www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Bong Janssen wrote: <...>
if you are interested in specific fish... http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/peril_overfishing.html
I've already said I know that some species are overfished. I offered a couple solutions to the problem, neither of which would displace workers or deny favored foods to consumers. I'm waiting for the people on your side of the issue to come forward with proposals that don't require others to adopt novel, peculiar diets and don't put entire industries out of business.
'my side' isn'tr really a side.
i want peace and happines for people and
animals both, so my side is everyone's side.
it's possible to live without eating fish, but it's not possible for a fish to live when it's being caught to be eaten
"peculiar diet" you could also use the phrase "more healthy diet"
when you eat meat, it's normal when you don't eat meat, then that is normal different than the majority isn't neccessarily harmful, "follow the masses only if you feel it is best to, not simply because everyone else is"
To a certain degree, true. A lot of degradation of resources, though, is natural and completely unrelated to human activity. Nature is in flux. It will remain in flux regardless of our activities.
trees wouldn't be deforested at the rates they are naturally,
ground water would not be depleted,
soil wouldn't be eroded at the same rate,
air wouldn't be building up CO2
... those credible sources make it clear that humans are not preserving, but are degrading and depleting, neccessary resources for life
<...>
A lot of it's based on distorted extrapolations and static analysis of complex data. Do you remember back when the Exxon Valdez spilled her oily cargo into Prince William Sound? We were told it would be generations before fishing would resume due to the devastation. Yet it only took a couple years for wildlife to rebound. Fishing occurs now, within the same generation.
not all things follow that example... and to point out, the effort to improve the situation after the spill was likely very important to make things better.
Nonsense. I remember the activists saying that washing birds and otters would only save their lives in the short run but that long-term problems would persist because there was no way to remove the tarry oil from the coast.
so you are saying all the clean-up efforts didn't help the situation at all?
if you believe any specific piece of info is incorrect, i'd be
interested to
see any 'more credible' data that suggests it.
See the following link, which gives a rather cautious answer to long-term consequences. Regardless of their caution, they do not dispute that the Sound has recovered much faster than predicted. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/bat2/recovery.html
this wasn't a specific point i made
it is interesting, thank you. Still a big oil spill has killed several
animals and has left the spill area less healthy than it once was... this is
not actually a good thing.
And it's not the course of the degradation of our water, soil, air, and trees either. spilling and cleaning up oil, and deforestation are very different things
Ten years after the blazes, Yellowstone continues to rebound.
"Mother nature is taking care of herself pretty well," ecologist
Jay Anderson of Idaho State University told Science magazine...
Fish and mammals survived the holocaust surprisingly well, and
annual weeds covered most of the charred areas the next year.
Today, lodgepole pines -- which dominated the park for 10,000
years -- are poking through the shrubs and weeds, indicating a
return of the park's old ecosystem.http://whyfiles.org/018forest_fire/main2.html (University of Wisconsin site)
still, i think the majority of people get their ideas of facts from mainstream authorities, and not sources that aren't mainstream and are marginal
It's thoroughly irrelevant if they're going to continue with old dietary patterns. Why should we throw money at propaganda, I mean information, aimed at getting people to do things they won't?
providing healthier food, which doesn't require killing as many animals, and
informing the healthiness of it...is not propaganda...
it's information
advising people to exercise may not be followed either, but it's surely not propaganda
soy milk sales have been *growing* at over 20% a year http://www.newhope.com/nfm-online/nfm_backs/apr_02/soy.cfm
in 2001 there was more than $1.8 billion in soyfood sales http://www.spins.com/natural/soytrends.pdf
people are obviously eating these foods, 20% grow is pretty high.. the population isn't increasing at 20% a year, so a lot of people are starting to drink soymilk at a fast rate
I've already ceded those species. Why should we ban all fishing of all fish in the North Sea, around the Falklands, and the Gulf of California? That's an extremist measure since many other species in those areas have healthy populations. The proposal from the article Chelsea posted also fails to consider other measures -- like quotas and size limits -- that could help satisfy consumer demand and help the affected species rebound quickly.
i agree.. i think that ban wouldn't go anywhere. it'd be like peta trying to get McDonalds to stop running business, instead of getting it to make the changes they made
..compromise and small steps are good to use
those measures would help some variables, but they would still cause many fish being killed each year
what did enron do,
IRRELEVANT.
