Connections of Conflicts

I see a lot of the conflict that is going on in the world as a reaction to global warming, it’s effects, and people’s (probably mostly unconscious) reactions to perceived future effects. This can be seen in the reaction against population control, against environmentalism, anti-regulation in pro-gun advocacy, and with the demonization of those who are outside of one’s group. Nearly everything that the Republicans stand for is in staunch denial of Global Warming and it’s effects.

The Population Bomb was published in 1968 by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich. “It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth.” Birth control was not legalized for all Americans until 1972. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973. The pro-environmental idea at the time was that it would be best for parents to not have more than 2 children - as a way for people to voluntarily participate in population control. While the drastic effects of overpopulation did not happen within the time line that the Ehrlich’s laid out - the effects have been gradually developing. (Detractors use the time inaccuracies to discredit the whole thing).

Anti-abortion fanaticism may be a form of radical denial & stem from worry that society’s concern about over-population will reduce their group and therefore their security. The old idea was that there is security in numbers - more possible warriors, more power in being the majority, etc. Which is not altogether untrue. Such an argument could be reasonably made as long as there are not catastrophic Global consequences. Such an argument breaks down with the Global Warming problem - where over-population / over-consumption cannot be sustained, but will result in mass death and destruction. 

If honest, some might say, but our group needs to the be the biggest, and it’s all the others who should reduce their numbers. And they may intend to enforce that idea with a large military. They had better use drones at that rate.

One or a few small groups could get away with massive consumption. But in the past few decades, American consumption has exploded, and China, India, and many other countries with many more people and groups are trying to catch up. It is not sustainable globally - it would require many more planets and resources. Meanwhile, many corporate executives and stockholders are making fortunes off of the increased consumption of people both within the USA and around the world.

The anti-abortion POV is pushed that ‘we must have more and more babies, we must deny that having more people & more people is a problem.’ I doubt that most anti-abortion people are thinking about societal or group security consciously. But such a POV does explain, what seems inexplicable about anti-abortion arguments, which is the anti-birth control stance. If the desire was to lessen abortions, then of course, people should use more birth control. However, if the desire is actually for women (that is - women within their group) to have more children (for ‘security’, power, or whatever), then, of course, birth control as well as abortion, must be fought against. 

The anti-abortion groups are usually Christian, and generally, the sort of Christians who fight against abortion are mostly concerned about those in their group. Pro-choice advocates have said all along, that it is the people who are alive who must receive help and consideration. And weirdly, this does not concern most anti-abortion fighters. We see this in the reduced taxes on the wealthy and reduced services provided by the government for the needy. At the same time, people who are anti-abortion tend to be pro-military and advocate people in the military getting the help and consideration that liberals would want spread around to those in need. The effect of this is that the disabled and elderly poor, as well as marginalized minority groups, and even women, are left out of the security group. Those who are protected are the wealthy, healthy (men, esp.) and those in the military. 

Anti-environmentalism is similar - with the same people who are against abortion and who are pro-military - radically denying that people should care about the environment. The suggested idea is that people could only care about themselves and we could ‘never’ make the planet inhospitable to life - no matter how many toxins we add to the water, the land, & the atmosphere - and no matter how many eco-systems we wipe out. The level of animosity is bizarre which is hurled toward those who see the earth as an eco-system that life is dependent on, worthy of concern. Also the scorn and derision levied toward renewable energy makes no sense.

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published in 1962. “The book documented the detrimental effects on the environment—particularly on birds—of the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Carson accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation and public officials of accepting industry claims unquestioningly.” Since then we have more detrimental effects on people and animals - more cancers and various health problems. 

The Keeling Curve graph has been illustrating the effects of increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere since 1958. During the 70s, many people were connecting the dots that described the effects of fossil fuel use, over-population and consumption, overfishing & erasing of habitats, and pollution. National Geographic reported recently, “A study of catch data… grimly predicted that if fishing rates continue apace, all the world’s fisheries will have collapsed by the year 2048.” It was not difficult to predict that as weather events such as floods & droughts became more of a problem, as over-fishing and the erasure of habitats became more of a problem, that there would be refugees, there would be strife, there would be wars. 

