h a l f b a k e r yNaturally low in facts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
On many tuna fish products, a label indicates that this is "Dolphin-friendly tuna".
This is paradoxical.
Many humans seem to harbour a perverse liking for those over-intelligent squeaking marine mammals, and want to be friends with them. Thus it would seem appropriate to encourage other marine
organisms to be similarly friendly.
But if humans eat all the dolphin-friendly tuna, pretty soon the only tuna left will be acutely hostile to dolphins.
The answer is to hunt, capture, kill and eat only the bad tuna, leaving the friendly ones alone to be nice to dolphins (and other cetaceans).
Bad tuna
http://bwhi.com.au/images/sbt/Pic%202.jpg
(Unknown party affiliation) [normzone, Nov 18 2013]
Catching tuna with hook and three poles.
http://content.cdli...oc.view=entire_text
History of tuna fishing before the factory ships. [popbottle, Nov 18 2013]
Dolphins are not so nice, they made #2
http://www.cracked....mal-kingdom_p2.html
[bs0u0155, Nov 21 2013]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Philosophically speaking, your premise that dolphin-friendly Tuna will also be friendly to other cetaceans is ontologically implausible. |
|
| |
It is the fishermen who are "friendly" to the dolphins. The tuna don't know and don't care. The tuna are ignorant and apathetic.
or |
|
| |
"So long, and thanks for all the fish." |
|
| |
Earth ends. Expressway is built. Fade to black. |
|
| |
// your premise that dolphin-friendly Tuna will also be friendly to other cetaceans is ontologically implausible. // |
|
| |
We disagree. Humans that express positive opinions about gorillas are on the balance of probabilites likely to express similar opinion about orang-utans, bonobos and chimpanzees, but are less likely to be positive about, for example, hyenas. The distinction between some species of dolphins and others such as pilot whales, belugas and narwhals are not clear-cut. |
|
| |
We assert that it is a reasonable extrapolation based on the available evidence. |
|
| |
// The tuna are ignorant and apathetic. // |
|
| |
They probably all vote Democrat, then ... |
|
| |
This has worryingly implications. I have been using
mainly forest-friendly loo paper. |
|
| |
... so presumably you're now pining for something better ... ?
.
.
.
.
<slow handclaps>
.
.
.
.......@.......@ ..........@.
.
.
<placeholder for obligatory Monty Python Lumberjack Sketch reference> |
|
| |
Heh. There's a popular bumper sticker in my area that
reads: 'If you're opposed to logging, try using plastic toilet
paper.' |
|
| |
I've long held everyone who identifies themselves as an
'environmentalist' should be required to live for one month
in the environment they think they're saving. This would of
course mean that people trying to save the dolphins would
have to spend a month living in the open ocean dodging
sharks and fishing boats. |
|
| |
The true environmentalists are those who strive to preserve
the environment not because it's beautiful and pristine and
romantic but because it's what lies directly outside their
front door. |
|
| |
Inuit kill seals. They use the fur, the fat, the meat and the bones. Nothing goes to waste. The Faeroese kill whales; likewise, in a semi-subsistence economy, nothing is wasted. |
|
| |
The numbers harvested (and we use the word advisedly) are small in proportion to the total population, and small in proportion to the impact of disease, predators and food supply (indeed, in such circumstances, humans can be considered natural predators, even though they are tool-users). |
|
| |
We agree about "environmentalists", whos credentials would be a lot more convincing if they gave up all, pronounced ALL, the products of a technological society, including access to vaccines, antibiotics and painkillers, dental treatment, mechanically-propelled vehicles and refrigerators, instead of driving home from protest meetings to their centrally-heated house, opening a bottle of imported wine, and then getting on the internet to check out the best school to send their children to. |
|
| |
// "environmentalists", whos credentials would be
a lot more convincing if they gave up all,
pronounced ALL, the products of a technological
society,// |
|
| |
With all due respect, I think that's bollocks. Why
can I not be an environmentalist whose vision of
the future involves lots of technology that allows
people to live with less impact (than current
technology) on other species? |
|
| |
OK, I might caveatize that by pointing out that I
am not, in fact, such an environmentalist. But I
_could_ be. |
|
| |
Because // less impact // is not what technology is about. Technology is about loud noises, squashing anything in the way, and setting fire to stuff. Ooooh, lots of stuff. |
|
| |
In fact, anything involving "impact" (the bigger, brighter and louder the better) is what technology is for. |
|
| |
Well, yes, I expect I agree with you.
