6 ms·

> "Sustainable fishing" means just that the populations do not decline. "Zero tolerance for marine mammal bycatch" has nothing to do with this." Environmental

by netcan 6y ago

> "Sustainable fishing" means just that the populations do not decline. "Zero tolerance for marine mammal bycatch" has nothing to do with this." Environmental sustainability doesn't "scope creep" for the same reason as other morality terms (eg justice). It scope creeps because of the nature of environmental sustainability. Affecting non-target species (bycatch etc.) tends to have unpredictable effects on target species... and longer time horizons yield more complexity. That's what ecosystems are, interdependent sets of population dynamics. Anyway, at this point, "sustainability" means environmental decency in the general sense. Like the term "literally," it has evolved with usage. If a beef farm is poisoning a nearby lake and all its neighbors' farms, but could theoretically continue doing so without a decline in beef production... we wouldn't describe this as sustainable. There's also a practical sense to it. Commercial fishing (and aquaculture) gets away with a lot of environmental harm, for relatively little economic size. This isn't oil & gas. In some places, even recreational fishing is a bigger industry. This is not sustainable politically. Eventually, people will just want to ban it... like most commercial hunting was banned, inland fisheries retired, etc. That's unsustainable in the literal sense. It will lead to the end of commercial fishing.

wnissen 6y ago
Yep. The kelp forests in California have been devastated in the last few years, due to "sea star wasting disease". The sea-star population crashes, sea stars are a no longer a major predator of purple sea urchins, sea urchins like to eat the "holdfast" where the kelp attaches to the seafloor, and boom, no more kelp forests. The resulting denuded landscape (seascape?) is known as an "urchin barren". Instead of a lush underwater forest teeming with crabs, snails, and fish, you have mostly bare rocks and urchins. The ocean truly is a system.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> Anyway, at this point, "sustainability" means environmental decency in the general sense. Like the term "literally," it has evolved with usage. The problem with this is, that now there is no way to talk about the original meaning of "sustainable". Since that is an important concept, much is lost when it can no longer be talked about.
- netcan 6y ago
  Getting mad at etymology is a sisyphean torture. You will always lose at this game. It's the nature of language. I'm mad at "literally," because it evolved out of a misunderstood cliche that became an "um word." Lowest form of etymology. I'm trying to get over it. Sustainability evolved because it was used to describe slash and burn agriculture, overfishing and such. It evolved in a pretty natural way, reflecting the way ecosystems actually work. It also became associated with "sustainability practices" which really do improve sustainability in the narrow sense. Bycatch reduction does improve the sustainability of target species harvest. Bycatch reduction is also environmentally preferable regardless of target species sustainability... but it still gets called environmental "sustainability" even if the goal is not "continue doing what you are doing uninterrupted. The broader sense of "sustainability" is also related to the narrow sense in practice. Oil pipelines leak and pollute, on average. If you try to build one today, locals will vigorously try to stop you. Leaky pipes do not directly prevent oil from being piped, but they do create a political reality where you can't continue to build them. Very few overground (or over-river) pipelines are being built in places that have political rights. All this seems like a good, healthy, literate way for a language to evolve. Overused, I agree... but still way better than literally.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Getting mad at etymology is a sisyphean torture. You will always lose at this game. It's the nature of language. There seems to be a lot of intentional evolution of meaning, and I believe the criticism of the article is based upon feeling that this is such a case. Using a word with a certain meaning in a different context uses the word's power without having the same meaning. The usefulness of the word as a rhetoric tool is the delta between the impact ("original sustainable") and the thing referenced ("modern sustainable"). It's why Peta calls dairy industry cow rape and speaks of Pig concentration camps: evoking emotions to further their agenda.
    - netcan 6y ago
