29 ms·
Big fish are found deep not because of age, climate, or prey, but because of us
- zzzzamu1234567 8y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17358570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17358570
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- z234567 8y agohttp://retretretret.com http://retretretret.com
- kimani 8y agovery nice http://bit.do/mawazo http://bit.do/mawazo
- titzer 8y agoUnder essentially any accounting system, when it comes to the environment, we're a bunch of fucking assholes.
- newswriter99 8y ago"Under an accounting system based on emotions and feelings" Fixed that for you. We're nothing more than an extremely specialized animal. What we do is (whether you like it or not) a product of nature. Our use of technology is just the large-scale version of a bird's nest, or an ant pile. We've done far less damage than the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. Deal with it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- throwaway413 8y agoExcept that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs didn’t rely on the environment (or the dinosaurs even) to survive.
- usrusr 8y agoThe problem is that we are not specialized, we are adaptive. If we were specialized, we would ruin one particular biome through overpopulation, starve a little and eventually reach equilibrium. But we are adaptive, we will keep adapting and consuming until there is nothing left. Almost like a paperclip maximiser, but for food and amenities instead of paperclips.
- nine_k 8y agoThis is what all life us. Look at bacteria. They are also crazily adaptable. The do it by changing their DNA and a very high speed of generational change, and we use "culture" and "science" with longer individual lifespans.
- ams6110 8y agoAnd, we recognize what we are doing as our technology advances, and we adjust to do what we think is better for our environment. No other animals do that. There's no undoing the past, and to feel angry or bitter about it doesn't help anything.
- titzer 8y ago> Fixed that for you. Sorry, no. Please don't fix any more of my comments. That's really passive aggressive and demeaning and you can do better. I really meant it. Under essentially any accounting system that is not human-centric at its core, we are really tops when it comes to destruction. Birds and ants reach a natural equilibrium with their environment and end up as integral parts of a functioning ecosystem. Humans. Just. Don't. We nuke and pave. Stupidly. Overfishing is just one example, a tiny one. We exhaust all available resources in an area and if we're lucky enough to survive the inevitable ecosystem collapse that we leave in our wake, we move on, either up or out or over, and exhaust all of those resources, too. If you really think we are equivalent to ants and birds, and we're just some kind of specialized animal, then I'm not sure we share the same basis for dialogue. Please step back from the personal afront that you feel by my comment and behold the destruction that humans have wrought. It is incalculable. There is a reason they are calling this the Anthropocene.
- phkahler 8y agoA hawk that eats a cute baby bunny is an asshole too right? My cat when it knocks over a bunch of stuff in the house chasing a mouse creates a local environmental mess. Humans are just better at this stuff than anything that's come before. Bacteria will consume all the food in a dish until their ecosystem collapses. Algae blooms happen and do the same thing. Again, humans are just doing this better and on a larger scale. Having said that, it would be in our long term interest not to continue doing this until the system collapses.
- CobrastanJorji 8y agoYou're responding to an imagined foe. See how you go with a "nature does it too, you're an environmentalist that wants to protect cute widdle animals" angle? That's because you're categorizing your opponent into a known bucket without actually pausing to consider their argument. This is a good way to efficiently comment on social media, but this style of dialogue will never either convince them that they're wrong or convince you that you're wrong. All it will do is reinforce itself by giving your brain a brief jolt of self-satisfaction.
- noir_lord 8y agoWe really are but I'm not sure what to do about it (other than considering environmental policy when voting). We don't drive (me or my partner), We recycle, I mend everything I can (which outside of a clean room is most things, it's never been easier with youtube), neither of use go in for excessive consumption (My current desktop is from 2011, it's finally coming up on time to replace that). I even considered going vegetarian but with Crohn's that isn't really viable (I have to avoid high fibre and getting enough minerals/vitamins is a struggle). We don't eat wild caught fish (or much fish at all). I mean I'm not a tofu eating ecowarrior or anything but it just seems sensible not to piss in your own drinking water.
