4 ms·
Sorry, but unless there’s an actual link to the agreement, list of countries bound to it, and significant meaningful timely means of enforcement— this is meanin
by O__________O 4y ago
Sorry, but unless there’s an actual link to the agreement, list of countries bound to it, and significant meaningful timely means of enforcement— this is meaningless.
As far as I’m concerned, all harvesting or harming of wildlife sea or otherwise needs to stop. If a country or individual refuses to agree, should either be a life sentence or act of war. People are unable to handle any rule based systems other than black and white, zero impact.
China, US, Japan, etc - regardless of what they say, will never stop until sea, land, and air no longer has wildlife.
- Avicebron 4y agoThat's one way to speedrun war with all of asia simultaneously
- O__________O 4y agoWar is irrelevant. No country is going to agree to cease impacting, harvesting, etc wildlife. It’s to hard to monitor, enforce, predict, etc wildlife harvesting. I am not saying humanity needs to protect wildlife because it is the “nice thing” to do, saying it because I sincerely believe Earth and humanity need’s wildlife to have a habitable planet; anyone is welcome to feel free to explain how this is wrong.
- PradeetPatel 4y agoThe cynic in me says that long term habitability of the planet have very little impact on the quarterly revenue of most corporations. If business school taught me anything, is that the only revenue that matters to execs is the quarterly one.
- O__________O 4y agoCorporations and ultra wealthy clearly have an over sized impact and influence on the world, but — when it comes to a topic like this, it’s 8 billion people saying, yummie, yummie, F the world; or the people not saying “yummie, yummie” refusing to enforce not impacting wildlife on those who clearly don’t care.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- permo-w 4y agounionise. doesn’t matter what for. increase the counterweight to the corporations. make them think twice when they act
- O__________O 4y agovegan population worldwide is likely close to 0.1% of the world’s population — how exactly are unions going to solve anything? This is a consumption issue by consumers; it’s like saying if you eliminate the drug dealers, it’ll solve a drug epidemic, no it won’t.
- permo-w 4y agowho said anything about vegans. unionise in any category. make the corporations think twice when they act. it doesn’t matter about what. politicians won’t, don’t and almost never have brought about lasting change for the whole, not without unions leaning on them
- O__________O 4y agoFair enough, though still unclear how unions matter.
- permo-w 4y agoedited my comment further
- O__________O 4y agoSorry, read the edits, but you’re ignoring the part where union members are contributing to the problem and have provided no explanation of how or why the union members would become part of the solution. Happy to try to understand, here’s even link to list of the percentage of workers per country that are union workers, though that’s obviously not a global count of the number of union members worldwide as a percentage of world’s population: https://ilostat.ilo.org/topics/union-membership/ https://ilostat.ilo.org/topics/union-membership/
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> going to agree to cease impacting, harvesting, etc wildlife There is deep precedent for successful conservation programs. The anarchy of our international system makes this difficult. Filling the seas with toxic byproducts of war isn’t the answer.
- O__________O 4y agoIt’s a stretch to think any country would go to war to prevent the crimes they to commit.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> a stretch to think any country would go to war to prevent the crimes they to commit The buggy has lost the trailer. What? Is the claim there is no hypocrisy in war? You proposed violence as a solution to the problem. I’m arguing that’s untenable.
- permo-w 4y agoI don’t like to impinge upon the purity of your vision, but this needs to be said. such extreme actions don’t work. you need to boil the frog slowly. I appreciate that this is the argument that an interested party would make, but there’s a reason for that and that’s because it makes sense. in practice, without supreme power—and even then—swift swingeing actions create anger, disobedience, fight, even if the people affected agree with you. some people are simply mistrustful of fast change of any variety: good or bad. small c conservatives in other words. they will kill you, doesn’t matter how right you are better to slowly increase the temperature
- O__________O 4y ago>> you need to boil the frog slowly Possible I am mistaken, but 70% of world’s wildlife has disappeared past 50 years. Exactly how much time do you think is left? >> they will kill you, doesn’t matter how right you are Agree.
- permo-w 4y agoit doesn’t matter. progress is better than no progress, which is the certain result of what you’re suggesting
- O__________O 4y agoNo, that’s not true. Rapid change is possible. Majority of world is only 7 connections part, given enough social pressure, it will stop. Having simple messaging is critical, such as if you eat meat, not talking to you, buying from you, voting for you, etc. One thing that would be useful though is a super cheap test to check if someone has eaten meat recently.
- nostromo123 4y agoBest to just shoot these pesky meat eaters in the name of saving the planet, right? /s
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoHow about a pact to not extradite people accused of sabotaging fishing vessels which: - are not registered with a nation who is part of the accord - have not signed the accord individually ...supposing the sabotage is done in a nonlethal way? It might create incentives.
- O__________O 4y agoMight be wrong, but would be surprised if this worked, given Chinese Navy for example frequently escorts fishing boats, so I assume if sinking ships became common China would just sink any unflagged ships as pirates ghost ships.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoSinking a ship at sea sounds like a decent way to end up killing people by accident, I think targeting them at harbor would be a better play. Sugar in the fuel, that sort of thing. But it wouldn't so much be about the practicality of the attack, it's just about messaging. All humans are put at risk by irresponsible fishing practices, so people that fish irresponsibly should have to worry about interference from any human--not just whatever agency would pull you over and give you a ticket.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]