Comments on: Bottom Trawling As Seen From Space

By: shokk

shokk — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:05:02 +0000

The neat part is there is all that other space that is probably two orders of magnitude more where nothing is being affected.

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:10:52 +0000

This is a downright travesty. It should be outlawed outright.

Of course, on the flipside I love ocean fish. I love tuna and salmon. If it is either my diet or the welfare of the world I think I could abstain.

By: Sceptic

Sceptic — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:54:39 +0000

The picture shows a scale more like what you’d see from an airplane. It measures an area of 10 km (6 mi) and claims “picture, from space!” Guess what- you can also see the problem of someone throwing out their McDonald’s on the highway from space.

By: satyr

satyr — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:59:31 +0000

A couple of points: bottom trawling is no worse than forest clear cutting or burning down rainforests. North America was covered with forests as little as 300 years ago and most of it is now gone. In South America, Africa and Asia the tropical rainforests are slowly disappearing. Humans have burned about 50% of the fossil fuels in the earth. The end result will be a cataclysmic end to the human race when we can no longer sustain the food and energy requirements to feed 6+ billion people. When the humans die off, the non-human plant and animal species will return. It may take a million years or more for the full diversity to manifest itself, but it will happen. The rise of the human race is but a blip in the life cycle of the earth, and though we’ve scorched it pretty well, once we’re gone, nature will continue on quite nicely without us, thank-you.

By: daretoeatapeach

daretoeatapeach — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:31:47 +0000

Weird…why did my post insert a link to Honda.com? Is that a feature of this website?

By: daretoeatapeach

daretoeatapeach — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:30:51 +0000

Emesis: It doesn’t. But it is interesting if you already know what bottom trawling is: scraping clean an entire ecosystem just to get to one product—er, fish. It would be the equivalent of burning down a village to get the floor tile of its residents. It is the kind of thing that is done because it has always been done and is only now being questioned now that the majority of the large fish in the ocean are critically overfished. National Geographic’s website is a good unbiased source for more information. The way we are treating the oceans is so shocking it only continues because we can’t see it happening. So any visual indicator is good.

By: Geological Party Time

Geological Party Time — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:59:56 +0000

“On a per capita basis, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, we have made decent strides in improving our environmental impact.”
I’m not so sure. As wealth spreads and more people consume goods beyond subsistence, I would bet that we are impacting our environment more on a per capita basis.

“A true conservationist would make their own paper by hand from an environmentally friendly plant like hemp and then . . .”
I don’t think sustainability requires a planet full of Ted Kazinskis. It probably does require fewer than 6.5 billion humans though.

We are the most numerous mammal on earth. More than any species of rat or bat. I’m happy to be here, and thrilled to be living in the 99% percentile, but it won’t last.

By: Foreman

Foreman — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:54:33 +0000

It’s going to take a lot of work to fix this planet.

By: Irony

Irony — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:45:35 +0000

What I find more fascinating is those posting about the horrors of technology from a computer that was made at the expense of a large amount of fossil fuels and water and is comprised of hazardous materials e.g., lead and cadmium. A true conservationist would make their own paper by hand from an environmentally friendly plant like hemp and then construct as many fliers as possible with ink made from berries and walnuts with the intent to decry the evils of allowing oneself to slowly lose the oneness we share with the world in a war of attrition against the iniquitous entity that is technology.

By: Colin G

Colin G — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:30:10 +0000

I agree that as of right now, the human species does not deserve long term survival (long term on a planetary timeline.) But I dispute that every generation gets worse and the implication that technology isn’t helping.

On a per capita basis, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, we have made decent strides in improving our environmental impact. But we still must do much more to improve and much faster. Technology is what allowed us to visualize the damage of this horrid practice. Hopefully it will help spur change just like the picture of Earth on the way to the moon from Apollo helped jumpstart the environmental movement.

By: ishmarrodriguez

ishmarrodriguez — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:09:22 +0000

The earth will win the war against humans… Eventually.

By: Emesis

Emesis — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:08:58 +0000

How do trails of dredged-up dust prove that bottom-trawling is harmful?

By: Danly

Danly — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:57:00 +0000

Disgusting. What we do to this world is unimaginable.

Hopefully soon the world just purge’s us all. It’s for the better. We’d sooner see the planet lifeless and cold with our wallets full of greenbacks rather than excersise caution and balance our needs with the planets / other inhabitants.

Every generation seems to get worse. Technology. Heh.

By: raincoaster

raincoaster — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:41:20 +0000

It’s just the Rlyehian equivalent of those hummingbirds in the desert. A landing strip for when the Elder Gods return.