Howevertheless, you're still bringing forth vocal
gonads. |
|
| |
Go kill a polar bear with your bare hands, and then come back and continue the discussion. |
|
| |
Until then, we consider that you are communicating via your lower rear orifice. |
|
| |
How do you know I have not already killed a polar
bear with my bare hands? |
|
| |
Actually, I haven't. However, Sturton once strangled
a marmoset. |
|
| |
We thought that was in self-defence ? God knows what the intercalary twin was injecting into those poor creatures ... the way that Buff Orpington tore the throats out of those two Dobermans before jumping the three-metre fence, diving into the river and swimming under water down to the sea to spawn is not something we shall easily forget, and believe us we've tried. |
|
| |
The intercalary twin was in Myanmar, I believe, at
the time of Sturton's marmoset incident. |
|
| |
In Sturton's defense, I should point out that the
marmoset had tried to make off with the parasol
from his Blue Moon. |
|
| |
I really like this idea. [+] |
|
| |
//live for one month in the environment they think they're saving// |
|
| |
I have exactly the opposite objection. |
|
| |
I suggest that one of the main threats to certain fragile environments is posed by nature-lovers coming to admire them. |
|
| |
For example, there's a very impressive coral reef off the west coast of Australia, which is intermittently at risk from tourist development. I know it's impressive because I've seen photographs. The best thing I can do to protect it, though, is to stay 1000 miles away from it, and thereby *not* add to the commercial pressure to build a hotel and marina on top of it. |
|
| |
// the main threats ... is posed by nature-lovers // |
|
| |
... cull the nature-lovers ? |
|
| |
I completely agree in that case, [pert]. Stay The Fuck Away
From The Great Barrier Reef is a no-brainer. On the other
hand I and about 100,000 other people live in a remote
region of Maine that according to the propaganda of a
Massachusetts-based environmental activism group* is
threatened in some unspecified but dire way. In these parts
we encourage people to come here and enjoy our pristine
wilderness. Tourism is the second-most profitable industry
in this county (sustainable forestry is #1) and we keep
coming up with new ways for people to enjoy our
mountains without harming them (admittedly the
environment here is a bit more durable than a coral reef).
So there are two sides to the coin, see? |
|
| |
* namely, Friends of the Boundary Mountains (as far as I can
tell a made-up name that does not appear on any map**),
who have ties to Earth First and other idiot magnet
organizations |
|
| |
** maybe one of the other New England 'bakers knows if
there are legitimate origins to the name, but nobody
around here uses it |
|
| |
// "How many years would it take to
consume all the worlds silver with these
plasters ?" // |
|
| |
Longer than you think. Silver is remarkably
abundant compared to some rare earths, and
isn't actually classified as a precious metal. |
|
| |
And there is a significant cost-benefit. With a
silver-doped wound dressing, the risk of
infection is massively reduced, and the
wound heals faster. No need to use as many
dressings; no need for other medication to
combat an infection; concomitant savings in
time and resources as the demand for
medical personnel is reduced and you're
back to doing whatever you're doing faster.
In these circumstances, using silver makes
perfect sense. |
|
| |
Silver: USD$700k/ton, Tin:USD$23k/ton.
Roughly 30 times more expensive; one order
of magnitude. |
|
| |
on the original point, dolphins are ar*eholes <link>.
Can I have Tuna-friendly Dolphin? |
|
| |
I don't eat seafood, because it smells dreadful and
most of it is filter-feeders that look like aliens. As
a consequence of my not eating such food, people
try and convert me: "try tuna steak" they say "it's
really meaty".... then all their companions will join
in in a proselytizing circle-jerk about the relative
merits of their gateway-fish. Anyway, if I could
buy tuna-friendly dolphin, it would definitely be
meaty. And it would shut them up about me
trying seafood in a very satisfying way.... |
|
| |
Hmm! I always took 'dolphin-friendly' to mean 'the fish in this tin would have made a fine meal for a dolphin if we hadn't caught it first & stuck it in this tin for you to eat instead'. |
|
| |
What ? From the way the beardie-weirdie
greenies and the econuts bang on, you'd
think that all dolphins are born-again vegans
… |
|
| |
How can you trust anything that spends so much
time grinning and cackling? |
|
| |
No no!! "Dolphin friendly tuna" doesn't mean that
the tuna is friendly to dolphins. And of course, if
we eat up all the dolphin friendly tuna, it will NOT
leave dolphin-hostile tuna around. You got it all
wrong. |
|
| |
You should read it: Dolphin friendly? Tuna! And
what they are saying is: If your dolphin friendly,
you should eat this tuna. Because most of the
tuna is radioactive from Fukoshima, it will kill the
dolphins, unless you eat it, which makes you the
dolphin's friend. Hence: "Dolphin Friendly". |
|
| |
Woudn't that result in a food chain reaction ?
And there's sure to be a "nuclear fish 'n" joke
in there somewhere, like "Tuna meals from
Fukoshima - Nuclear Fish 'n chips !" only of
course not quite that funny. |
|
| |
Well, cutting down bamboo endangers panda
habitat … |
|
| |
Dolphin-friendly Pandas ? Bamboo-friendly
tuna ? Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were
nice ? |
|
| |