Nothing wrong with dumping plastic waste in the ocean?
- Thread starter Megalodon
- Start date
liveforphysics
New member
Painful to say it, but this guy does have a lot of good points.
Species tend to find a nitch advantage, then exploit it to the point that it impacts or even destroys entire other species. Humans currently seem to be the species with a gift for doing this on a broad scale, but I think micro-organisms likely win the prize for most widespread enviromental impact, both micro and macro, positive and negative.
Human actions are human actions, not much different from a forest fire, a fatal diesese outbreak, a plauge of locusts, or a drought. They cause changes, but who's to say if it' for better or for worse in the long run? Are we bummed that some extinction caused the dinosaurs to die, or do we look at it like a change to enable different animals to try out life? If humans are here or not, nature continues to find ways to destroy and dry up massive oceans, turn rainforests to deserts, reefs into limestone flats, and bring countless animals to extinction.
The side of me that loves to enjoy nature and dive tropical reefs is never excited to see the trash and human vandalization. I enjoy to get to see things as they exist with out humans making there mark on them, and I make efforts to try to keep my own enivitable marking to a minimum.
I think as humans we can choose to tread lightly or to stomp, and this does effect what the world looks like we see around us. However, I don't think our choices ultimately makes a lick of difference to the earth on an earth-time scale.
The rainforests and wetlands are the largest greehouse gas emmiters on the earth, making all human contributions seem fairly minimal. But I would rather we didn't try to burn all the rainforest and drain the wetlands to try to delay the next enivitable natural change on the earth. They pollute, we pollute, and changes in nature continue to bump on down the path.
Lots of heavy material to swallow, and lots of good points made all around.
Species tend to find a nitch advantage, then exploit it to the point that it impacts or even destroys entire other species. Humans currently seem to be the species with a gift for doing this on a broad scale, but I think micro-organisms likely win the prize for most widespread enviromental impact, both micro and macro, positive and negative.
Human actions are human actions, not much different from a forest fire, a fatal diesese outbreak, a plauge of locusts, or a drought. They cause changes, but who's to say if it' for better or for worse in the long run? Are we bummed that some extinction caused the dinosaurs to die, or do we look at it like a change to enable different animals to try out life? If humans are here or not, nature continues to find ways to destroy and dry up massive oceans, turn rainforests to deserts, reefs into limestone flats, and bring countless animals to extinction.
The side of me that loves to enjoy nature and dive tropical reefs is never excited to see the trash and human vandalization. I enjoy to get to see things as they exist with out humans making there mark on them, and I make efforts to try to keep my own enivitable marking to a minimum.
I think as humans we can choose to tread lightly or to stomp, and this does effect what the world looks like we see around us. However, I don't think our choices ultimately makes a lick of difference to the earth on an earth-time scale.
The rainforests and wetlands are the largest greehouse gas emmiters on the earth, making all human contributions seem fairly minimal. But I would rather we didn't try to burn all the rainforest and drain the wetlands to try to delay the next enivitable natural change on the earth. They pollute, we pollute, and changes in nature continue to bump on down the path.
Lots of heavy material to swallow, and lots of good points made all around.
Last edited:
RicksReefs
New member
toss us back into loincloths and using sticks for weapons and I might agree that what we do is natural.
I think it's rather disingenuous to say that because we're part of nature, that anything we do is natural.
maybe I'm from another planet, but I think that any species that has sentience and creates things that kill for them, should have responsibility for their actions and the use of things that kill.
I think it's rather disingenuous to say that because we're part of nature, that anything we do is natural.
maybe I'm from another planet, but I think that any species that has sentience and creates things that kill for them, should have responsibility for their actions and the use of things that kill.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
I must have missed his good points.
The idea that anything we do is natural seems to me like a cop-out on our responsibility. Humans are different from every other organism on the planet in several regards. Few other species utilize their resources to complete exhaustion (globally, not locally). Few other species have the capacity to fundamentally change global atmospheric chemistry and biosphere function. The only other example I can think of off the top of my head is cyanobacteria that produced the first oxygen. What other species uses non-metabolic processes to produces materials that are found nowhere else in the universe (that we know of)? We are also the only species that has the ability to see the bigger picture and realize and adjust the consequences of those actions.
I don't think anyone here questions whether the earth and life on it will go on without humans. I don't think anyone here even believes we're at danger of driving ourselves extinct anytime soon. However, it's pretty hard to argue that the current trends aren't building lots of human suffering into the pipeline down the road. If some foreign country threatened our water and food supply or threatened to destroy large parts of numerous cities, people would be up in arms ready to attack them. No one would be saying "They're just humans- another part of nature." With more nebulous, creeping problems it's a lot easier to write it off as a non-issue or someone else's problem. It's the old frog in the pot story.