      I would say this happens every time someone chooses one word over another in a sentence. Language is intentional and rhetorical by nature. "Cow rape" is a good way down the spectral extremity, but choice of words is always like this. Choice of words is what evolves the meaning of words. Metaphors become cliches, become idioms, etc. That's how we get homonyms, multiple meanings, archaics...and etymology generally. Evolution is neither deterministic nor random. It's also true of how we interpret words. The term sustainability's most common modern usage means "ecologically harmful." The narrow sense of the term, "will conclude at some point," was never commonly used. Objecting to the modern usage is intentional and rhetorical also. It signifies objection to the moralizing about the environment. It's a shiboleth, at least for now. On this thread, the semantic objection earned top comment. An objection that doesn't address anything related to the article, but an objection nonetheless. That's a rhetorical win. An ad hominem is cheap, but this is inexpensive. Sweet spot. That's kind of what "rhetorical skill" is. Chris Hitchens was one of the greats, IMO. Backed against the wall, he would hit back with inexpensive rhetoric. Inexpensive is ok, just not cheap. People can smell cheap.
cataphract 6y ago
> Environmental sustainability doesn't "scope creep" for the same reason as other morality terms (eg justice). It scope creeps because of the nature of environmental sustainability. Affecting non-target species (bycatch etc.) tends to have unpredictable effects on target species... and longer time horizons yield more complexity. That's what ecosystems are, interdependent sets of population dynamics. But even under this interpretation, the article doesn't attempt to argue that the bycatch is causing the mammal populations to collapse. Instead, it focuses on the damage inflicted on _individuals_. Incidentally, this is the kind of advocacy that often pits animal rights activists against conservationists, for instance when the latter resort to culling or even simply let a large percentage of a population die of hunger.
- netcan 6y ago
  It's not really an interpretation. This is what the word "sustainable" means. This is the way the author is using the term sustainable. When she says "a key independent labeler of sustainable seafood..." she's referring to a stamp using the term this way. It's even used this way in legislation, diplomacy, etc. Past a point, I find the semantic discussion boring. This is just how language works. Words have multiple, often related meanings. It changes over time. You are not encountering it for the first time. I was just pointing out that the evolution of the term has a logical etymology to it. There's a logic to "environmental harm" having acquired the near synonym "environmentally unsustainable." That has nothing to do with the author though. The word just means what it means. Why does the author need to argue that the bycatch is causing target fish populations to collapse? That's not what she's writing an article about. She's just using the english language how it is spoken, especially in the context she's writing within. She didn't invent it. Anyway... I kind of feel this is going in a silly direction. The article is about something important. The top comments are me and you having a stupid conversation about the history of words. If you disagree with the author, you should have argued with what she has to say.. as opposed to the semantics. I'd say that onus applies more than the other way around.
pvaldes 6y ago
> For relatively little economic size. This isn't oil & gas Don't underestimate it. Maybe is not obvious, but the majority of humans, many millions of people do not starve to death because fisheries save them each day providing the main and only reliable source of protein in their daily intake. The impact of all fishes vanishing tomorrow would be devastating for the world. A thousand of countries would burn in war in less than a year, and there would be huge, massive, migrations towards the North Hemisphere.
- netcan 6y ago
  Point taken. I didn't mean to be trite. Fishing is nutritionally important, and economically important to a lot of people in the world. This shouldn't be measured in gdp contribution. I also don't take the cultural element lightly. Fishing is culturally essential to many cultures and subcultures wherever there is water. There is a reason fisheries are still one of the main diplomatic issues to this day. Dollar amount is, on the other hand, meaningful in the ways that it is. Oil & gas are "unsustainable" in the "considering that we live on this planet" sense... the same sense that many fishing industries are unsustainable. The environment would be significantly better off without them. But, it's only recently that we can even see ourselves living without oil and gas. Those mines and pipelines, leaks, coal coughs and refineries still power us. Energy touches all of us, a lot. Ocean fish... we eat them sometimes. ..and oceanic ecosystems are not something that we can destroy regardless of economics. It's morally wrong.
- Retric 6y ago
  That’s wildly inaccurate, the largest percentage of fish come from aquaculture not wild capture. ~90 Million tons of fish sounds like a huge number but quite a lot of that’s ends up as animal feed etc. Pork by comparison adds up to ~120 Million tons per year and people actually directly consume the majority of it. People get well over twice as much protean from cows than wild fish. Add in chickens for 130 Million tons per year for even more perspective, before looking at plant based sources. Serious analysis shows wild fish are critical for a few communities, but have a minor role in the global food supply.
  - 6y ago