- vfc1 8y agoSince you have Chron's and are thinking of going vegetarian, have a look this video on plant-based diets and Chron's disease: Achieving Remission of Crohn's Disease - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_T93ON2cBE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_T93ON2cBE and Preventing Crohn’s Disease With Diet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-JuRjSrJPo&t=5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-JuRjSrJPo&t=5s Note that for Chron patients, its recommended to stay way from nutritional yeast.
- noir_lord 8y agoThanks for the links, though I've run across Dr. Greger before (given the amount of quackery that you find with any health related stuff online I always do research on the person who is stating an opinion even if they have Dr. in front of their name).
- protonimitate 8y agoI don't mean this to criticize attempts at personal responsibility when it comes to sustainability, but I think we are far past the point of no return. Short of a massive population decrease, a complete switch in energy consumption, or some sci-fi type of technological breakthrough, we are doomed to run this planet into extinction. At this point, most conservation efforts are more of a attempt to feel better as an individual then they are actually making a difference. That doesn't mean we should stop, or concede, with our efforts. It just means we need to be realistic with what we do over the next 50-100 years. Personally, I think the only way the human race will continue to thrive is to figure out how to survive without the Earth as a host. Whether we figure that out, or succumb to extinction, is really the ultimate test of our race. Were we designed to be a part of nature as it exists on Earth, or will we surpass it?
- frockington 8y agoI look at our great works of art and engineering and beg to differ. Has any other species on earth mastered its environment as well as humans?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- stellawamuyu 8y agohttp://cnn.com http://cnn.com
- vfc1 8y agoIt's surprising that fishes adopt that behavior, but then again industrial fishing activity now covers at least 55 percent of the world's oceans - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180222162124.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180222162124.h...
- the-pigeon 8y agoDo we not count as prey?
- AdamM12 8y agoWasn't there a post earlier that more mammals are becoming nocturnal because of humans?
- tylersmith 8y agoI didn't see that and can't find it so if anybody has a link that'd be great. I'm no biologist but have always been taught that this is the case. Specifically, while growing up on ranch I was told that coyotes near the house hunted at night while the coyotes that lived further out in the fields hunted during the day.
- AdamM12 8y agoI guess I could of not been so lazy and used the search for "nocturnal" and found it. God forbid it be the first result. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17329264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17329264
- jboggan 8y agoThis isn't surprising to anyone who dives or spearfishes. You start to notice the body language of the larger fishes as being completely different than their younger counterparts. Only the wary get to be that old. I would also say that applies not just to human predation but also to predation from other fishes and mammals, you can see their movements and behaviors change immensely when something larger and hungrier is about.
- olliej 8y agoWell yes, there a fairly simple bit of selective pressure:fish nearer to the surface are more likely to be caught. As industrial fishing is aggressive to mass collection that increases pressure to move deeper. It seems reasonable then that fish that are generally remaining (in average) deeper than there counterparts will (again on average) live longer, and so get bigger. This is basic evolution. It’s no different than commercial fishing farms having to deal with their fish growing more slowly or simply staying small (the selection criteria being “stay less than X cm”)
- pvaldes 8y agoI'm sceptic about that, specially after reading this. > All the species in which older, bigger fish are found in deeper water have something else in common: we eat them Hemm, not. Poisonous fishes show the same pattern. There are poisonous fishes also in the deep sea. If we do not eat then, why do not live in the surface? Mola mola is the biggest extant bony fish. Is neither fished nor eaten normally. Adults still pass most of its time at deep waters. To extrapolate the behaviour of 30.000 species of animals after one single species and one single variable leads often to wrong conclusions. Fishes are complex creatures.
- ggg9990 8y agoBut that one species has had tremendous impact on fish populations, so could easily impact the evolution of fish.
- kingbirdy 8y agoI think he meant cod as the one species, not humans, since the study only looked at cod populations and not any other fish.
