4 ms·
It's not sensationalistic. You know damn well they're talking about edible fish that we're accustomed to eating now. You're just being intellectually dishonest.
by Daishiman 16y ago
It's not sensationalistic. You know damn well they're talking about edible fish that we're accustomed to eating now. You're just being intellectually dishonest.
- lionhearted 16y ago> It's not sensationalistic. The thread title was "Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years" - the first line starts with "THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050..." That's sensationalism. > You know damn well they're talking about edible fish that we're accustomed to eating now. Actually, the thread title - "Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years" made me click on it, because I thought it was about ecosystems getting destroyed by oil spills, or pollution, or something. And then the article was just about overfishing. And it exaggerates the chances. > You're just being intellectually dishonest. C'mon now, that's totally unnecessary - nightmare scenario of fishless oceans is sensationalism. There's an important point there, but the hand-wringing is a bad trend in my opinion. Exaggerating the effects of terrorism, pollution, fishing, copyright infringing piracy, and so on - it's a bad trend in my opinion. And if you disagree, why not be civil about it? "I don't think it's too sensationalistic because x, y, and z..." would work.
- Daishiman 16y agoBut the point is that it IS a nightmare scenario, since the situation is virtually unrecoverable. Ask any marine biologist about the chances of restoring any ecosystem of such dynamics past a point of no return (I work with them, so I HAVE asked). Again, you're making a huge fuss out of something that is a technicality, because it IS a nightmare scenario, it IS coming, and for us as humen beings it's as disastrous as claimed.