Oceans suffocating as huge dead zones quadruple since 1950

@castoff said:
We are impacting our planet in so many adverse ways. We really need to be changing what we are doing for our children and grandchildren. Much of the problem of course is the size of the human population.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/04/oceans-suffocating-dead-zones-oxygen-starved

Like Malthus told us it would be.

Wouldn’t it be great if we humans could keep our numbers down without killing each other?

If the flu bugs that went around this past season have their way, depoopulation shouldn’t be a problem.

We murder 55.7 million children every year already. Should we increase the age to allow to infants and tottlers too? We are not overpopulated, we are misusing our resources.
What we need is world-wide capitalism. No one wants to live in a garbage heap unless all you’re concerned about is how you’re going to get your next meal. Abolish socialism and communism. Look at Venezuela and North Korea. They’re dumps thanks to bad governments and the poor people have to suffer for what their leaders do. China needs to stop dumping their trash in the rivers and oceans too. Makes me sick thinking about it.

@DrowningDave said:
We murder 55.7 million children every year already. Should we increase the age to allow to infants and tottlers too? We are not overpopulated, we are misusing our resources.
What we need is world-wide capitalism. No one wants to live in a garbage heap unless all you’re concerned about is how you’re going to get your next meal. Abolish socialism and communism. Look at Venezuela and North Korea. They’re dumps thanks to bad governments and the poor people have to suffer for what their leaders do. China needs to stop dumping their trash in the rivers and oceans too. Makes me sick thinking about it.

Yes. Definitely Venezuela and North Korea that have created and dumped out all that plastic into the oceans. Also, they are burning up that fossil fuel, contrary to allegations and fake news that it is the capitalistic USA, (pseudo communistic) China and India that are burning and polluting like there is no tomorrow…

sing

A man walks into a tailor’s shop and says he wants to buy his very first custom made suit. Unfortunately the tailor wasn’t very good. The customer gets measured and returns the next week to pick up his suit.
“Hey. One sleeve is too long!”

“No problem. Just pull the sleeve up some and hold your elbow up against your side. No one will notice.”

“The collar droops on one side! The collar’s all wrong!”

“Still not a problem. Pull the collar up and hold it with your chin. There. Looks fine.”

“Wait! One of the pant legs is way too long! This is ridiculous!”

“Not to worry. Pull the pant leg up and just hold it in place with your other knee. Perfect.”

The man pays his money and starts his long walk home. Two older ladies on the sidewalk are overheard to say,
“Poor soul.”
“Yes, but don’t his suit fit nice!”

@DrowningDave said:
We murder 55.7 million children every year already. Should we increase the age to allow to infants and tottlers too? We are not overpopulated, we are misusing our resources.
What we need is world-wide capitalism. No one wants to live in a garbage heap unless all you’re concerned about is how you’re going to get your next meal. Abolish socialism and communism. Look at Venezuela and North Korea. They’re dumps thanks to bad governments and the poor people have to suffer for what their leaders do. China needs to stop dumping their trash in the rivers and oceans too. Makes me sick thinking about it.

Dave did you read the article?

Indeed our misuse of resources is a problem. The problem with our population size and continued population growth is we live in a world of finite resources. These resources are used by all living things not just people. The more we use the less there is left for the rest of life living in our biosphere. The more we reduce life in the biosphere the more likely it will come back on us, and our quality of life and ability to survive.

What the article says was the warming oceans hold less O2, and fertilizer and sewage runoff are driving algal blooms and die offs which use up the O2. These are the major factors causing the expansion of these dead zones. If you look at the map and note the coastal dead zones you will see that the coast along the USA, northern Europe and Japan have the most numerous dead zone or die-off spots. The coast of China not so much. Indeed China and the rest of us need to be better environmental stewards, but you can’t place the blame on just China for this one.

They also say there is a link between dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and large scale meat production. The major meat producing companies need to clean up their runoff.

As for economic systems in the case of the Gulf of Mexico these indeed are capitalist companies. The major problem with unregulated capitalism is it tends to be exploitative in favor of profits. No economic system so far that has been practiced by mankind is so good that it can’t stand improvement. The areas with the most coastal spots for dead zones are primarily capitalistic. However, I don’t see this as a capitalistic or just an economic problem as much as a population driven sum of the use of fossil fuels, fertilizers, and need to recycle human and agricultural waste. Of course these things are part of all our economies no matter what system is implemented.

Yes I agree as you say our impacts on the earth are disturbing, and regardless of our belief system neither you or me like what is happening. Hopefully we can change the current situation.

If Putin and Trump keep it up, population and the attendant problems may cease to be an issue.

Keep in mind that ocean currents take garbage and move it around. China is indeed one of the big polluters of the ocean. We in the US are not perfect but its because of a free society and a free market that we have advancements in science and industry that allow for a cleaner world.

Making the choice to have less children is fine but having the governments force it on us is not. And that’s what many want.

I take any inviromental news with a grain of salt. So much of it has been debunked over the years that I wait to see what others that study such things say. If scientists don’t create fear it’s hard for them to get funding and without money they have to go get a job doing something else.

Just saying.

Dave just off the east coast of the US where we see so many coastal dead zone/die-offs is a strong current called the Gulf Stream. It doesn’t seem to be reducing the low O2 here does it.

“Keeping in mind” that ocean currents move stuff around so “maybe” that is why we don’t see so many coastal dead zones off China is a speculation that doesn’t seem to pan out when we apply it to our coast. Speculation can be easier to debunk than science. Science being debunked by speculation seems to be popular these days, but only by those willing to believe in the speculation.

Just saying is basically not saying much, but trying to imply a lot.

