It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

100 Million Sharks Killed Every Year, Study Shows

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

This makes my blood boil - Time for a huge culling.






posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


It is my belief that humans consume more than they need and are the most wasteful creatures on Earth. I never stated anywhere in my post that this was a fact. Again, this is my belief. If I can be educated to see that this is not true, I stated that I was open to this. Now excuse me for believing that you are just badgering me at this point.
I won't reply again unless I see factual evidence to offset my "absurd" belief.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Your believe is quite fine but if it is merely a belief, you then demanded evidence to another calling out that belief. Do you not see that the logical disconnect here?

I respect your belief, along with the other poster who stated otherwise. You should have probably claimed it was such in the beginning other than the way you did in a manner of fact way. If questioning your now acknowledged belief, but once held assumption of fact is badgering, I would suggest growing some thicker skin.

You questioned the poster who replied to you with scoff yet are offended and threatened by anyone questioning you? How can we ever learn if we entrench ourselves into such protected positions, defended against any input or outer stimuli?

At that end, I turn my ire (apparently I am mean and badgering) to the counter claim.....



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by James1982
Totally, 100% false.


Okay, my intentions were not to pick on anyone but we had two claims here and I vetted the other now I am curious on why you claim it to be 100% false.

The response to whom you replied to is valid, which species? Belief in the manner is fine, but your claim holds a bit higher standard since you claim 100% false. Any studies you can point us to to help counter the claim?

I know it seems off topic to the "shark" debate, but it really isn't if we look at the consumption of that resource/life form in relation to the rest of the world.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Some birds will stockpile carcasses in water to save them for later. These often times decay and fall apart. The bird has killed a creature, stored it away, and produced waste as a result. No different than humans stockpiling food and wasting it.

Lions will often times kill other animals and not eat them. That sounds like consuming more than you need. The animals life has been consumed, ended, and not even for food.

Dolphins do the same thing, in addition to torturing and murdering offspring of other creatures. And they are unrepentant rapists.

Animals get fat. While far more common in captivity than nature, it happens nonetheless. Even in captivity, the animal is still consuming more than it needs. Animals are generally limited by their ABILITY to consume, not their lack of desire to consume.

There are more than a few animals that kill for fun, and killing for fun is the most extreme example of consuming more than you need.

Then we get into the whole concept of what do you define as "need" Enough so that you don't die? Enough so that you can reproduce? Enough so that your species can grow and expand? Enough for your species to dominate the planet? Enough to make you happy? What exactly do we need, and who are you to define it?

A creature can live with a given amount of resources. Is that all they need? Living with only the smallest amount of resources to survive often times leads to health so poor reproduction can't take place. So then "need" changes from just enough to survive, to enough to reproduce. You then "need" even MORE if you wish to grow your population. A smart creature will save resources for the future, a tactic which generally involves some measure of waste. Who decides that a creature shouldn't have the safety net of stockpiled resources? It's possible they will survive just on what they find day to day, but if something unexpected happens they are SOL.

Humanitys consumption is no different than a squirrel storing nuts for the future. We are just a lot bigger and require a lot more nuts.


If you want more examples I'd be happy to provide them, these are the first that came to mind.

Those who are anti-humanity are really just blind to what the nature of life is. Life is harsh, cruel, painful, unfair, and rife with suffering. Evil as we humans define it has been around long before a single modern day human set foot on this earth.

As far as the China thing,that wasn't directed at you, it was a general statement about the attitudes many people have. The east is raping the planet of resources, killing off many of the world's largest and most amazing species (whales, sharks, rhino, elephant) yet very few people cry foul and lambast the east for their deeds. In fact many have some pipe dream that the world will be a better place if China takes over the role the US currently holds. Doubtful, if they don't care about anything now, it's not likely they'll change the second they run the world.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


I still don't see you offering any cold hard facts.
The only thing I can think of with the lions is the instance told in the movie "The Ghost and the Darkness", but this was an extremely rare event.
I've never heard dolphins doing anything like this in the wild. I've also never heard of wild animals getting fat.

Domesticated cats I can agree with you on the senseless killing.
I would've appreciated cited facts and examples though instead of your long diatribe.

Edit to Add:

Some birds will stockpile carcasses in water to save them for later.

The focal point here is "save them for later". Unless they're getting the family together for an evening game of volley carcass, I'm forced to assume that the carcasses are going to be consumed and not wasted. Any bear or squirrel can explain to you the importance of gathering food to eat later, grasshopper.

edit on 1-3-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I am not sure with this one James. As mentioned, your counter is just as much a belief as the other, so presenting random notions without evidence doesn't prove your claim either.

Much of what you said may very well be true, but there could also be underlying factors that are unaccounted for; which by chance, can be said about human "waste" too.

You are countering the "blame humans" stance with a "blame animals" stance. It is indeed a fact that nature itself is cruel, but to point out species that continually consume resources with a known and higher capacity of reason, would seem to put Afterthoughts belief in a better light.

For instance, a beaver may consume X amount of wood to build their damn, but they don't expand that consumption to provide for and then trade/barter said extra wood (labor) to other beavers. Therefore, it could logically be said that a beaver seeks only the wood it needs to build its dam. There could be cases where the beaver could possibly over consume, but in general, its instincts drive its needs.

Humans are rarely instinctual when it comes to consumption. Just look at how much food is throw out (food that was good but never used) or meat that makes its way into the discount bin and then tossed.

Porting back to the subject at hand, the shark fishing trade is mired by not just local villages feeding themselves but hunters that want only a specific portion of the shark and are known to dispose of the parts that will bring them no profit. Or even if they harvest the shark fins, they are still over-fishing because their goal isn't to sustain a market or trade of the actual fish, but rather just a portion of it.
edit on 1-3-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
When we are learning about this information about the killings of 100 million+ sharks,
Just note that I walked across my backyard and I think I have killed more than 900 million bacteria just by where my feet stepped down across the yard.

Before we judge what life is killed how many and by whom, first I think we should look at our own atrocities against microbiological life.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Hey, we better tell the Chinese there is a new delicacy on the menu.

Its called, Asian Penis soup. Its probably going to require about 100 million Chinese Human penises per year...but Im sure they will cope.........

It is estimated there are about 3-4000 Great White sharks..In ALL the Earths Oceans!!!!

Studies show their migratory patterns go from South Africa, to Australia, to South America, to North America then loop back again. So many of the same Great Whites observed in different seas, are actually the same shark.

I wonder if they like Chinese takeout?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Sharks get about 5 humans a year.
Seems fair to me.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



No. The burden of proof does not fall on me to prove that. I honestly cannot think of one creature on this planet that consumes more than it needs and is just as wasteful except for humans.
~ Afterthought

I agree with him here, it seems a very mote point to make. Who else makes factories, clearcuts (or responsibly and selectively cuts) forests, and mass produces merchandise for others? Only us. Perhaps aliens, somewhere, but in sticking with proveable facts ... Is there a potential contender among any other race who produces more than they need, let alone who outproduces humans?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   
As someone with a modest understanding of East Asian cultures, I can tell you that land ownership is considered a revered trait. Livestock requires quite a bit of land for grazing, and potentially more land if one chooses to feed grain to his livestock. It is considered more harmonious with nature to let the animals feed themselves, as fish do. Also, fish live in water, and in turn do not occupy precious land. The oceans and rivers are teeming with life, a literal ocean of food.

Now, when we get to delicacies, it may seem strange to us Westerners to see all those shark fins, but is that any different than an entire chain of restaurants built around the business model of selling exclusively chicken wings?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join