not really, business is business... fishing is done for profits
*You* work for profits. Enron is thoroughly irrelevant to the issue since they were involved in energy, not fishing. Stick to the damn topic.
i don't sabotage the resources that allow me to profit... enron, and some fishing businesses, and BMS, and loads of other companies are
...regardless, some fish populations are being reduced and in danger, so obviously some fishing groups are doing this
thethe facts are that several species of fish are being overfished... maybehappeningfishermen don't want to, or maybe they do, who knows? but it is
There are options available to sustain the fish and the fishermen.
"fish" is made up of many fish
similarly, it would be possible to kill million of "men" each year and still have a sustinable population of "man"
<snip>
IRRELEVANT.
business
What do you do for a living?
i invest, trade stocks
<...>
Why don't you offer information rather than asking if I want to hear
it?
cause some people don't want to know
I do. Tell me facts.
I'm waiting....
"Two sides of the story,
and you're going against the one for jobs, a strong economy, and a sustainable future."
that side is the one that's depleteing and degrading the resources, strong
economy?
the stock market of all the large companies has dropped more than
30%,
a third of it's value, in the last 3 years alone,
their earnings are very low, many companies have gone BK bankrupt,
all the workers of the BK
companies have to look for new jobs, and all the companies downsizing are
left looking for new work also
the capitalism side has badly hurt the
golden goose to try to get more eggs at once...
and now the goose is in very bad health and it will be a while before the economy will be strong again
The global economy is improving with US companies poised to
resume capital investment, a crucial component in lifting world
growth, the world's top central bankers said at a meeting in
Basle. The Group of 10 central bankers cited encouraging second quarter
results from the US as well as growing business and consumer
confidence.
http://tinyurl.com/mpntNo, both sides play the same freaking game.
yes, and only 1 side wins.
when one side tried to get the legal drinking limit for driving lowered, the resturant and bar groups were protesting... sometimes one "side" is actually doing something that will be helpful
The final traffic fatality research released today by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration brings good and
bad news. The good news is that last year alcohol-related
traffic deaths were lower than previously estimated. The bad
news, however, is that 17,419 people died in preventable
tragedies accounting for 41 percent of total traffic fatalities.
This makes three years in a row that alcohol-related traffic
fatalities have increased - a sad chapter in U.S. history.
http://www.madd.org/news/0,1056,6896,00.htmlandthis is similar to asking if monsanto or anti-gmo groups contribute more money to politicians. the group with more money 'invests' more money,thus they are the 'highest bidder' for the politicians' votes
That's not quite how it works. Politicians are ultimately responsible to constituents, not to supporters and lobbies. I don't question that contributions grant access and even curry some favor, but politicians do not operate solely at the behest of contributors.
they don't, but i follow the big 1 party, and Bush has a big record of doing
the opposite of his campaign promises,
and also doing the opposite of what he's asked to do...
especially on the very high-stake issues... the small issues are easy
a case in point is that americans have overwhelmingly wanted GMO foods to be labelled, by credible sources doing the polling... the FDA even did it's own poll... but the FDA and the gov't refuse to label them, even though their reasons are "unreasonable"
people commonly say voting is between the lesser of 2 evils, and there are common jokes that campaign promises aren't kept- these are known things the big politicians get into office by the image, and once in they can do pretty much what they want. Clinton is caught having lied under oath to a federal grand jury, and nothing happens??? there are some well-intention politicians out there Boxer and others, but many of them collect money from the people from taxes and live quite luxuriously. money and politics, because politics is power that allows more money, and it takes money to get into politics
Just for the record, most of the companies in the "energy industry" are involved in renewable energy. Were it not for the established companies, solar and wind technologies would still be cost-prohibitive due to tiny research and development budgets, small-scale production, etc.
true, and only the energy industry are blocking efforts to require reductions in CO2...
