Nothing wrong with dumping plastic waste in the ocean?
- Thread starter Megalodon
- Start date
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Well it's obviously because very living creature is greedy, especially plants. 
Seriously though, maybe I'm just dumb because I work in metabolic physiology and I don't even know what the statement that "all living creatures consume more than they 'need'" means. Hopefully the emperor can help me out because I don't see his new clothes.
I've got a question for this guy too. What other organism besides humans exploits its resources to exhaustion?- and I'm not just talking about locally.
Seriously though, maybe I'm just dumb because I work in metabolic physiology and I don't even know what the statement that "all living creatures consume more than they 'need'" means. Hopefully the emperor can help me out because I don't see his new clothes.
I've got a question for this guy too. What other organism besides humans exploits its resources to exhaustion?- and I'm not just talking about locally.
Megalodon
Clowning Around
Here's the latest exchange with our friend Mars. The first quote is Mars' response to me, the second response is greebean's response to what Mars said to me, then the third response is Mars speaking directly to greenbean...
Mars: The species loss these days is NOTHING compared to the die-offs during the major extinction events, despite your bleating.
greenbean: Not only is it SOMETHING, it's the fastest rate of species loss ever- greater than the event that killed off the dinosaurs. We're currently losing species at at least 10-100 times the background rate, but possibly as much as 10,000x by some estimates.
Mars: hogwash. PROVE it. Cite some study that compares the two? "By some estimates"?
Mars: Nature doesn't keep everything around forever. It kills them creatures off without man's help.
greenbean: Yeah, but it usually keeps them around long enough that speciation occurs faster than extinction. That's not happening currently, which kind of throws a wrench in his idea that surely something will evolve soon to eat the plastic that's killing things off.
Mars: no it doesn't. The planet doesn't "keep anything around until..." I wonder how you view bacteria that "eat" oil spills? http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-25707.html
Mars: Sometimes humans help things along with unsustainable hunting practices but these are mostly primitive societies without regard for your feelings. Half-wits like (Megalodon) who've never read a history book outside of school swallow whatever the latest enviro article claims and draw (incorrect) conclusions.
greenbean: In the past 300 years there have been 21 documented marine extinctions with over 3/4 of those coming in the last 35 years. Ten of those are known to be due to humans, and not primitive societies either- Russia, the US, Japan, etc.
Mars: In the Silurian extinction vast swaths of marine life disappeared completely- not tens of species- millions. It's truly unfortunate to lose species, but this is the nature of events in a dynamic environment. Organisms die when they can't adapt or acclimate to a changing environment. Try reading Darwin- or better yet, take an evolutionary biology course.
Mars: The species loss these days is NOTHING compared to the die-offs during the major extinction events, despite your bleating.
greenbean: Not only is it SOMETHING, it's the fastest rate of species loss ever- greater than the event that killed off the dinosaurs. We're currently losing species at at least 10-100 times the background rate, but possibly as much as 10,000x by some estimates.
Mars: hogwash. PROVE it. Cite some study that compares the two? "By some estimates"?
Mars: Nature doesn't keep everything around forever. It kills them creatures off without man's help.
greenbean: Yeah, but it usually keeps them around long enough that speciation occurs faster than extinction. That's not happening currently, which kind of throws a wrench in his idea that surely something will evolve soon to eat the plastic that's killing things off.
Mars: no it doesn't. The planet doesn't "keep anything around until..." I wonder how you view bacteria that "eat" oil spills? http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-25707.html
Mars: Sometimes humans help things along with unsustainable hunting practices but these are mostly primitive societies without regard for your feelings. Half-wits like (Megalodon) who've never read a history book outside of school swallow whatever the latest enviro article claims and draw (incorrect) conclusions.
greenbean: In the past 300 years there have been 21 documented marine extinctions with over 3/4 of those coming in the last 35 years. Ten of those are known to be due to humans, and not primitive societies either- Russia, the US, Japan, etc.
Mars: In the Silurian extinction vast swaths of marine life disappeared completely- not tens of species- millions. It's truly unfortunate to lose species, but this is the nature of events in a dynamic environment. Organisms die when they can't adapt or acclimate to a changing environment. Try reading Darwin- or better yet, take an evolutionary biology course.