By the year 2100 or even 2050, the effects of Global Warming and the resulting Climate Changes are expected to be drastic. Coastal areas are already having problems with sea level rise. Those problems are expected to get much worse as time goes on, with Southern Florida expected to be underwater before the century is over. We are seeing droughts as a problem in the farming areas of California. We have 1000 year storms and floods fairly frequently. There are often problems that are supposedly ‘worse than anticipated’. 

Many had been anticipating problems for quite awhile. Apparently much of the Carbon Dioxide was absorbed by the oceans over the years - making them more acidic. This will be a great problem for coral and shellfish. It was predicted long age that  the haves will want to hold on to their privileges, the have-nots will try to stay alive. It was be a mess. It will be like musical chairs - where chairs are being thrown out by the thousands, and people will fight over getting one before the bell rings. The wealthy hope that by buying many extra chairs, they will be safe.

Society has been anticipating problems - consciously by some, unconsciously by others. The more conscious ones live ‘Off the Grid’, and practice organic gardening, and encourage native habitats and healthy eco-systems whenever possible. Many (but not enough) live simply - avoiding over-consumption of meat, of mass-produced things, and fuel - even travel. Liberals have been trying to encourage mass transit, and renewable energy, which is sorely lacking in the USA.

The unconscious Republicans and large corporate interests have worked on getting people to be fearful, buy guns, buy Hummers, get pit bulls, think militia-like - and deny that there are any problems with American capitalism and mindless consumption. They also rail against regulations, against birth control & abortion, against environmentalists, and they say Global Warming is a hoax and the International Scientific community is lying. 

It takes regulations to reduce all the problems that need reducing to maintain a healthy planet - whether it’s overfishing, over-polluting, habitat erosion, and the use of fossil fuels. We have too much antibiotics in our meat and our milk. We have poisons in our make-up and in pet food that goes unregulated. The way it is now, you have to be fairly well off to afford food that is safe and not toxic. Without regulations - some groups take so much that habitats are destroyed, animals become extinct, land is worthless for farming and pollution makes (healthy) fishing impossible. Without regulations, some pollute more than the planet can tolerate.

Consumption could also be regulated - so that some don’t monopolize the resources and contribute more than their share to the problems. Here in the USA, most people, and esp. the wealthy, consume much more than necessary. Where once civilization and production grew and grew and grew - it needs to stop growing. Even if corporations can find and dig up the resources, we need to find peaceful ways to shrink, and to do with less. 

We are using so much money, and resources on the Military - emitting massive amounts of fossil fuels, that it is obscene. A strong military becomes all the more necessary by those who want their country to have more than their share of fossil fuels, or metals, & whatever resources they desire - to maintain their lifestyle. The bloated military, USA, makes global warming worse and it makes strife around the world worse. 

One of the things we are seeing in the USA are Republicans who encourage people to be anti-community - if that community includes people ‘who are not like them’. They want to draw a circle around their group as ‘Christians’ and leave everyone else out. The argument is that if someone needs help, they should join a church (and follow the ‘rules’ - not be gay, for women to be submissive). 

Conservatives and some Libertarians have made people who sell hate and divisiveness, such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, rich. The latest is that Donald Trump, hate-monger in chief, is the front runner for the Republican primary elections. The hate and derision that is expressed already make violence more likely toward those the that Republicans see as ‘outsiders’ more likely. That includes violence against the LGBTQ community, as well as Muslims, and even women.

In my opinion, it is the creative, liberal people, who have, for the most part, been working on solutions. It has been the Republicans and conservatives who have been blocking, or trying to block) those solutions (though some have gotten through). We need to be more creative. We need to be more inclusive. We all need to live more simply.

The State of the Oceans

I figured I would Google "The State of the Oceans" to see what came up. What I got was links to a newish website, http://www.stateoftheocean.org/ that outlines many of the problems along with suggested solutions.