- biofunsf 8y agoAre you just saying that there are poisonous deep sea fish? To be a counterexample it needs to be a poisonous fish that exists in shallow waters but whose older members only occupy deep waters. Entirely deep-sea species aren't what this article is referring to. I'm not aware of any poisonous fish that aren't hunted by humans that follow this pattern. Just saw your edit. I don't think that sunfish fish of different ages spend their time at different ocean depths? Wasn't mentioned on wikipedia.
- pvaldes 8y agoMany deep-sea fishes have buoyant eggs and larvae that can reach the photic zone. Even the species that do not reach the photic zone live in shallower areas when younger. A lot of pelagic fishes start their life at 1cm under the ocean surface also.
- mlboss 8y agoI currently reading "Sapiens: A brief history of Humankind". Through out human history we have destroyed ecosystems. We are responsible for extinction of 1000s of species. Oceans was left out because we didn't have the technology, but not for long.
- corporateslaver 8y agoThat’s what happens when you have this many people. For the kind of population growth, it’s either we stop having so many people, or the animals die. It’s us or them. Why is this so hard to understand? No amount of talking points and musing on environmentalism will take away those facts of human existence. How could the industrial boom in China or the USA in the late 1800s and early 1900s have happened without emvironmental destruction? How can growth happen in China now without it? Get real about human development and the necessities of human development.
- nothrabannosir 8y ago> Why is this so hard to understand? Who said anything about hard to understand? Are you explaining the observation or justifying it? Because the former might be a fool’s errand; everyone understands, as you so eloquently put it. In other words: just because I know why something happens, doesn’t mean that I think it’s a good thing, or that it shouldn’t change.
- corporateslaver 8y agoI’m saying enough with these lamentations about the environment, would these people rather be living in the woods? It’s complete nonsense. Destroying the environment has been a necessary step to human evolution.
- rosser 8y agoWe are not separate from our environment. We wreck it at our own peril. Rapacious destruction may have been an expedient shortcut to our development, but unchecked, it will also end us.
- Theodores 8y agoOnce upon a time rivers were clear and full of fish. There was no need for anyone to get in a boat and head out to sea to catch fish. Essentially the fish 'came to us' (not that they saw it that way). With the advent of farming the rivers became full of the soil washed off the land and were no longer clear. Fishing now needed a boat. At first this fishing was easy, however we ate the big fish and made various fisheries a thing of the past, case in point being the Newfoundland Grand Banks, once famous for cod but no longer. So what do people eat now instead of 'cod and chips'? This amuses me as there is no problem for them. They get some other fish shaped object - 'battered' - and make judgements of how tasty or otherwise it is. Maybe this fish comes from another hemisphere, perhaps it has some unusual name, maybe it tastes 'different'. Marketing conquers all though, this mystery fish caught somewhere off Antarctica will have a fancy name as if it is some deluxe, exotic variety. It is as if the 'chef' went out of his way to offer something more exciting than 'humdrum cod' specifically for them, charging them more for this 'nouvelle cousine' in the process. No discussion of what happened to the cod will be mentioned although the despicable newspaper that will be read with the 'faux cod and chips' will talk about the evils of the E.U. and the Spanish fishermen invading 'our' shores. Soon these fools will be eating the scummiest bottom-feeding detritus that can be scooped from the ocean's depths. They will do it if not every day but as the mood takes them until the day they die. Discussion will be made on how well the faux-cod is cooked and how lovely it was. The thinking won't go much further than their bellies and bowels. Meanwhile, driving in their cars and going on their cheap holidays, these consumers, whom the world's economy depends on, will be pumping untold tonnes of carbon dioxide into the oceans, acidifying them to make life in the seas quite intolerable for our friends with gills. The cruise boats they holiday on and the container ships that bring them their cheap junk from China will also make so much noise in the oceans that any fish with ears will not be able to hear anything but the sound of diesel internal combustion engines. There is no penalty for complicity in this madness. However, the cost of stepping outside of it is quite high. If you don't eat your fish or your beef or your mechanically removed horsemeat then there is not a place at the table for you. Unless you have got a good excuse. But nobody says they are 'allergic to beef' or 'allergic to fish'. You can only be allergic to peanuts. Much like how folks in the mafia have to have slaughtered someone to get a space at the table, so it is with meat and fish, to be accepted by your peers you have to partake in the ecocide. There are those that are vegetarian and wanting to live life differently. But these people are somewhat drowned out by the vegan crowd, many of whom have entirely different motivations. This new vegan crowd are more likely to have an eating disorder that has nothing to do with saving the planet. Plus they can't get five minutes into a conversation without wanting to tell all that they are vegan. Their fanaticism plus the cost of their fake-meat products, e.g. that organic almond milk flown in from California, is no example for others to follow. We will see if the meek inherit the earth, maybe the fatties scoffing all the fish are going to be going extinct shortly after they have scoffed the last plastic-infested jellyfish they can find in the oceans.
