There is this video
and then there are you and I.
Will we support the itefrity of our oceans and the planet?
What does our history suggest?
Am I overly pessimistic of our ability to give a shit?
I look around me and I find it difficult to find a positive to grasp a hold of.
roughbarked said:
There is this videoand then there are you and I.
Will we support the itefrity of our oceans and the planet?
What does our history suggest?Am I overly pessimistic of our ability to give a shit?
I look around me and I find it difficult to find a positive to grasp a hold of.
itefrity should have read: integrity.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
There is this video
and then there are you and I.
Will we support the itefrity of our oceans and the planet?
What does our history suggest?Am I overly pessimistic of our ability to give a shit?
I look around me and I find it difficult to find a positive to grasp a hold of.
itefrity should have read: integrity.
needing more covfefe this morning then
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
There is this video
and then there are you and I.
Will we support the itefrity of our oceans and the planet?
What does our history suggest?Am I overly pessimistic of our ability to give a shit?
I look around me and I find it difficult to find a positive to grasp a hold of.
itefrity should have read: integrity.
needing more covfefe this morning then
:) There is always that.
roughbarked said:
There is this videoand then there are you and I.
Will we support the itefrity of our oceans and the planet?
What does our history suggest?Am I overly pessimistic of our ability to give a shit?
I look around me and I find it difficult to find a positive to grasp a hold of.
Well it’s better than 15%.
Oh, that 30%.
Well that’s better than 0%.
(haven’t watched video)
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
There is this videoand then there are you and I.
Will we support the itefrity of our oceans and the planet?
What does our history suggest?Am I overly pessimistic of our ability to give a shit?
I look around me and I find it difficult to find a positive to grasp a hold of.
Well it’s better than 15%.
Oh, that 30%.
Well that’s better than 0%.
(haven’t watched video)
:) Anything is better than the current status quo.
Forgive me if I am pessimistic about our ability to both police and achieve the 30%.
there I was, all excited momentarily thought you’d shown me a new word, even looked like an interesting word, yeah hell I searches itefrity
i’m invested now, you know i’m emerging from the morning twilight state still, all suggestible, about 30% down into my first coffee, faced with disappointment, I reckons it should be a word
transition said:
there I was, all excited momentarily thought you’d shown me a new word, even looked like an interesting word, yeah hell I searches itefrityi’m invested now, you know i’m emerging from the morning twilight state still, all suggestible, about 30% down into my first coffee, faced with disappointment, I reckons it should be a word
Ite frity my life away on some holiday.
roughbarked said:
transition said:
there I was, all excited momentarily thought you’d shown me a new word, even looked like an interesting word, yeah hell I searches itefrityi’m invested now, you know i’m emerging from the morning twilight state still, all suggestible, about 30% down into my first coffee, faced with disappointment, I reckons it should be a word
Ite frity my life away on some holiday.
i’m declaring it a new word
itefrity
- the sensation you’ve discovered a new word, followed by the disappointment of the realization you haven’t
roughbarked said:
There is this videoand then there are you and I.
Will we support the integrity of our oceans and the planet?
What does our history suggest?Am I overly pessimistic of our ability to give a shit?
I look around me and I find it difficult to find a positive to grasp a hold of.
Although 30% is better than the 5% we’re working on now.
Undoubtedly, GREED is the problem,
that and not giving a shit about even the most obvious dangers,
I learned 65 years ago that the majority of the earth’s oxygen is produced **
in the top layer of the oceans due to phytoplankton and recognized the issue right off
(The rest of which is in the rain forests that we’re destroying as fast as HUMANLY possible)
AFAI could asses, Small fisheries were not a problem
as fishing to feed one’s family or even an entire village was a drop in a vast bucket….
…it’s when greedy slobs invest in bigger ships, nets and especially bottom trawlers
that rape the sea for Super Market PROFITS without regard to the damage they cause
So here we have Fisheries willing to FIGHT for their PROFITEERING Way of LIFE, and
as the article brings to our attention, DEEP SEA DRILLING And MINING fer cry-sake
and well-meaning PollyAnna’s engaged in COSMETIC Cleansing (scooping up plastics
aka “Sweeping It Under the Rug”)
Yeah, Mate, looks pretty damned dismal.
with as you fear… ZERO To Show For It…
Ogmog said:
If I’m lucky, I’ll be dead by then but it is my children’s children, I fear for.
roughbarked said:
Ogmog said:
If I’m lucky, I’ll be dead by then but it is my children’s children, I fear for.
You ought to go into politics.
Those people enjoy the bliss of being unable to think that far ahead.
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:
Ogmog said:
If I’m lucky, I’ll be dead by then but it is my children’s children, I fear for.
You ought to go into politics.
Those people enjoy the bliss of being unable to think that far ahead.
I am sure you jest.
As a start 30% would be terrific, but that would depend on where that 30% was. Marine life need food, of which vast areas of oceans lack, with the relatively productive regions being in the shallower waters, especially where there are upwellings. If you could protect these areas, it would be immensely beneficial, although with politicians and vested interests, these zones are the very last places they want protected.
PermeateFree said:
As a start 30% would be terrific, but that would depend on where that 30% was. Marine life need food, of which vast areas of oceans lack, with the relatively productive regions being in the shallower waters, especially where there are upwellings. If you could protect these areas, it would be immensely beneficial, although with politicians and vested interests, these zones are the very last places they want protected.
exactly.