Professor Rogers: "Human impacts on the oceans are damaging vital food resources and functions that feedback to climate change and move us further towards unpredictable and potentially catastrophic changes to the environment, biodiversity and human society. This is of deep concern to me and the majority of scientists who study the ocean and should be treated as a global emergency of utmost urgency".

Big Threats: 
Climate Change, Over-fishing, Habitat Destruction, (Oil, etc.) Extraction, Pollution & Alien Species Introduction.

"In Brief: Most, if not all, of the five global mass extinctions in Earth's history carry the fingerprints of the main symptoms of global carbon perturbations (global warming, ocean acidification and anoxia or lack of oxygen; e.g. Veron, 2008).

It is these three factors — the 'deadly trio' — which are present in the ocean today. In fact, the current carbon perturbation is unprecedented in the Earth's history because of the high rate and speed of change. Acidification is occurring faster than in the past 55 million years, and with the added man-made stressors of overfishing and pollution, undermining ocean resilience.

.... Continued releases and slow breakdown rates mean that legacy chemical pollution ( such as from DDT) remains a major concern. However, concerns have been raised recently over a wide range of novel chemicals now being found in marine ecosystems or suspected to be harmful to marine life. High-profile examples include brominated flame retardants, fluorinated compounds, pharmaceuticals and synthetic musks used in detergents and personal care products.

Some of these chemicals have been located recently in the Canadian Arctic seas, and some are known to be endocrine disrupters or can damage immune systems. Marine litter and plastics are also of major concern, and there is evidence that certain plastics can transport other harmful chemicals in the marine environment.

…..Scientists at the IPSO meeting agreed that overfishing is exerting an intolerable pressure on ecosystems already under attack by the effects of acidification and warming, and other largely man-made ocean problems. A recent study showed that 63% of the assessed fish stocks worldwide are over-exploited or depleted and over half of them require further reduction of fishing, in order to recover.

The near extinction of a fish called Chinese bahaba (Bahaba taipingensis) is one of the many examples that highlight how overfishing threatens marine biodiversity. It has taken less than seventy years for this giant fish to become critically endangered after it was first described by scientists in the 1930s."

Regarding Mackerel & Jellyfish

By George Monbiot:

Last year I began to wonder, this year doubt is seeping away, to be replaced with a rising fear. Could it really have happened? Could the fishing industry have achieved the remarkable feat of destroying the last great stock?

Until 2010, mackerel were the one reliable catch in Cardigan Bay in west Wales. Though I took to the water dozens of times, there wasn't a day in 2008 or 2009 when I failed to take 10 or more. Once every three or four trips I would hit a major shoal, and bring in 100 or 200 fish: enough, across the season, to fill the freezer and supply much of our protein for the year. Those were thrilling moments: pulling up strings of fish amid whirling flocks of shearwaters, gannets pluming into the water beside my kayak, dolphins breaching and blowing. It was, or so it seemed, the most sustainable of all the easy means of harvesting animal protein.

Even those days were nothing by comparison to what the older residents remembered: weeks on end when the sea was so thick with fish that you could fill a bucket with mackerel just by picking them off the sand, as they flung themselves through and beyond the breaking waves while pursuing their prey.

Last year it all changed. From the end of May to the end of October I scoured the bay, on one occasion paddling six or seven miles from land – the furthest I've ever been – to try to find the fish. With the exception of a day on which I caught 20, I brought them back in ones or twos, if at all. There were many days on which I caught nothing at all.

There were as many explanations as there were fishermen: the dolphins had driven them away, the north-westerlies had broken up the shoals, a monstrous fishmeal ship was stationed in the Irish Sea, hoovering up 500 tonnes a day with a fiendish new vacuum device. (Despite a wealth of detail on this story I soon discovered that no such ship existed. But that's fishermen for you).

I spoke to a number of fisheries officials and scientists, and was shocked to discover that not only did they have no explanation, they had no data either.

So I hoped for the best – that the dearth could be explained by a fluctuation of weather or ecology. When the fish failed to arrive at the end of May I told myself they must be on their way. They had, after all, been showing off the south-west of England – it could be only a matter of time. I held off until last weekend...