Megalodon
Clowning Around
Again, the first quote is Mars' response to me, the second response is Bill's response to what Mars said, then the third response is Mars speaking directly to Bill...
Mars: (I am) waiting for you to prove (the world's ecosystems) are unhealthy.
Billsreef: He needs to open up his eyes, or take his rose colored glasses off. We have sufficiently levels of hormones in coastal waters to effect the sex ration of fish, these are from a combination of pharmaceuticals and detergents. i.e. totally man made problem. Around my area, closure of creeks and areas of bays to shellfishing, due to pollution. Declining fish stocks, not to mention other animals in other environments...the list goes on. But I doubt he'd consider any of it valid
Mars: hormones? Oh my!! There are pharmaceuticals in American rivers and lakes. Have the ecosystems collapsed? no.
declining fish stocks can happen for a number of reasons including overfishing. That doesn't mean the ecosystem is "unhealthy". As any competent biologist would know- all ecosystems are subjected to disturbance...(maybe you ought to read Paine...)
Mars:Extinctions are unavoidable. They happen despite your best wishes and most of them don't involve cute fuzzy animals.
Billsreef: In some cases yes. However, there are far more due to mans activities such as deforestation, hunting....remember the Dodo bird and the Homing Pigeon? Your example of the whales is also excellent in terms of something almost being driven to extinction by man.
Mars: Do you mean the passenger pigeon?? Hmmm- the dodos went because they couldn't "adapt" to the introduction of rats and pigs in their breeding range. Tragic. (hey, I don't mind simple mistakes but you shouldn't make them when "correcting" some other person.) BTW 'homing' pigeons and "drug-sniffing dogs" are examples of selective breeding.
The extinction of some species by any agency is consistent with Darwin's principles- i.e. "resource limitation" (see also Malthus), "overpopulation" (more are born than can survive) and, "competition" for resources. It's been happening for the last 4 billion years. 99% of everything that has ever lived on this planet has died out and most of it happened long before humans or other hominid species.
Mars: The planet has been killing off major portions of Life for billions of years and most of it happened long before humans showed up in the 20th century
Billsreef: Yes, however, the current rate of extinction is unprecedented without the help of an ice age.
Mars: But the last ice age ended only a few thousand years ago. Planetary time isn't as sensitive to news cycles as human time is. American and Eurasian forests are still recovering from the last ice age. You might not have known that...but I'm glad you agree with me again.
Mars: The species loss these days is NOTHING compared to the die-offs during the major extinction events, despite your bleating.
Billsreef: Nope, see above
Mars:so you're arguing that the earlier extinctions were MILDER than the one you're alleging is occurring now? That's simply false and unsupportable with data. No one has a good count on the number of species now and even a poor marine biologist knows that populations can only be estimated because fish and other marine life move around. Counting methodology could stand a lot of improvement. It's much easier to count what's in the aquarium than what's in the tidal pool. Even predators like starfish and snails can move.
You'd better check. The Silurian extinction eliminated most sea life (there wasn't much on land). The event 225 million back took out quite a lot. The Chixulub incident and the Deccan traps also creating unpleasant conditions long before humans showed up. At the most humans might have driven 1% into extinction and that is far, far less than any prior event took.
Mars: Nature doesn't keep everything around forever. It kills them creatures off without man's help.
Billsreef: That still doesn't give us the right to screw up the environment and drive species to extinction for the sake of our greed.
Mars:When you say "our greed" you mean yourself, right?? Aren't you the person exploiting sensitive ecosystems so that you can market rare fish? I don't extinguish species...I study them.
Mars: Sometimes humans help things along with unsustainable hunting practices but these are mostly primitive societies without regard for your feelings
Billsreef: Didn't realize we were still considered a primitive society.
Mars:embrace it. But what you do and don't "realize" isn't the issue. How do you suppose the Atlantic fishing stocks were depleted? Would you call that sophisticated?
Mars: (I am) waiting for you to prove (the world's ecosystems) are unhealthy.