.. and you are not dealing with western countries as the biggest offenders here, you’ll be dealing with the likes of China and Vietnam, who send out huge fleets of fishing boats on an industrial scale. Enormous flotillas of them supported by food and fuel ships to replenish the crews, and factory ships to take the catch back home so the fishing boats can stay working. They are out there for months at a time, fishing everyday, all day and all night.
This may seem like a facile or unhelpful thing to say but I don’t think it is meaningful to protect 30% of the oceans. It’s a liquid, it contains thousands of species that travel from the polar regions to the equator or between oceans…
It’s like having a rule that you’re only allowed to piss in one end of the swimming pool.
dv said:
This may seem like a facile or unhelpful thing to say but I don’t think it is meaningful to protect 30% of the oceans. It’s a liquid, it contains thousands of species that travel from the polar regions to the equator or between oceans…It’s like having a rule that you’re only allowed to piss in one end of the swimming pool.
actually, PermeateFree is quite right
the distribution is far from uniform
Ogmog said:
dv said:
This may seem like a facile or unhelpful thing to say but I don’t think it is meaningful to protect 30% of the oceans. It’s a liquid, it contains thousands of species that travel from the polar regions to the equator or between oceans…
It’s like having a rule that you’re only allowed to piss in one end of the swimming pool.
actually, PermeateFree is quite right
the distribution is far from uniform
what about focused protection of 30% of the population from airborne infectious disease
roughbarked said:
Ogmog said:
If I’m lucky, I’ll be dead by then but it is my children’s children, I fear for.
Leaps & bounds ahead of you in pessimism;
having seen this coming WAY down the road
(as I said, between 8 & 10 y.o. in 4/5th grade)
I chose not to have kids the roof would surely
fall upon by the time they were GROAN.
Ogmog said:
dv said:
This may seem like a facile or unhelpful thing to say but I don’t think it is meaningful to protect 30% of the oceans. It’s a liquid, it contains thousands of species that travel from the polar regions to the equator or between oceans…It’s like having a rule that you’re only allowed to piss in one end of the swimming pool.
actually, PermeateFree is quite right
the distribution is far from uniform
That’s not the point
dv said:
Ogmog said:
dv said:
This may seem like a facile or unhelpful thing to say but I don’t think it is meaningful to protect 30% of the oceans. It’s a liquid, it contains thousands of species that travel from the polar regions to the equator or between oceans…It’s like having a rule that you’re only allowed to piss in one end of the swimming pool.
actually, PermeateFree is quite right
the distribution is far from uniform
That’s not the point
What are you suggesting that the 30% was to be a concentrated single area? You are surely not being ultra-pedantic by assuming it meant water volume and not the area of land where the water lay?
PermeateFree said:
dv said:
Ogmog said:
actually, PermeateFree is quite right
the distribution is far from uniform
That’s not the point
What are you suggesting that the 30% was to be a concentrated single area? You are surely not being ultra-pedantic by assuming it meant water volume and not the area of land where the water lay?
we’ll let dv speak for themselves but all we’re saying is that the weather over NAm isn’t independent of the weather over EAs that’s all
PermeateFree said:
dv said:
Ogmog said:actually, PermeateFree is quite right
the distribution is far from uniform
That’s not the point
What are you suggesting that the 30% was to be a concentrated single area? You are surely not being ultra-pedantic by assuming it meant water volume and not the area of land where the water lay?
I’m suggesting the entire thing needs to be under protection.
dv said:
PermeateFree said:
dv said:That’s not the point
What are you suggesting that the 30% was to be a concentrated single area? You are surely not being ultra-pedantic by assuming it meant water volume and not the area of land where the water lay?
I’m suggesting the entire thing needs to be under protection.
Are you suggesting 100% protection?
PermeateFree said:
dv said:
PermeateFree said:What are you suggesting that the 30% was to be a concentrated single area? You are surely not being ultra-pedantic by assuming it meant water volume and not the area of land where the water lay?
I’m suggesting the entire thing needs to be under protection.
Are you suggesting 100% protection?
Yes
dv said:
This may seem like a facile or unhelpful thing to say but I don’t think it is meaningful to protect 30% of the oceans. It’s a liquid, it contains thousands of species that travel from the polar regions to the equator or between oceans…It’s like having a rule that you’re only allowed to piss in one end of the swimming pool.
True. What we need to do is halt all commercial fishing. If you want fish, catch it yourself. If you can’t catch your own fish, find something else to eat.
We also need to stop shipping oil and plastic beads across oceans and stop undersea mining.
roughbarked said:
dv said:
This may seem like a facile or unhelpful thing to say but I don’t think it is meaningful to protect 30% of the oceans. It’s a liquid, it contains thousands of species that travel from the polar regions to the equator or between oceans…It’s like having a rule that you’re only allowed to piss in one end of the swimming pool.
True. What we need to do is halt all commercial fishing. If you want fish, catch it yourself. If you can’t catch your own fish, find something else to eat.
We also need to stop shipping oil and plastic beads across oceans and stop undersea mining.
This fisherman says if people could see the damage seismic testing causes there would be an uproar