Not entirely true on a few accounts, but it's off topic (can you stay ON topic???!!).
it is largely true, and you brought up the issue
whomy point is, that out of 2 groups, who want different things... 1 group will have more money... and donate more money to thosemake decisions often the difference in money is very large
And irrelevant in the whole scheme of things. Some of the toughest environmental laws we have, like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, were pushed by conservative Republican presidents.
i'm not pro and anti anyone, only pro-everyone and anti-big biz at the expense of the majority
global warming, genetically engineered foods, CO2 reductions, aresenic levels in water, mountain-top cutting, waste water acts, fuel efficiency increase there are loads where the big biz's are given the vote
It's irrelevant and has nothing to do with commercial fishing. PCRM are an extremist group. Their self-serving and misleading summaries of their lawsuits don't reveal anything except their own bias.
more importantly than being part of the majority or not (why simply blindly conclude that following the majority is good, and being in the minority is bad?)
is there anything the PCRM says that isn't backed up by credible science?
self-serving... misleading... what part did you find was inaccurate?
bid,many politicians are bought by the highest bidder.... when there is athere is only 1 winner, the highest bidder
Irrelevant, not true, and off topic.
there are so many cases of this, it's simply if you've done any research then you know about it
Why don't you take on well-funded AR and eco-whacko lobbies, then?
i should just 'take on' whatever group has the least power??
No, take on the whole system if you don't like it.
i'm all for it, let's get some candidates in office that don'[t take any contribution from any group standing to profit
That's not how our system works. Thank God the Courts managed to get one case right. They threw out the last BS attempt at campaign finance reform because it violates every democratic principle.
democracy is each person gets their own vote and it counts as one we do not have this..
how would eliminating 'giving the advanateg to those with those most money' hurt democracy?
why should the amount of money one has have anythinhg to do with who gets elected?
ini go with the consequences a group has on individuals' ability live in peaceful ways as they wish, and to have access to resources and
health... as
long as they don't take away the same abilities for other individuals
How do energy and food lobbies prevent you from living in peaceful ways as your wish or deny you access to resources and health? When has any industry's lobby taken away anything from anyone?
it doesn't have to be me... or my family... or people in my state... ormy country... or in my species
10 billion animals are killed yearly in the US, each one feels pain and suffers, as evidenced by Temple Grandin who is respected by the animal industry and hired by them to help reduce it
Huh?
what is confusing?
You're a duplicitous ideologue. You only want to prevent the other side
from exercising the same rights your side already has -- the right to
free speech, the right to redress government, the right to
representation.
?? everyone should be able to speak, as long as it's honest everyone should be considered as 1, whereas corporations can recieve
full
consideration
You've advocated less free speech for corporations and industry in the last few posts you've made. Last time I checked, the right of assembly was guaranteed in the Constitution. So was the right to free speech. So was the right to redress government. PACs and industry groups have as much right to lobby as you or your favored nitwit organizations have. That's the beauty of our republic.
it's the corporations who control the media,
So?
it's happened that people opposing the corps. have been barred from using the mainstream media the corps are the ones who have favors owed to them because of their
large
contributions
Bullshit. You're not barred from the media. They'll cover you if you have anything of interest to say or add. Marginal groups are uninteresting to the rest of us. Most Americans don't give a rat's ass about the Green Party, CP-USA, or any other backassward leftist group's stances. You can start your own network, your own newspaper, your own website. Don't blame corporations for your marginal and uninteresting views, and don't blame the public for shunning your silly message.
people have been barred... fact
the corporation who have ties to the media do not want, and will not let information be spread that threatens their profits
Monsanto has done this also
there is no blame, it's simply what has happened
After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal fees. http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
... it's the small people who have less ability...
You're clueless, dude. You can start your own network. Why aren't there many liberals in talk radio? It's because nobody cares about liberalism; there's no market for liberals. You're marginal and politically
irrelevant.
the small groups and people have less ability to express their views and to express information
how does a plant based diet support fewer jobs?
The AR and eco-extremists want to kill off certain industries. They're unconcerned about fishermen, cattlemen, and others who provide a
valued
service to the people who don't want to eat a strictly plant-based
diet.
i care about them,
so that label doesn't hold up exactly.
exactly, everyone does good, but helping some while killing others is something some people feel uncomfortable with
cockfights kill some and help others dogfights do too so does stealing dogs for medical use
these are all common, and some people feel that people are not all everyone who should be considered
i'd imagine that if there were 10 million fewer animals killed for
food,
that there'd need to be a similar amount of plants grown...