The idea that anything we do is natural seems to me like a cop-out on our responsibility. Humans are different from every other organism on the planet in several regards. Few other species utilize their resources to complete exhaustion (globally, not locally). Few other species have the capacity to fundamentally change global atmospheric chemistry and biosphere function. The only other example I can think of off the top of my head is cyanobacteria that produced the first oxygen. What other species uses non-metabolic processes to produces materials that are found nowhere else in the universe (that we know of)? We are also the only species that has the ability to see the bigger picture and realize and adjust the consequences of those actions.
I don't think anyone here questions whether the earth and life on it will go on without humans. I don't think anyone here even believes we're at danger of driving ourselves extinct anytime soon. However, it's pretty hard to argue that the current trends aren't building lots of human suffering into the pipeline down the road. If some foreign country threatened our water and food supply or threatened to destroy large parts of numerous cities, people would be up in arms ready to attack them. No one would be saying "They're just humans- another part of nature." With more nebulous, creeping problems it's a lot easier to write it off as a non-issue or someone else's problem. It's the old frog in the pot story.
Megalodon
Clowning Around
Rising Acidity Is Threatening Food Web of Oceans, Science Panel Says
By Cornelia Dean
The New York Times
January 30, 2009
The oceans have long buffered the effects of climate change by absorbing a substantial portion of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. But this benefit has a catch: as the gas dissolves, it makes seawater more acidic. Now an international panel of marine scientists says this acidity is accelerating so fast it threatens the survival of coral reefs, shellfish and the marine food web generally.
The panel, comprising 155 scientists from 26 countries and other international groups, is not the first to point to growing ocean acidity as an environmental threat. For example, a group of eminent scientists convened by The Nature Conservancy issued a similar assessment in August. But the new report’s blunt language and international backing give its assessment unusual force. It called for “urgent action†to sharply reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
“Severe damages are imminent,†the group said Friday in a statement summing up its deliberations at a symposium in Monaco last October. The statement, called the Monaco Declaration, said increasing acidity was interfering with the growth and health of shellfish and eating away at coral reefs, processes that would eventually affect marine food webs generally.
Already, the group said, there have been detectable decreases in shellfish and shell weights, and interference with the growth of coral skeletons.
Jeremy B. C. Jackson, a coral expert at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego who has no connection to the Monaco report, said “there is just no doubt†that the acidification of the oceans is a major problem. “Nobody really focused on it because we were all so worried about warming,†he said, “but it is very clear that acid is a major threat.â€Â
Carbon dioxide, principally from the burning of fossil fuels, is the major component of greenhouse gas emissions, which have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.
Oceans absorb about a quarter of carbon dioxide emissions, the group said, but as the gas dissolves in the oceans it produces carbonic acid.
The group says acidity of ocean surface waters has increased by 30 percent since the 17th century.
“The chemistry is so fundamental and changes so rapid and severe that impacts on organisms appear unavoidable,†according to James Orr, who headed the symposium’s scientific committee. Dr. Orr is a chemical oceanographer at the Marine Environmental Laboratory in Monaco, an affiliate of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body.
According to the declaration, “ocean acidification may render most regions chemically inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050.†The group said that acidification could be controlled only by limiting future atmospheric levels of the gas. Other strategies, including “fertilizing†the oceans to encourage the growth of tiny marine plants that take up carbon dioxide, may actually make the problem worse in some regions, it said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31ocean.html?_r=1
By Cornelia Dean
The New York Times
January 30, 2009
The oceans have long buffered the effects of climate change by absorbing a substantial portion of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. But this benefit has a catch: as the gas dissolves, it makes seawater more acidic. Now an international panel of marine scientists says this acidity is accelerating so fast it threatens the survival of coral reefs, shellfish and the marine food web generally.
The panel, comprising 155 scientists from 26 countries and other international groups, is not the first to point to growing ocean acidity as an environmental threat. For example, a group of eminent scientists convened by The Nature Conservancy issued a similar assessment in August. But the new report’s blunt language and international backing give its assessment unusual force. It called for “urgent action†to sharply reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
“Severe damages are imminent,†the group said Friday in a statement summing up its deliberations at a symposium in Monaco last October. The statement, called the Monaco Declaration, said increasing acidity was interfering with the growth and health of shellfish and eating away at coral reefs, processes that would eventually affect marine food webs generally.
Already, the group said, there have been detectable decreases in shellfish and shell weights, and interference with the growth of coral skeletons.
Jeremy B. C. Jackson, a coral expert at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego who has no connection to the Monaco report, said “there is just no doubt†that the acidification of the oceans is a major problem. “Nobody really focused on it because we were all so worried about warming,†he said, “but it is very clear that acid is a major threat.â€Â
Carbon dioxide, principally from the burning of fossil fuels, is the major component of greenhouse gas emissions, which have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.
