5 ms·

It’s more upsetting to know that over 2.7 million are killed for cosmetics. Humans truly know how to dispense misery on mass scale.

dotancohen 6y ago
But we only hear about it when less than 1/5 of that amount _might_ be sacrificed for human health. Stinks of agenda. Also, without context, is 500,000 a lot of sharks? How many exist in the wild? How many are needed to have a stable population? If we don't cull millions of sharks annually, what effect would that have? And what is "shark" in this context, anyway? There are dozens of fish species, at differing levels of endangerment, colloquially referred to as "sharks".
- codingdave 6y ago
  > Stinks of agenda. Everyone has an agenda. I don't see an agenda of conservation of our ecology as one we need to resist. Especially when their conclusion at the end is not just "Save the Sharks", but a hope that we will research other possible ingredients instead of just running with the first working prototype.
  - DeusExMachina 6y ago
    Many agendas masquerade as "conservation of our ecology" when they are none of the sort and produce no results or even the opposite of what they claim. The fact that you like it is no reason to not look at what's behind it.
    - melling 6y ago
      Sure, move past the innuendo and offer the theory so we can discuss. Throwing out the innuendo without any reason doesn’t help anyone. Climate change deniers, for example, say the agenda “the redistribution of wealth“ Now we can have a discussion.
    - jagger27 6y ago
      > look at what’s behind it Oh yeah, this one has Big Shark written all over it. The ones that produce no results are more likely to be victims of other agendas than ineffective because of their own.
  - dajohnson89 6y ago
    agreed but the article says that nonanimal sources are more expensive than sharks. so research isn't what's needed, but rather (arguably) things like state provided incentives.
- bufferoverflow 6y ago
  Mass-murdering sharks for cosmetics is unethical and evil. They feel the pain just like we do.
  - melling 6y ago
    “And what is "shark" in this context, anyway?" Many people seem to rationalize away much of the destruction that humans do to the world. That’s probably why we will soon be drilling for oil in Alaska.
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    On pure utilitarian grounds, sharks are all carnivores who kill thousands of other animals over their life in horrific, painful ways. That doesn’t mean that there’s not environmental reasons to justify shark conservation. But from the standpoint of animal suffering killing apex predators is almost certainly a net good.
    - rleigh 6y ago
      The opposite has been shown to be true. For example, see the effect of wolf reintroduction upon biodiversity. They keep other populations in check which themselves would overall cause harm. Look at the situation in the Scottish highlands. The entire landscape has changed beyond all recognition because of the loss of apex predators (wolves, bears). The deer population is massive, and it prevents forest growth and regeneration, and results in a landscape devoid of its natural biodiversity. This isn't just bad for the environment, we also suffer from related problems such as the spread of ticks spreading Lyme disease.
      - throwanem 6y ago
        The same has happened with whitetail in the eastern US, and a lot of people around here are still foolish enough to get upset with the DNR when they do a cull. That the resulting venison goes to homeless shelters seems not to move these weepers over Bambi; presumably, in their coldly rational utilitarian calculus, the life of a deer exceeds in value that of a human, at least once the human's circumstances have been far enough reduced. Yes, I'm making fun, a little. I think that's fair in this instance. Someone who has taken the time and thought to identify utilitarianism as a philosophy on which to base consequential decisions has I think no excuse for not having likewise studied ecology, and the modern history of the human role in ecosystems, to at least the minimal extent required to recognize that ecology is really complicated and humans don't understand it nearly so well as we like to think we do. When we behave as if we did, we break things that very often can't be fixed.
- megous 6y ago