Far below me I could see the luminous feathers I used as bait tripping over the seabed.

But I could also see something else. Jellyfish. Unimaginable numbers of them. Not the transparent cocktail umbrellas I was used to, but solid, white rubbery creatures the size of footballs. They roiled in the surface or loomed, vast and pale, in the depths. There was scarcely a cubic metre of water without one.

Apart from that – nothing. It wasn't until I reached a buoy three miles from the shore that I felt the urgent tap of a fish, and brought up a single, juvenile mackerel. Otherwise, though I paddled to all the likely spots, I detected nothing but the jellyfish rubbing against the line.

Is this the moment? Have I just witnessed the beginning of the end of vertebrate ecology here? If so, the shift might not be confined to Cardigan Bay. In a perfect conjunction of two of my recent interests, last week a monstrous swarm of jellyfish succeeded where Greenpeace has failed, and shut down both reactors at the Torness nuclear power station in Scotland.

The Israeli branch of Jellyfish Action pulled off a similar feat at the nuclear power station in Hadera this week.

A combination of overfishing and ocean acidification (caused by rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) has created the perfect conditions for this shift from a system dominated by fish to a system dominated by jellyfish....

New Study- 200 Years of Fish Population Data

From Wired:


By digging up and poring over old books and records of Mediterranean marine life, scientists have filled a 200-year gap in fish population data.

The data, generated from from naturalists’ accounts and fish-market records published between 1818 and 2000, shows the clear decline of fishes in the Adriatic Sea (east of Italy) and provides a crucial baseline comparison for the ongoing collapse of today’s fisheries.

“The understanding of fish communities’ changes over the past centuries has important implications for conservation policy and marine resource management,” the authors wrote in a study published Nov. 17 in the journal PLoS ONE. Ignoring old records, they added, has led to a “historical myopia” in fishery science that underestimates the loss of natural resources.

It’s no puzzle why. Prior to the mid-20th century, large-scale surveys of marine life didn’t happen and, for that matter, there wasn’t the modern-day level of concern about natural resources or the impetus to conserve them. Back then, there were only fish-catch records and naturalists’ qualitative descriptions of life beneath the waves.


To gather the information, an Italian team of ecologists and marine scientists scoured the libraries, museums and archives of six European cities. In total, the search turned up 36 books by naturalists and dozens of detailed catch records from fish markets spanning almost two centuries.

Using statistical methods to combine and integrate the descriptive naturalist records with fish-catch tallies, the scientists partially reconstructed the rise and fall of 255 fish species in the region.

Sharks in the Adriatic Sea made up about 17 percent of the total fish population in 1800, while bottom-dwellers (such as hake, flounder and anglers) made up 27 percent of all fish. By 1950, the populations had dipped to 11 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, the proportion of smaller and faster-breeding fish rose from about 12 percent of the population to more than 28 percent.

“Chondrichthyes are highly vulnerable to [human] disturbances, and especially to fishery,” the authors wrote, thanks to their large size, slow growth and breeding behavior. As fishermen nabbed such large fish, the smaller and more-nimble species thrived because they weren’t being eaten as readily (by sharks or humans).

Fish population declines due to human activity since the mid-20th century are established and substantial, with encroachment by non-native fish species, habitat alteration and pollution all contributing to shrinking and more-fragile populations of fish. While it’s not entirely clear how large a role fishing pressure played prior to 1950, the authors say their “results indicate that pre-industrial fisheries had already had significant impacts” on fish populations in the Adriatic.

The study can’t offer a worldwide assessment of fishery health in the past. But turning old records of marine life into useful datasets may prove promising for assessing past fish populations in other regions.

“Naturalists’ eyewitness accounts of fish species, which have long been disregarded by fishery biologists as being ‘anecdotal’ and not ‘science,’ proved to be a useful tool for extending the analysis into the past, well before the onset of field-based monitoring programs,” the authors wrote.