Billsreef: He needs to open up his eyes, or take his rose colored glasses off. We have sufficiently levels of hormones in coastal waters to effect the sex ration of fish, these are from a combination of pharmaceuticals and detergents. i.e. totally man made problem. Around my area, closure of creeks and areas of bays to shellfishing, due to pollution. Declining fish stocks, not to mention other animals in other environments...the list goes on. But I doubt he'd consider any of it valid
Mars: hormones? Oh my!! There are pharmaceuticals in American rivers and lakes. Have the ecosystems collapsed? no.
declining fish stocks can happen for a number of reasons including overfishing. That doesn't mean the ecosystem is "unhealthy". As any competent biologist would know- all ecosystems are subjected to disturbance...(maybe you ought to read Paine...)
Mars:Extinctions are unavoidable. They happen despite your best wishes and most of them don't involve cute fuzzy animals.
Billsreef: In some cases yes. However, there are far more due to mans activities such as deforestation, hunting....remember the Dodo bird and the Homing Pigeon? Your example of the whales is also excellent in terms of something almost being driven to extinction by man.
Mars: Do you mean the passenger pigeon?? Hmmm- the dodos went because they couldn't "adapt" to the introduction of rats and pigs in their breeding range. Tragic. (hey, I don't mind simple mistakes but you shouldn't make them when "correcting" some other person.) BTW 'homing' pigeons and "drug-sniffing dogs" are examples of selective breeding.
The extinction of some species by any agency is consistent with Darwin's principles- i.e. "resource limitation" (see also Malthus), "overpopulation" (more are born than can survive) and, "competition" for resources. It's been happening for the last 4 billion years. 99% of everything that has ever lived on this planet has died out and most of it happened long before humans or other hominid species.
Mars: The planet has been killing off major portions of Life for billions of years and most of it happened long before humans showed up in the 20th century
Billsreef: Yes, however, the current rate of extinction is unprecedented without the help of an ice age.
Mars: But the last ice age ended only a few thousand years ago. Planetary time isn't as sensitive to news cycles as human time is. American and Eurasian forests are still recovering from the last ice age. You might not have known that...but I'm glad you agree with me again.
Mars: The species loss these days is NOTHING compared to the die-offs during the major extinction events, despite your bleating.
Billsreef: Nope, see above
Mars:so you're arguing that the earlier extinctions were MILDER than the one you're alleging is occurring now? That's simply false and unsupportable with data. No one has a good count on the number of species now and even a poor marine biologist knows that populations can only be estimated because fish and other marine life move around. Counting methodology could stand a lot of improvement. It's much easier to count what's in the aquarium than what's in the tidal pool. Even predators like starfish and snails can move.
You'd better check. The Silurian extinction eliminated most sea life (there wasn't much on land). The event 225 million back took out quite a lot. The Chixulub incident and the Deccan traps also creating unpleasant conditions long before humans showed up. At the most humans might have driven 1% into extinction and that is far, far less than any prior event took.
Mars: Nature doesn't keep everything around forever. It kills them creatures off without man's help.
Billsreef: That still doesn't give us the right to screw up the environment and drive species to extinction for the sake of our greed.
Mars:When you say "our greed" you mean yourself, right?? Aren't you the person exploiting sensitive ecosystems so that you can market rare fish? I don't extinguish species...I study them.
Mars: Sometimes humans help things along with unsustainable hunting practices but these are mostly primitive societies without regard for your feelings
Billsreef: Didn't realize we were still considered a primitive society.
Mars:embrace it. But what you do and don't "realize" isn't the issue. How do you suppose the Atlantic fishing stocks were depleted? Would you call that sophisticated?
greenbean36191
Premium Member
I specified total depletion of resources, not local destruction. Last time I checked elephants weren't eating acacias into extinction.
Here's a start-
Dirzo, R. and P.H. Raven. 2003. Global state of biodiversity and loss. An. Rev. Env. Res. 28: 137-167.
Hughes, J.B., G.C. Daily, and P.R. Ehrlich. 1997. Population Diversity: Its Extent and Extinction. Science 278: 689-692.
Novacek, M.J. and E.E. Cleland. 2001. The current biodiversity extinction event: Scenarios for mitigation and recovery. PNAS 98: 5466-5470.
Pimm, S.L., et al. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269: 347-350.
Various chapters in Extinction Rates by Lawton and Mays...
Should I go on?
Just for the sake of fairness, how about a recent peer-reviewed article demonstrating that the current rate of extinction is "nothing?"