Ten-million is what percent of six-billion? Will that percentage be content to eat a forced vegetarian diet? How is that consistent with what you stated above about letting others live in peaceful ways?
it doesn't have to be forced omnivores don't have to be forced either the point is that food will be required, and the jobs will shift... not
be
eliminated
You talked about supporting the ban IF government would urge people not to turn to natural substitutes for seafood, i.e., other meat. If they're not gonna eat meat, they're gonna eat plants. Isn't that what you hoped for in your first post in the thread, a plant-based diet?
if it was a honest and practical effort, i'd support it. i'm not saying force it on people, simply have the nutritional advice be scientific and have plant foods be widespread and available
allow soymilk to be substituted in schools for cows milk, it meets all the nutritional reuqirements and is not linked to diabetes like milk is, had no issues with lactose intolerance, and has no cholesteral either
someone growing up eating plant foods will not miss animal foods. i don't miss animal foods
all we really want it convenience and taste and nutrition... few people have 'an animal being killed' as a requirement for them to enjoy a food
thanif someone could kill a few of my neighbors every year, or look for a different job instead..... both are negatives, but one's a bit biggerthe other
Huh?
how about kill a few dogs a year..... or other animals...
Huh?
these are analogies animals are killed for food, or people can eat different foods
btw, factory fareming doesn't employ a lot of people per animal...
birds
are more than 9 billion of the ~10billion animals killed in the US for
food
each year... and the birds don't require many people to raise them and
kill
them.
Another liberal shithead who thinks it's ONLY about farmers. How many people are employed in processing? How many in retailing? How many in marketing?
obviously... and the same for plant foods
More people are hired in meat and meat processing.
got stats comparing the two?
personally if someone were to want to kill and eat the dog who lives
with
me, because they didn't want to eat plants... i'd think my dogs life
was
more important than their preference of what they eat
Irrelevant and stupid. If that person killed your dog, he'd be criminally and civilly liable. In my state, you could use lethal force to prevent anyone from taking or destroying what's yours.
dogs can be eaten elsewhere does the lack of law there mean the dogs don't suffer, or it's okay?
It's a cultural, aesthetic issue. I'm fairly tolerant of other cultures.
i'm tolerant of actions that don't abuse or harm others against, or limit their ability to live as they wish. women being barred from education is a cultural practice in some areas, there are practices that are very disgusting and demeaning to women that are culturally acceptable
a women being barred from education is the same thing... don't matter if it happens here or somewhere else.... the location doesn't change the consequences
help or harm isn't dependent on location
it's illegal to kill cows in places.... does the lack of a similar law
here
really represent any change in the actual killing of a cow
Bogus issue, as above. It's a cultural, religious, aesthetic issue. My only grievance with your example is that it's illegal to kill cows where people are starving. I value human life over animal life.
if you value human life.... plant diets have been credibly found to reduce disease, and to preserve resources, cause less pollution, kill less animals, pollute the water less, deplete the water less, pollute the air less, cause less soil erosion.....
in some places a hand can be chopped off a thief... but it's illegal in
the
US is there any difference between a hand being chopped off,
So? Bogus issue.
it's not culture that is important... it's what the 'natural consequences' of an action are. in some cities at night it's accepted that you may be mugged, in others it isn't... clearly you don't want to be mugged any more simply because it's accepted
I think the law can be arbitrary and is not the ultimate guide of what to do to simply do what is legal and avoid what is illegal is to blindly
follow an
authority
Shit. How many bong hits did you take last night, dopey? You're all over the place. The point remains that someone just can't come up and eat your dog. Our laws aren't so arbitrary when it comes to private property rights, and your dog is considered private property in most states. Next time, stay on topic or start a new thread.
if a dog is being killed he or she doesn't care much about if s/he's a legal
property of some individual
just like if you're being killed you
wouldn't care about your legal status.....
the point is that things are helpful or harmful because of natural consequences, and not because of what laws say consequences exist naturally, laws were "created" to attempt to define them, and laws are also changed suggesting that they aren't the ultimate authority
if you blindly trust laws, and you blindly follow someone else's opinions, laws are created by other people
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