Oceans absorb about a quarter of carbon dioxide emissions, the group said, but as the gas dissolves in the oceans it produces carbonic acid.
The group says acidity of ocean surface waters has increased by 30 percent since the 17th century.
“The chemistry is so fundamental and changes so rapid and severe that impacts on organisms appear unavoidable,†according to James Orr, who headed the symposium’s scientific committee. Dr. Orr is a chemical oceanographer at the Marine Environmental Laboratory in Monaco, an affiliate of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body.
According to the declaration, “ocean acidification may render most regions chemically inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050.†The group said that acidification could be controlled only by limiting future atmospheric levels of the gas. Other strategies, including “fertilizing†the oceans to encourage the growth of tiny marine plants that take up carbon dioxide, may actually make the problem worse in some regions, it said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31ocean.html?_r=1
Beaun
It's pronounced Bone
Any formally trained scientist would know that when dealing with the environment you ALWAYS take humans out of the "natural" equation. Human influences, while very real, are NEVER considered natural. They are always outside forces. We must always be looking to minimize our impacts on the remaining natural areas.
We, as humans, are able to decipher and reason, therefore we are able to, and should, take oursevles out of the equasion. Maybe if we were still hunter/gatherers then we would be part of it. But that is just not the case. Our intelect and technology have removed us from it.
We have a special place as caretakers/stewards of the environemnt. It is not to do whatever we want to the environment and let the cards lay where they may.
Megalodon
Clowning Around
The teachers comments regarding the hardiness of reef inhabitants and their ability to move around the ocean on a daily even hourly basis in search of water conditions that suit their fancy...
Megalodon
Clowning Around
Here's some of his points I haven't yet shared...
That Reefcentral is nothing more than a "bait shop."
There's no such thing as an expert on Reefcentral, or any other hobby website.
Aquarists don't know anything about reefs.
And that anyone with the word "bean" in their user name is someone not to be taken seriously.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
He may be correct on some or all counts... Even if he wasn't, there is not a thing that anybody here could say to convince him otherwise.
He has clearly evoked the desired responses from those participating his choreographed debate. Geppetto would be proud of him and his ability to pull strings and get the exact reaction he had hoped for.
If nothing else, this has certainly been amusing and I am sure class is even better. I do feel slightly bad for the weak or mealy-mouthed who attempt to differ with him and become the poster children for his natural selection lecture
He has clearly evoked the desired responses from those participating his choreographed debate. Geppetto would be proud of him and his ability to pull strings and get the exact reaction he had hoped for.
If nothing else, this has certainly been amusing and I am sure class is even better. I do feel slightly bad for the weak or mealy-mouthed who attempt to differ with him and become the poster children for his natural selection lecture
RicksReefs
New member
I feel bad for the people forced to listen to his drivel. 
Megalodon
Clowning Around
I can't quite see where he's getting desired responses or presenting a choreographed debate. He seems to get right ticked off at opposition and says some rather unprofessional things. He doesn't make any excuses for it either, LOL.
Ah well, it's all good. Debate is a great learning experience for everyone, and as usual, the truth is somewhere floating in the middle of the two extremes. It's just my personal opinion the truth is floating much more on the conservation side of things and the coral reefs do in fact need greater protection. It's also my opinion science tends to support that.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Your teacher mixes fact with outlandish comments and or personal insults in order to raise the level of energy in the conversation. He is driving the conversation in the direction he wants it to go. He may not have counted on well worded educated responses, but he certainly counts on the "Ohh god this man is crazy, how can he be allowed to teach kids" responses.
Anyway... Have fun.
Anyway... Have fun.
reefscape15
New member
I really don't like to be mean but this so called "teacher" that said this to you is a complete moron!!!! What a great idea! Lets dump more crap into the already dying oceans!!!! Does this person realize that every life form arose from the combination of light and WATER?!?!?!?! I really hope that he is not any kind of science teacher. Man i hate stupid people!!!!
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
In a certain way this guy has a point. Life in some form will continue on earth despite all but our very best attempts. The point he is missing is we are not immune to mass extinctions. Let's not get melodramatic lets jsut say MASSIVE change. We live pretty well as a species and the idea that life will regulate itself is mostly correct... we just may not be in the winners circle. I for one think that if the ocean stopped supporting life we could eat and not get sick that the ensuing famine and \famine induced wars... would be a bad thing.
One thing this guy seems to be constantly missing is the speed in which adaptation can occur. What has made humans so successful is our ability to learn and therefore adapt to changing conditions. Evolution is often a generation behind
Sorry if these points are old hat but I just stumbled onto the thread and figured I would throw out my bait shop opinion as well
Similar threads