"Eels Slip Away From Europe's Dishes"

From WSJ.com:

For three generations, An Pauwels's family restaurant has been dishing up paling in t'groen -- a much-cherished Belgian specialty that combines thumb-size chunks of eel with an emerald-tinted hodgepodge of herbs. It translates as "eel in the green."

The flat, damp lands of Flanders -- crisscrossed with streams, ditches and canals -- are ideal eel territory, making paling in t'groen a rival to mussels with fries or beef stewed in beer as the national dish. In the erstwhile fishing village of Mariekerke, a few kilometers upriver from Ms. Pauwels's De Groenendijk restaurant, an annual festival sees aficionados get through 8,000 kilos during a three-day binge of eel eating.

They may be slimy, snakelike and a distinct turn-off for many people, but eels have formed an integral part of European cuisine since the time of the ancient Greeks. Yet without urgent action, scientists fear this mysterious beast could disappear from the continent's waterways and dinner tables for good.

European eel stocks have fallen to below 10% of 1970s levels, according to the International Council for the Exploitation of the Sea in Copenhagen. In parts of the Baltic and Mediterranean 99% of the stocks are believed to have vanished.

The eel's precipitous decline has been blamed on river pollution, hydro-electric dams, global warming, changes in ocean currents and deadly parasitic worms, but many experts say overfishing is the biggest problem...

Pollution in the Scheldt means any eels that survive are unfit for human consumption, and commercial fishing has been banned for decades. These days, Belgians are forced to import their eels, mostly from Denmark, Sweden or Ireland.

The decline in eel is threatening eel dishes across Europe, where they are deeply rooted in traditional cuisine and are consumed in a bewildering manner of styles from the Atlantic coast to the Aegean.

In the pintxo (or snack) bars of the Basque country, spaghetti-thin baby eels used to be tossed with garlic, olive oil and guindilla chili and piled high on slices of baguette. Plucked from the lagoons of Portugal's central coast, pencil-size adolescent eels are deep-fried whole in a light batter then crunched as finger food, pointy head, bones and all. At the other end of the continent, the Zemaiciai restaurant in Vilnius, Lithuania, promises eels measuring half a meter from tail to toothy grin as part of a muscular appetizer menu that includes smoked pig's ear, snout and tongue. (Chilled vodka and a glass of their home-brewed beer help wash them down.)

Poles take their eels roasted with carrots, parsnips and mustard sauce; smoked eel is a street snack served from pavement fish stalls around the Netherlands.

In Hamburg, aalsuppe is a rich, sweet-sour chowder that aligns eel with a bewildering variety of vegetables and dried fruits; Venetians also sweeten eels from the Po delta, adding sultanas and brandy to enrich anguilla all'uvetta...

From 1995 to 2005, the European Union estimates an average of half a billion live baby eels were exported every year to East Asia. As their numbers shrank, the price rose almost tenfold during the decade, reaching over €700 per kilo in 2005, according to EU statistics. In 2007, the European eel was classified as a protected species by Cites, the international convention governing trade in wildlife. Exporters must now apply for government authorization to sell eels abroad. The Dutch government wants to go further, urging the EU to ban exports. But France and Spain especially are unwilling to cut off a trade that was worth around €30 million last year for hard-pressed fishermen around the Bay of Biscay.

"There is very big money in that business, really big money and the French and Spanish just keep selling to the Chinese," says Belgian eel importer Frans Borremans. "I hope it will change and governments will say it must come to an end and that we keep our eels in Europe."

There has been a heavy cost for Spanish consumers. The price of baby eels, or angulas, there has soared as numbers have fallen, making them a rare luxury nibble in posh restaurants rather than popular tapas fare. At the opening of the season last November in the northern port of Ribadesella, one restaurant was reported to have paid €2,075 per kilo, although the price later settled down to €450. With the real thing beyond most people's price range, Spanish tapas bars now serve a fishy eel substitute made from surimi fish mush.

To ensure the eel doesn't slip slide away, the EU is introducing a recovery plan to limit catches. Even if they are successful, EU experts acknowledge it could still take more than 20 years before stocks recover.