This has nothing to do with the statement I made. Current diversity exists because on average speciation had occurred faster than extinction. If extinction occurs faster than speciation diversity declines. It's as simple as that. Less species and genetic diversity means less probability that a given trait will evolve.
Lets compare apples to apples here. The Silurian extinction spanned 10 million years. If we assume that the documented cases of marine extinction represent even half of the total number in the past 35 years (which we know isn't the case), at the current rate we would lose 90% of the world's diversity, terrestrial and marine, in 10 million years. The Silurian event claimed 85%.
There's that pesky key point about those disturbances being intermediate, otherwise diversity and the function of the community suffers. The region-wide loss of keystone species due to introduced pathogens or the complete removal of large predators due to overharvesting doesn't represent an intermediate disturbance. When these types of events result in almost immediate and long-lasting phase shifts that are unprecedented in the fossil record, that's a pretty good indication that things aren't healthy.
By the same logic, all people are going to die, therefore genocide is natural and shouldn't raise any concerns.
Calculating extinction rates has nothing to do with estimating populations, which certainly isn't exact, but gives useful estimates pretty easily.
Time to cite some data
I think it was George Carlin that explained why humans are here. The planet could not figure out how to make styrofoam. Once we humans make enough, the Earth will get rid of us all because it won't need us anymore.
Would you ask your teacher if he supports legislation like the Clean Water Act, if there is a need for it, and why so many freshwater systems are impaired due to human impacts.
I have the feeling that your teacher simply likes to argue and gets a certain level of pleasure from making others mad. It is sort of like shock art etc.
Would you ask your teacher if he supports legislation like the Clean Water Act, if there is a need for it, and why so many freshwater systems are impaired due to human impacts.
I have the feeling that your teacher simply likes to argue and gets a certain level of pleasure from making others mad. It is sort of like shock art etc.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
You may want to consider one thing... George Carlin was very clearly on the "teachers" side of the argument and was very candid about saying so 
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
FWIW, Not everybody agrees with "our" biologists on every point. Though I respect both Bill and Greenbean and their opinions and knowledge of, I would likely differ greatly on some (or even many) conclusions that they may draw from the same data on the table in front of all of us. Topics like this have many facets and many interpretations. Your teacher has drawn different conclusions when presented with much of the same data. He may believe, or just use the extreme perspective to further his basic point. Those on the extreme opposite of the issue do the same thing.
There is a world full of contradictory data and well formed and supported arguments that further the points on both sides of this and many environmental issues. For each well educated and articulate "Bill" or "Greenbean", there is a just as well educated and articulate counterpart that holds the exact opposite opinion. A lot can be learned form either side. It is up to you to gain your own perspective, but don't just dismiss somebody who's opinion differs as a crazy moron...
There is a world full of contradictory data and well formed and supported arguments that further the points on both sides of this and many environmental issues. For each well educated and articulate "Bill" or "Greenbean", there is a just as well educated and articulate counterpart that holds the exact opposite opinion. A lot can be learned form either side. It is up to you to gain your own perspective, but don't just dismiss somebody who's opinion differs as a crazy moron...
Megalodon
Clowning Around
This same teacher on mercury levels in the oceans and the resulting human poisoning from eating too much fish...
Also, humankind is not "important" enough to affect the chemistry of the ocean (or the atmosphere) so any idea we could be raising the mercury levels in seawater is nonsense.
Basically he's says that mercury was always present in the ocean at the current levels and fish have always been tainted, it's just that there's more awareness about it now because people are eating more fish and it's being diagnosed. (I'm sure awareness and advances in medicine is a part of the reason but...)
Also, humankind is not "important" enough to affect the chemistry of the ocean (or the atmosphere) so any idea we could be raising the mercury levels in seawater is nonsense.
Last edited:
RicksReefs
New member
don't just dismiss somebody who's opinion differs as a crazy moron...
to late. this teacher already reached critical mass on being a 'crazy moron'...
Bluetangclan
New member
On the note of nature adapting to situations. What is the deal with Vinegar eels? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong (Micro-biology was not one of my favorite subjects) but they only exist in vinegar right? While I know vinegar is semi-naturally occurring I dont know how it appears without man purposely making it happen. On that note, how did the eels(I know they arent real eels) evolve to live in that environment?