by netcan 6y ago

wnissen 6y ago

Yep. The kelp forests in California have been devastated in the last few years, due to "sea star wasting disease". The sea-star population crashes, sea stars are a no longer a major predator of purple sea urchins, sea urchins like to eat the "holdfast" where the kelp attaches to the seafloor, and boom, no more kelp forests. The resulting denuded landscape (seascape?) is known as an "urchin barren". Instead of a lush underwater forest teeming with crabs, snails, and fish, you have mostly bare rocks and urchins. The ocean truly is a system.

BurningFrog 6y ago

> Anyway, at this point, "sustainability" means environmental decency in the general sense. Like the term "literally," it has evolved with usage. The problem with this is, that now there is no way to talk about the original meaning of "sustainable". Since that is an important concept, much is lost when it can no longer be talked about.

netcan 6y ago
Getting mad at etymology is a sisyphean torture. You will always lose at this game. It's the nature of language. I'm mad at "literally," because it evolved out of a misunderstood cliche that became an "um word." Lowest form of etymology. I'm trying to get over it. Sustainability evolved because it was used to describe slash and burn agriculture, overfishing and such. It evolved in a pretty natural way, reflecting the way ecosystems actually work. It also became associated with "sustainability practices" which really do improve sustainability in the narrow sense. Bycatch reduction does improve the sustainability of target species harvest. Bycatch reduction is also environmentally preferable regardless of target species sustainability... but it still gets called environmental "sustainability" even if the goal is not "continue doing what you are doing uninterrupted. The broader sense of "sustainability" is also related to the narrow sense in practice. Oil pipelines leak and pollute, on average. If you try to build one today, locals will vigorously try to stop you. Leaky pipes do not directly prevent oil from being piped, but they do create a political reality where you can't continue to build them. Very few overground (or over-river) pipelines are being built in places that have political rights. All this seems like a good, healthy, literate way for a language to evolve. Overused, I agree... but still way better than literally.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Getting mad at etymology is a sisyphean torture. You will always lose at this game. It's the nature of language. There seems to be a lot of intentional evolution of meaning, and I believe the criticism of the article is based upon feeling that this is such a case. Using a word with a certain meaning in a different context uses the word's power without having the same meaning. The usefulness of the word as a rhetoric tool is the delta between the impact ("original sustainable") and the thing referenced ("modern sustainable"). It's why Peta calls dairy industry cow rape and speaks of Pig concentration camps: evoking emotions to further their agenda.
  - netcan 6y ago
    I would say this happens every time someone chooses one word over another in a sentence. Language is intentional and rhetorical by nature. "Cow rape" is a good way down the spectral extremity, but choice of words is always like this. Choice of words is what evolves the meaning of words. Metaphors become cliches, become idioms, etc. That's how we get homonyms, multiple meanings, archaics...and etymology generally. Evolution is neither deterministic nor random. It's also true of how we interpret words. The term sustainability's most common modern usage means "ecologically harmful." The narrow sense of the term, "will conclude at some point," was never commonly used. Objecting to the modern usage is intentional and rhetorical also. It signifies objection to the moralizing about the environment. It's a shiboleth, at least for now. On this thread, the semantic objection earned top comment. An objection that doesn't address anything related to the article, but an objection nonetheless. That's a rhetorical win. An ad hominem is cheap, but this is inexpensive. Sweet spot. That's kind of what "rhetorical skill" is. Chris Hitchens was one of the greats, IMO. Backed against the wall, he would hit back with inexpensive rhetoric. Inexpensive is ok, just not cheap. People can smell cheap.

cataphract 6y ago

> Environmental sustainability doesn't "scope creep" for the same reason as other morality terms (eg justice). It scope creeps because of the nature of environmental sustainability. Affecting non-target species (bycatch etc.) tends to have unpredictable effects on target species... and longer time horizons yield more complexity. That's what ecosystems are, interdependent sets of population dynamics. But even under this interpretation, the article doesn't attempt to argue that the bycatch is causing the mammal populations to collapse. Instead, it focuses on the damage inflicted on _individuals_. Incidentally, this is the kind of advocacy that often pits animal rights activists against conservationists, for instance when the latter resort to culling or even simply let a large percentage of a population die of hunger.

netcan 6y ago
It's not really an interpretation. This is what the word "sustainable" means. This is the way the author is using the term sustainable. When she says "a key independent labeler of sustainable seafood..." she's referring to a stamp using the term this way. It's even used this way in legislation, diplomacy, etc. Past a point, I find the semantic discussion boring. This is just how language works. Words have multiple, often related meanings. It changes over time. You are not encountering it for the first time. I was just pointing out that the evolution of the term has a logical etymology to it. There's a logic to "environmental harm" having acquired the near synonym "environmentally unsustainable." That has nothing to do with the author though. The word just means what it means. Why does the author need to argue that the bycatch is causing target fish populations to collapse? That's not what she's writing an article about. She's just using the english language how it is spoken, especially in the context she's writing within. She didn't invent it. Anyway... I kind of feel this is going in a silly direction. The article is about something important. The top comments are me and you having a stupid conversation about the history of words. If you disagree with the author, you should have argued with what she has to say.. as opposed to the semantics. I'd say that onus applies more than the other way around.

pvaldes 6y ago

> For relatively little economic size. This isn't oil & gas Don't underestimate it. Maybe is not obvious, but the majority of humans, many millions of people do not starve to death because fisheries save them each day providing the main and only reliable source of protein in their daily intake. The impact of all fishes vanishing tomorrow would be devastating for the world. A thousand of countries would burn in war in less than a year, and there would be huge, massive, migrations towards the North Hemisphere.

netcan 6y ago
Point taken. I didn't mean to be trite. Fishing is nutritionally important, and economically important to a lot of people in the world. This shouldn't be measured in gdp contribution. I also don't take the cultural element lightly. Fishing is culturally essential to many cultures and subcultures wherever there is water. There is a reason fisheries are still one of the main diplomatic issues to this day. Dollar amount is, on the other hand, meaningful in the ways that it is. Oil & gas are "unsustainable" in the "considering that we live on this planet" sense... the same sense that many fishing industries are unsustainable. The environment would be significantly better off without them. But, it's only recently that we can even see ourselves living without oil and gas. Those mines and pipelines, leaks, coal coughs and refineries still power us. Energy touches all of us, a lot. Ocean fish... we eat them sometimes. ..and oceanic ecosystems are not something that we can destroy regardless of economics. It's morally wrong.
Retric 6y ago
That’s wildly inaccurate, the largest percentage of fish come from aquaculture not wild capture. ~90 Million tons of fish sounds like a huge number but quite a lot of that’s ends up as animal feed etc. Pork by comparison adds up to ~120 Million tons per year and people actually directly consume the majority of it. People get well over twice as much protean from cows than wild fish. Add in chickens for 130 Million tons per year for even more perspective, before looking at plant based sources. Serious analysis shows wild fish are critical for a few communities, but have a minor role in the global food supply.
- 6y ago