A while back a buddy of mine ‘liked’ an article he found on Facebook regarding the greenhouse gases produced by livestock. He basically argued that if we were all vegetarians like him global warming wouldn’t be an issue. My rebuttal was this: If humans would quit reproducing like rabbits I could eat anything I wanted; set my thermostat any way I wanted; drive any vehicle I wanted; guilt free.

@Rex said:
A while back a buddy of mine ‘liked’ an article he found on Facebook regarding the greenhouse gases produced by livestock. He basically argued that if we were all vegetarians like him global warming wouldn’t be an issue. My rebuttal was this: If humans would quit reproducing like rabbits I could eat anything I wanted; set my thermostat any way I wanted; drive any vehicle I wanted; guilt free.

I am of the opinion that we collectively get what deserve… Have to say, I didn’t feel too bad when ocean front homes along the MA coast went into the ocean this past winter. Heck, seems just, given we barely ever hear a whimper about the displacement of peoples as whole island nations disappear in the South Pacific.

For the record, I have told my two grown up boys (men) to not have children, and to adopt if they really feel the need (and have a more positive outlook on fate of humankind) to parent. The other advice… keep up your training.

sing

I am an optimistic person, but it is hard to maintain that optimism given the facts of biology, and the way things are headed. I don’t doubt the science, and what is being reported. That is more or less the known variables, What concerns me is the uncertain variable…Humanity!

From what I see of how we behave, and our ability to deny what is obvious I am fairly sure what direction this is going to take. The best thing I know is change what I can in my life, and talk about what we don’t want to believe. Rub our collective nose in it, and try to get understanding and action taken on changing the direction we are headed. There is little joy in doing this and it is often unappreciated and uncomfortable to do so. Doing and saying nothing strikes me as worse. Given all this… optimism becomes problematic.

" Science being debunked by speculation seems to be popular these days, but only by those willing to believe in the speculation."

Oh, Castoff, truer words were never spoken. The current plague of science-doubters, and “I saw it on the internet” believers, and those who just blindly believe the junk spewed by political commentators just makes me crazy.

But…not all science is good science, so not all study results are necessarily reliable for future planning.

I’ve worked with scientists for the last 16 years and have witnessed flawed processes and wrong conclusions on many occasions.

Maybe I’ve just worked with substandard scientists.

Some science should be questioned. Didn’t Hitler use science to support his efforts?

I think you are missing the point. Simply calling something “science” doesn’t make it qualified to have the name (the work of Nazis doctors falls into that category), and some science yields wrong conclusions because the whole process is often part of reaching to the limits of what can be known right now (though by no other process can we push that limit), and some science uses methods that are poorly conceived (though that’s a lot more common in cases which are outside of standard peer review than when done in an open and cooperative atmosphere as it should be). But too many people are using these so-called faults as a reason for discounting the whole scientific process, yet in the same breath they will latch onto incredibly oversimplified ideas presented by some wacko website or political group and think, “How could anyone believe that other stuff when the real explanation is this simple?” Or in a similar manner, a person will come up with their own explanation, again incredibly simple and based on nothing substantial, and think that this must be the real answer, as they wonder how it could be that the world’s scientists have all missed this supposedly obvious “point” (all those ignorant Bubbas out there who know more than their state’s DNR about the deer population are a perfect example of this).

Should some science be questioned? No, ALL science should be questioned (new science, anyway), but by qualified people, and that’s what the peer-review process is about, and that’s why legitimate results are published in established journals so that scientists all over the world can comment or even adjust their own research accordingly, with the idea of always improving overall understanding. That guy with the blog who’s good at pedeling ideas that people love to latch onto isn’t “qualified” in these cases.

Scientists takin’ it to the streets;
Q: “Wadda’ we want?”
A: “Evidence based research!”
Q: 'When do we want it?"
A: “When its peer reviewed!”

Science is a long term, systematic, cumulative, cultural activity. Not all that we think is known is completely right and it never will be, but unlike many other human activities, science seeks truth and admits to errors when they’re uncovered. Over the long run progress is possible.

Further, even when the science is right, not all applications of science are wise. The nazi chemists were pretty good at developing poison gasses, for example. Really, really bad judgement in application though… though I guess recent events suggest there are still those in this world who seem to disagree.

And speaking of plastics, which we were recently… for all of human history people have dreamed of a material that was cheap, versatile, easily formed, didn’t rust, didn’t rot, won’t get water logged, would last almost forever. So now we have plastics. Great science. And what do we make with it? Sporks, pop bottles, fast food containers - disposable junk made from the least disposable product the world has ever known. It seems a reasonable person might want to question whether the “invisible hand” always moves us in the wisest of directions.

Neither should science ever come from the mouths of poiticians. Unless they invented the internet.

And that oft-used quote about “inventing the internet” was never uttered by the guy it’s attributed to, but the person who first said that it was, was (and still is) nothing more than a megaphone for espousing the platform of the opposing political party. And that person was (and still is) fully aware that if you re-tell the same lie enough times, it becomes true in the minds of the listener (I’ll admit that I used to believe that one too, and never bothered to check for myself to see whether it was true or not (hey, by then, everyone was saying it). I learned the truth quite by accident).

As an aside, A little while ago I stumbled upon a delightful little book (136 pages, 6.5"X4.25" - excessive size is no excuse not to read it) by Bruce Bartlett called “The Truth Matters”. Bartlett is no lefty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bartlett

In it he has a useful listing of fact checking tools. Here’s one that seems relevant to this.:
http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internet-of-lies/

As most people are, I’m skeptical of many claims made by politicians, particularly those who are actively running for office. I often take economists with a grain of salt also. But perhaps this book and its sources can be as useful to others as it has been for me.

Often credulity is more dangerous than skepticism, I’m learning as I age.