- codeisawesome 8y agoI love this, it’s a fun story, and especially funny to read all the long-winded science-y sounding explanations that humans came up with rather than consider the self deprecating simple fact that we’re just eating them all. BUT I am definitely not happy that this is going to be one of those weaponised stories that the anti-science brigade will start telling and re-telling everywhere, lending credibility to other lies they believe in.
- southern_cross 8y agoI read a story once where ongoing changes in the timing of salmon runs were (of course) being blamed on climate change by scientists. But then someone who is actually in the fishing industry pointed out that for ages now we've been artificially selecting out those salmon which run during the "standard window", leaving in their wake mostly survivors who show up a little bit sooner or a little bit later, outside of that window. This person was of course then treated with absolute disdain by the online community which was discussing the issue; he might have even been banned outright for saying that.
- gowld 8y agoMaybe it was met with disdain because it was unsupported speculation? Why would a fishing effect occur over a span of a few recently years, instead of over 100 years of fishing? https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/sockeye-salmon-and-climate-change https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/sockeye-salmon-and-cli...
- vivafrance 8y agoMost comments in a community are unsupported speculation. Those commenters that parrot popular opinions are rewarded.
- danharaj 8y agoWith what? Fake internet points? Some reward, where do I redeem them?
- ludston 8y agoThey are redeemed on arrival for a sense of adequacy and belonging.
- SimbaOnSteroids 8y agoFake internet points are worth a bit of money if you can find a buyer.
- smaddox 8y agoReminds me of this NPR article from 2014 with pictures showing how small "the biggest catch" is today compared to 60 years ago: https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-fish-stories-getting-littler https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/b...
- SteveGerencser 8y agoPart of this is because of the changes in catch laws. For example. Many of the fish in the oldest photos are Goliath Grouper. Nearly 30 years ago harvesting Goliath Grouper was banned. So it makes sense that you would see far fewer pictures of a fish you are no longer allowed to catch and keep.
- codeisawesome 8y ago1965 (mentioned in the article as being the start of a period in which pictures show smaller fish) is 50+ years ago however
- taeric 8y agoI'm not sure that disagrees with the point. There was a species of fish that was particularly large that was caught. It was identified that we were damaging that species, so we banned catching it. It makes sense that part of the evidence for banning, was that we were finding less of them, especially at size. That is, the point is that this metric was largely driven by that fish species.
- ako 8y agoThe fact that fish are getting shorter is illustrated nicely in the article: https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-fish-stories-getting-littler?t=1529558188716 https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/b... Pretty disturbing.
- dalbasal 8y agoTangental: "the researchers added a simulation in which the depth and mass of fish were tied to the rate of mortality by fishing" Is this really a process where simulation->result->theory. IE died the model or simulation played a key role indeveloping or validating a theory. Or, is this a process where they started from a theory (that works, explaining observed results) and then built a simulation that demonstrates the theory? I feel like I'm seeing this kind of language in the pop science press, maybe starting from the climate/weather world. Have models of ecosystems (eg) been getting more use as "theory generators," are researchers creating more models ex post as an supporting evidence, or is this just a shift in journalistic language? ...and... if the answer is "models are really playing more of a role"... please elaborate if you know anything interesting. What software is being used? Are biologists building these models/simulations themselves, or are there specialists available to them? ^ I'm not hating on language choices or ex post evidence gathering. Darwin used what we might call a "simulation" (or statistical analysis, depending on the journalist) to predict and then validate a theory about bird mortality in storms. That was great science, and foundational. Not hating. Just curious about changes in the role of simulation/modeling.