  What about other questions, like: what does 30% price premium on plant based source of this oil translate to when it comes to cost of the final vaccine? And what are the issues of using plant based source? Is it worth it? Shark is a wild animal that presumably doesn't want to be murdered by a human, to have their livers harvested, just because humans messed up with other animals and caused themselves to be infected with other animals' endemic viruses. I don't really know. I haven't talked to any sharks about this, just guessing.
- grufkork 6y ago
  Humanity really is misled. The production of cosmetics, which I believe is not particularly vital to anyone’s survival, could be cut by ~20% and we could manufacture the vaccine with no change in the amount of fishing of sharks. What is definitely interesting though is that I haven’t heard of this before. I wonder if it could be cosmetic product companies trying to keep things like this in the dark, similarly to how oil companies spread misinformation about fossil fuels? I don’t wish to don the tinfoil hat, but I would say it’s not all that unlikely that it is done. Information is the gold of our age, after all :)
esperent 6y ago
Are these endangered sharks or a common species?
- bufferoverflow 6y ago
  Does it change the fact that they are mass-murdered for cosmetics?
  - esperent 6y ago
    Yes, a lot. Even if you're a die hard animal rights activist, can't you see that 3.2 million deaths from a population of a hundred million (say) is a much smaller deal than 3.2 million from a population of ten million? One means possible extinction of a species, the other does not.
    - gherkinnn 6y ago
      While I agree with you, extremists (aka die hards) tend to take very deontological stances. Almost by definition, one might argue.
    - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
      If you are not an animal rights activist, it may be hard to see why preserving a species matters at all. It seem to be of no importance. And as long as humans are concerned, it may even be the reverse, heuristically. The bigger species is (measured by total weight, for example), the more important it may be for sustaining the ecosystem.
    - bufferoverflow 6y ago
      I'm not talking about extinction. I'm talking about suffering and death on a large scale only because of cosmetics.
      - esperent 6y ago
        I agree with you, that's an unnecessary evil and should be stopped. I'm just saying there are levels of bad here: A. suffering and death on a large scale only because of cosmetics but more sharks are born to replace those that are killed. B. suffering and death on a large scale only because of cosmetics AND possible extinction of the species. Both are bad, both should be stopped... But B. is worse and needs more immediate efforts to stop it.
xwdv 6y ago
Life is misery.
- isoprophlex 6y ago
  Especially with humans around
m463 6y ago
And sharkfin soup aka "seafood soup". Thing is there will be unavoidable consequences from being at the top of the food chain. Morality will have to be relative when you live by consuming organic matter from other living things.
yes_man 6y ago
Tangential, but related to the surprise of finding out how shitty humans are to other species: We slaughter 80 billion animals each year for food. On a planet of 7 billion humans, each year. Those animals only purpose is to be born, get fat, and get eaten by humans. Mostly in horrible conditions because it's cheap. We need to look into the mirror for more than just cosmetics industry. https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#number-of-animals-slaughtered https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#number-of-animals...
- shekharshan 6y ago
  @yes_man, mammals capable of same emotions that humans have, are brought into this world just so that they can be stacked on top of each other in horrid conditions for 1/10th of their natural lifespan in order to be slaughtered and fed to a species that is dying of obesity anyways.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Invest in technology to reliably reproduce the polypeptides that we are using animals to grow. Note, for consistency, you should be equally horrified at companies like Ynsect, which are growing trillions of living creatures to be eaten by billions of other creatures: http://www.ynsect.com/en/ http://www.ynsect.com/en/
- jkmcf 6y ago
  Humans don't have a good track record of caring for each other, let alone other animals.
seesawtron 6y ago
I dont understand how they reached this number. Did they just extrapolate survey of 8 creams to xx brands of creams that exist? "An astonishing 7 out of 8 creams surveyed had animal squalene. This equals roughly 2.7 million shark lives taken a year for our cosmetics."

