world, that makes you an expert? I take it that's what you'd have me believe? Well, I'm not buying it. For the record, I do like and appreciate nature, I just don't romanticize it like you do.
As for "conspiracies", I don't 'make them up'. Some conspiracies just so happen to be real and well documented. For example, the environmentalist movement came directly from the eugenics movement - this is not my opinion, but a well documented fact that anyone with a mind can verify. It appears you were not aware of it.
This may be true, it may not be. According to the IPCC, the ice caps are going to melt in a decade or so, sea levels are going to rise 20 meters and destroy human civilization, the polar bears are all going to drown, and the earth is going to turn into a scorched desert wasteland. The only problem is that it turns out they were deliberately lying (admittedly) and none of that is going to happen. Government organizations lie so often, it's become hard to believe anything they claim. So many big lies have been exposed in recent years that simply appealing to their authority no longer works.
| Quote: |
| They conduct these stock asessments by a variety of means, including radiotagging individual fish to locate breeding grounds etc. You seem to think they just make up a figure for political purposes. Even if they did err on the alarmist side it would be justified because the quotas have continually been exceeded and ignored. |
I'm confused why you're giving credit to the ICCAT for erring on the alarmist side, when they are the ones being blamed by (and bowing under pressure from) environmentalists for not regulating the industry properly. Anyway, I'm not outright refuting the claim being made, but to leave the political considerations out of it would be totally naive.
You also didn't attempt to answer my question: if tuna stocks are down 97% (a number so ridiculously high you could practically round it off to 100%) then how are they still catching so much tuna each year??? If the amount they catch increases each year, then surely they'd have been catching a lot less in recent years than, say, 30-40 years ago? The claim they're making may have a logical explanation (none given so far), but on its face simply defies common sense.
| Quote: |
| But its pointless to show you science, because you immediately dismiss it as the decietful puppet of conspiratorial politicians- a paranoid disposition linked to a certain personality type. So its pretty hard to win with you then isnt it? |
It's pretty hard to "win" when all you do is make emotional assertions (unconvincing ones at that) and then follow up with ad hominems. You've provided basically nothing that would give anyone who is even mildly skeptical cause to believe you, and then you call anyone who disagrees nutjobs with dysfunctional "personality types". I get that this is your debate strategy, but I'll suggest to you that it's not working. I am open minded, but your 'feelings' on the matter are irrelevant to me, facts are all that matter. You've at least managed to post a few links, but you're only showing your side of the argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