- marcus_holmes 8y agoyeah, every time I see "we proved this theory using a simulation..." I get a little voice in my head that says "then you didn't prove anything except your ability to create a simulation that agrees with your pet theory" I understand that conducting experiments with ecosystems to prove why they behave in particular ways might be a tad tricky. But that just means that theories about ecosystems are hard to prove, not that they get a free ride to "proven".
- dalbasal 8y agoA more charitable way if putting it might be, is the simulation part of the theory or part of the evidence for it. Both are acceptable, but not at once. Simulation as theory is "safer" in a poperian sense.
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
- yitchelle 8y agoThis reminds of the "empty box problem solved by a $20 fan" story. Sometimes, the most obvious reason is probably the actual reason. [0] - http://cs.txstate.edu/~br02/cs1428/ShortStoryForEngineers.htm http://cs.txstate.edu/~br02/cs1428/ShortStoryForEngineers.ht...
- aaronmu 8y agoDo older and bigger fish evolve to live deeper or do fish that live deeper get older and bigger? Humans think that we can tell cause from effect but this is rarely the case.
- cerealbad 8y agoclimate change has become an apocalyptic orthodox religion for secular pessimists, just like technology is an idealized utopia for materialistic optimists. this tends to happen when you build a world view on a single pillar and it starts sinking and tipping over, prophecies and pronouncements of certain doom or visions of heaven naturally follow. the real issue is that modern education is not cross disciplinary so you have highly specialized people creeping into fields they don't understand and making basic errors of judgement based on pre-conceived ideas of what ought to be. you see this for example in the interplay between physics, mathematics, computer science and engineering. the physicist wants statistics over big data sets, the mathematician wants abstract tools and automatic proof theorems, the engineer wants practical numerical solutions and modelling and the computer scientist is fixated on throughput and efficiency of generative algorithms. is this even true? has anyone stopped and said, what are we actually doing? is there a bigger plan here, are we trying to work towards a common goal, or has the ladder we climbed been pulled away? the relativistic revolution and subsequent collapse of the western world, the church, the state and the individual all dissolving into a jumbled mess of professional agitators applying some bayesian strategy of influence maximization is an unfortunate consequence of a change in world order, from west to east. being on the wrong side of the cyber curtain is a slow bleak dawn, with the intellectual and political elite always the last to realize the surrounding darkness. globalization is an example of a desperate last gasp of a former dominant culture trying to exert control and influence over a world increasingly more alien and separate from it. the irony of course is in the conceit of the name itself. project the growth of asia and africa forwards for another half-century, then work backwards and try to understand the hysteria behind fossil fuel usage and the impact this will have on the balance of world power if 3+ billion new people become electrified and industrialized.
- marcus_holmes 8y agoI'm in SE Asia at the moment, and the view is different here. Globalisation doesn't look like the last gasp of a former dominant culture here, it looks like the way out of crushing poverty. People WANT to work in globalcorp garment factories. They get really annoyed if the factories shut down. For all our western idealism about a pastoral lifestyle, everyone who has the choice between growing food for a living and working 90 hours a week in a factory chooses the factory every time. And yes, it is their choice. They can leave whenever they want, there are 4375979 other applicants waiting at the gates. The interesting thing is that they're skipping steps in the process. Cambodia skipped desktop/wired computing/telecoms and went straight from nothing to mobile (in about 5 years). Mobile access is hugely cheaper and generally faster than it is in either the UK or Australia. I can see solar power doing the same in the next 5 years. Rather than waiting for the electricity authority to get round to wiring up the rural areas, they're already getting on with rigging up their own solar. In 20 years they'll be self-sufficient and the megaprojects to dam the rivers will be bankrupt.