dotancohen 6y ago

But we only hear about it when less than 1/5 of that amount _might_ be sacrificed for human health. Stinks of agenda. Also, without context, is 500,000 a lot of sharks? How many exist in the wild? How many are needed to have a stable population? If we don't cull millions of sharks annually, what effect would that have? And what is "shark" in this context, anyway? There are dozens of fish species, at differing levels of endangerment, colloquially referred to as "sharks".

codingdave 6y ago
> Stinks of agenda. Everyone has an agenda. I don't see an agenda of conservation of our ecology as one we need to resist. Especially when their conclusion at the end is not just "Save the Sharks", but a hope that we will research other possible ingredients instead of just running with the first working prototype.
- DeusExMachina 6y ago
  Many agendas masquerade as "conservation of our ecology" when they are none of the sort and produce no results or even the opposite of what they claim. The fact that you like it is no reason to not look at what's behind it.
  - melling 6y ago
    Sure, move past the innuendo and offer the theory so we can discuss. Throwing out the innuendo without any reason doesn’t help anyone. Climate change deniers, for example, say the agenda “the redistribution of wealth“ Now we can have a discussion.
  - jagger27 6y ago
    > look at what’s behind it Oh yeah, this one has Big Shark written all over it. The ones that produce no results are more likely to be victims of other agendas than ineffective because of their own.
- dajohnson89 6y ago
  agreed but the article says that nonanimal sources are more expensive than sharks. so research isn't what's needed, but rather (arguably) things like state provided incentives.
bufferoverflow 6y ago
Mass-murdering sharks for cosmetics is unethical and evil. They feel the pain just like we do.
- melling 6y ago
  “And what is "shark" in this context, anyway?" Many people seem to rationalize away much of the destruction that humans do to the world. That’s probably why we will soon be drilling for oil in Alaska.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  On pure utilitarian grounds, sharks are all carnivores who kill thousands of other animals over their life in horrific, painful ways. That doesn’t mean that there’s not environmental reasons to justify shark conservation. But from the standpoint of animal suffering killing apex predators is almost certainly a net good.
  - rleigh 6y ago
    The opposite has been shown to be true. For example, see the effect of wolf reintroduction upon biodiversity. They keep other populations in check which themselves would overall cause harm. Look at the situation in the Scottish highlands. The entire landscape has changed beyond all recognition because of the loss of apex predators (wolves, bears). The deer population is massive, and it prevents forest growth and regeneration, and results in a landscape devoid of its natural biodiversity. This isn't just bad for the environment, we also suffer from related problems such as the spread of ticks spreading Lyme disease.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      The same has happened with whitetail in the eastern US, and a lot of people around here are still foolish enough to get upset with the DNR when they do a cull. That the resulting venison goes to homeless shelters seems not to move these weepers over Bambi; presumably, in their coldly rational utilitarian calculus, the life of a deer exceeds in value that of a human, at least once the human's circumstances have been far enough reduced. Yes, I'm making fun, a little. I think that's fair in this instance. Someone who has taken the time and thought to identify utilitarianism as a philosophy on which to base consequential decisions has I think no excuse for not having likewise studied ecology, and the modern history of the human role in ecosystems, to at least the minimal extent required to recognize that ecology is really complicated and humans don't understand it nearly so well as we like to think we do. When we behave as if we did, we break things that very often can't be fixed.
megous 6y ago
What about other questions, like: what does 30% price premium on plant based source of this oil translate to when it comes to cost of the final vaccine? And what are the issues of using plant based source? Is it worth it? Shark is a wild animal that presumably doesn't want to be murdered by a human, to have their livers harvested, just because humans messed up with other animals and caused themselves to be infected with other animals' endemic viruses. I don't really know. I haven't talked to any sharks about this, just guessing.
grufkork 6y ago
Humanity really is misled. The production of cosmetics, which I believe is not particularly vital to anyone’s survival, could be cut by ~20% and we could manufacture the vaccine with no change in the amount of fishing of sharks. What is definitely interesting though is that I haven’t heard of this before. I wonder if it could be cosmetic product companies trying to keep things like this in the dark, similarly to how oil companies spread misinformation about fossil fuels? I don’t wish to don the tinfoil hat, but I would say it’s not all that unlikely that it is done. Information is the gold of our age, after all :)

esperent 6y ago

Are these endangered sharks or a common species?

bufferoverflow 6y ago
Does it change the fact that they are mass-murdered for cosmetics?
- esperent 6y ago
  Yes, a lot. Even if you're a die hard animal rights activist, can't you see that 3.2 million deaths from a population of a hundred million (say) is a much smaller deal than 3.2 million from a population of ten million? One means possible extinction of a species, the other does not.
  - gherkinnn 6y ago
    While I agree with you, extremists (aka die hards) tend to take very deontological stances. Almost by definition, one might argue.
  - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    If you are not an animal rights activist, it may be hard to see why preserving a species matters at all. It seem to be of no importance. And as long as humans are concerned, it may even be the reverse, heuristically. The bigger species is (measured by total weight, for example), the more important it may be for sustaining the ecosystem.
  - bufferoverflow 6y ago
    I'm not talking about extinction. I'm talking about suffering and death on a large scale only because of cosmetics.
    - esperent 6y ago
      I agree with you, that's an unnecessary evil and should be stopped. I'm just saying there are levels of bad here: A. suffering and death on a large scale only because of cosmetics but more sharks are born to replace those that are killed. B. suffering and death on a large scale only because of cosmetics AND possible extinction of the species. Both are bad, both should be stopped... But B. is worse and needs more immediate efforts to stop it.

xwdv 6y ago

Life is misery.

isoprophlex 6y ago
Especially with humans around

m463 6y ago

And sharkfin soup aka "seafood soup". Thing is there will be unavoidable consequences from being at the top of the food chain. Morality will have to be relative when you live by consuming organic matter from other living things.

yes_man 6y ago

Tangential, but related to the surprise of finding out how shitty humans are to other species: We slaughter 80 billion animals each year for food. On a planet of 7 billion humans, each year. Those animals only purpose is to be born, get fat, and get eaten by humans. Mostly in horrible conditions because it's cheap. We need to look into the mirror for more than just cosmetics industry. https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#number-of-animals-slaughtered https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#number-of-animals...

shekharshan 6y ago
@yes_man, mammals capable of same emotions that humans have, are brought into this world just so that they can be stacked on top of each other in horrid conditions for 1/10th of their natural lifespan in order to be slaughtered and fed to a species that is dying of obesity anyways.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Invest in technology to reliably reproduce the polypeptides that we are using animals to grow. Note, for consistency, you should be equally horrified at companies like Ynsect, which are growing trillions of living creatures to be eaten by billions of other creatures: http://www.ynsect.com/en/ http://www.ynsect.com/en/
jkmcf 6y ago
Humans don't have a good track record of caring for each other, let alone other animals.

seesawtron 6y ago

I dont understand how they reached this number. Did they just extrapolate survey of 8 creams to xx brands of creams that exist? "An astonishing 7 out of 8 creams surveyed had animal squalene. This equals roughly 2.7 million shark lives taken a year for our cosmetics."