Whats to say some bacterial mutation wont come across and eat plastics eventually?
By the way, I seriously disagree with the teacher involved and despise littering the ocean with plastics because I know its horrible for the environment. This post was idle musing of something I thought of while reading the thread and remembering zoology classes I had.
Whats to say some bacterial mutation wont come across and eat plastics eventually?
By the way, I seriously disagree with the teacher involved and despise littering the ocean with plastics because I know its horrible for the environment. This post was idle musing of something I thought of while reading the thread and remembering zoology classes I had.
Bluetangclan
New member
You're teacher is on crack. Tell him/her I said they need help.
As a historic reference, just look to what they used to put on the old wooden ships to keep encrustig critters off. Oh and what is it we use to treat disease and stuff in our fish only tanks, and why dont we use it on reef tanks?
As a historic reference, just look to what they used to put on the old wooden ships to keep encrustig critters off. Oh and what is it we use to treat disease and stuff in our fish only tanks, and why dont we use it on reef tanks?
eyesinthedrk
New member
this definatly took off in a diffrent direction, i do agree plastic trash washing up on beaches is ugly, and yes thoes old 6 pack retaining rings did propose a suffocation hazard, but to say plastic by itsself is a threat is a bit over reaching,
though hes a pompas @$$ i think the point hes making about mercury in the oceans is that for the first 3/4 of civilized man, only coastal sociaties ate ocean fish, and though they may have been dieing of mercury poisioning all along, all they knew at the time was that the victim caught the dreaded feaver,
my personal opinion is there are diehards on both sides of every issue, and verry rarely is one side absoutly right, more often than not the truth is somewhere in the middle, my example to this point with my kids is the great white shark, there are those that believe sharks are man hating beast and will eat anything that moves, by this logic every surfer on the california coast south africa and austraila would be dead, on the other side of the coin you only need to watch a few things on discovery channel before you start hearing that great whites wont eat a human and that all the bites are accidental, by this logic we should all be able to free swim with geat white sharks and give them a little pat on the head,
the fact is most people will believe what they want to believe, if you like argueing by all means keep going to the sight and rant all you want
though hes a pompas @$$ i think the point hes making about mercury in the oceans is that for the first 3/4 of civilized man, only coastal sociaties ate ocean fish, and though they may have been dieing of mercury poisioning all along, all they knew at the time was that the victim caught the dreaded feaver,
my personal opinion is there are diehards on both sides of every issue, and verry rarely is one side absoutly right, more often than not the truth is somewhere in the middle, my example to this point with my kids is the great white shark, there are those that believe sharks are man hating beast and will eat anything that moves, by this logic every surfer on the california coast south africa and austraila would be dead, on the other side of the coin you only need to watch a few things on discovery channel before you start hearing that great whites wont eat a human and that all the bites are accidental, by this logic we should all be able to free swim with geat white sharks and give them a little pat on the head,
the fact is most people will believe what they want to believe, if you like argueing by all means keep going to the sight and rant all you want
RicksReefs
New member
the problem with the 'mercury has always been there' argument is it hasn't always been there. sure, it's naturally occuring metal, but man has mined it, used it in just about every household in the last 50+ years, then thrown it away, to seep into the nearest stream, aquefier, etc. until it makes it's way to the ocean. where the lowest lifeforms adsorb it, then get eaten, and that critter gets eaten, on up the chain getting concentrated until the apex predators eat the tainted fish.
eyesinthedrk
New member
but when did they start testing for it ?
im asking because i dont know,
im asking because i dont know,
One of, if not that biggest, source of mercury being released into the environment is from the burning of coal. So yes it does go back a long ways, but it is still from the actions of man and still a bad thing. Just because we've been releasing pollutants in large quantities for hundreds of years doesn't make it alright.
Oh, ask him why they use copper in bottom paint for boats if it isn't bad for marinelife? It would be pretty silly to use it if it didn't kill things and prevent fouling :lol:
Oh, ask him why they use copper in bottom paint for boats if it isn't bad for marinelife? It would be pretty silly to use it if it didn't kill things and prevent fouling :lol:
Similar threads
