Simply too depressing

[neurobadger]

In my quest to figure out why cthulhu77 is tempted to be reacquainted with his lunch, I searched his forum posts.

I think he is referring to this thread. http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthr...Keeping-Octopus-in-Captivity&highlight=ethics

I suspect his objection stems from this:

The two examples I mentioned are in no way different...they are mirrors of what we can see in regards to the wild importation of cephalopods.

There is NO reason to import some species, other than as "crank" items.

We don't have even a modicum of experience with bimacs so far, and yet, the new arrivals are being snatched up as fast as they arrive. Two importers in town here are actively looking for more wonderpuss to fill orders that they have.

Are you seriously tryiing to tell me that there is no impact from this? Where does this end? Haven't you listened to Dr. O'Shea? Haven't you watched the news?

People, if you really care for cephs, (or any living animal for that matter) we have got to wake up and smell the coffee.


There is nothing wrong with collecting from a sustainable population...to a point. Thales is completely correct that legislation is the key to this. Problem= people don't want to hear it.

We don't want to hear that you won't be able to eat fish in 2040. Your children will never have a tuna fish sandwich that is safe to eat, even if tuna still exist.

Are we honestly justifiable in keeping cephs in captivity?

Yes, I believe we are.

They may well become the foodstuffs of tomorrow, with a fast reproduction rate and quick life cycle. (personally, can't stand the taste...would rather eat two legged mutton)

But, you have to question whether or not it is responsible to keep them in captivity, especially those of unknown population amounts.

Well, what you end up with by captive breeding are "crossed" lines...I am sure someone will produce an albino octopus soon, and they will be all the rage for any saltwater crank.
Those keepers who actually care about the end goal of keeping cephalopods in captivity will work to make sure that they gene pool they work with is not influenced by trade dollars...there are several members of Tonmo who fall into that category...unfortunately, the bulk of people who keep animals as "pets" aren't so responsible, hence my disgust with the pet trade.

I don't think I agree with taking animals that are protected/endangered out of the wild to "save them" is a valid point.

Having once again come under some friendly fire regarding my position on keeping cephalopods in captivity, I would like to make one huge point:

The captive care of cephalopod species that have proven large wild populations that suffer no damage due to collection for the pet trade, such as bimacs, is definitely of interest to us all.

Some people keep animals that have no proven stable wild population, and I violently disagree with keeping these animals.

We have seen a number of new threads here on Tonmo in reference to the captive keeping of animals, which is fine. There are several members who know as much as anyone in the world about keeping cephs in a tank.

 

[skywindsurfer]

Some people keep animals that have no proven stable wild population, and I violently disagree with keeping these animals.

I think providing a list of the known species that we believe to have a sustainable wild population and can be collected without detrimental damage to their ecosystem would help in this. That is of course unless there is already such a list. I haven't been everywhere on this site, but I think it would be helpfull to make a list of animals that are 'ok' to have in captivity along with degree of difficulty per species. You could even add side notes of morality or special care requirements, et cetra.

 

[SteveM]

It sounds really, really weird, and not at all scientifically supported. There are no journal articles on Google Scholar in actual reputable journals.

(The "Journal of Cosmology", by the way? It's a joke.)

A rather broad stroke! Ward/Brownlee at University of Washington played pivotal roles in the creation of the science of astrobiology. (It was a battle there for a while I've heard, 'bioastronomy' on the losing end.)

The two-edged sword of astrobiologists from my view: Predict the timing of the end of human survivability on Earth, and discover an obtainable alternative galactic residence before our technological ability to travel there inevitably degrades.

As for JoC, that would appear to be ubiquitous internet chatter, for better or worse.

I for one am extremely pleased to exist exactly at this moment…

 

[neurobadger]

A rather broad stroke! Ward/Brownlee at University of Washington played pivotal roles in the creation of the science of astrobiology. (It was a battle there for a while I've heard, 'bioastronomy' on the losing end.)

The two-edged sword of astrobiologists from my view: Predict the timing of the end of human survivability on Earth, and discover an obtainable alternative galactic residence before our technological ability to travel there inevitably degrades.

As for JoC, that would appear to be ubiquitous internet chatter, for better or worse.

I for one am extremely pleased to exist exactly at this moment…

Broad stroke, perhaps, but there are examples of even formerly highly rigorous scientists going bad, though thankfully this is a vanishingly tiny percentage of scientists, and those who exhibit the most rigor in their work tend to be the lowest proportion of said tiny percentage that wanders into wackery. This, I suspect, is an example. (Astrobiology being a discipline that treads a wee bit closer to the wacko line than many others notwithstanding, despite the fact that there is a lot in it that is quite valid and quite well-done scientifically.) As for the Journal of Cosmology, I suggest you read the sources linked in this article: Journal of Cosmology - Wikipedia . They have been recognized by the JREF with a Pigasus Award; the Pigasus Award is awarded to the fraudulent and nutty.

Also, just because the dude was a seminal founder of astrobiology doesn't mean he's exempt from backing up his claims with evidence the way the rest of us in science do.

 

[skywindsurfer]

I've never heard of astrobiology before today and I am in no way qualified or knowledgable enough to put in my two cents, but I believe it would be professional of us to not try and belittle each other for differing beliefs. Right or wrong, it would be nice to avoid a full blown fight on this thread.

 

[Joe-Ceph]

Okay, wait a minute. So the "International Programme on the State of the Ocean" says that a mass extinction is on the way. Who are they, and why should we listen to them? Is this a group of sober objective scientists looking for accurate truth, or a group of activists trying to scare people into taking actions that they want people to take?

I did a little digging and found the IPSO mission statement, which says:
"The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) was established by scientists with the aim of saving the Earth and all life on it."

Activists want to save the world, scientists merely want to find the truth. This report was written by 27 people who came together for the express purpose of sounding the alarm and saving the world. Sure they are marine scientists, but this group did not start out as 27 objective and open minded scientists who studied the ocean and published their conclusions. They came together because they already shared a common conclusion (belief?), not because they shared a common desire to objectively seek the truth. These are people with an agenda, not people presenting the results of objective scientific research.

Scientists need to be people that we can trust to discover and tell us the truth, and this kind of bias destroys the public's ability trust the conclusions of scientists. That is very very dangerous for a society. I really want to know what the true state of the oceans is, but I clearly can't believe what this group of activists with PHD's writes. The end result of people like this undermining the credibility of science, is that the public will turn a deaf to all scientific conclusions, including the valid ones.

 

[Thales]

I've never heard of astrobiology before today and I am in no way qualified or knowledgable enough to put in my two cents, but I believe it would be professional of us to not try and belittle each other for differing beliefs. Right or wrong, it would be nice to avoid a full blown fight on this thread.

I don't think anyone here belittled anyone else. There is a huge difference between calling and idea fraudulent and nutty and calling a person fraudulent and nutty. We would be better served if we kept that in mind rather than pretending to respect ideas that we don't really respect.

 

[neurobadger]

Okay, wait a minute. So the "International Programme on the State of the Ocean" says that a mass extinction is on the way. Who are they, and why should we listen to them? Is this a group of sober objective scientists looking for accurate truth, or a group of activists trying to scare people into taking actions that they want people to take?

I did a little digging and found the IPSO mission statement, which says:
"The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) was established by scientists with the aim of saving the Earth and all life on it."

Activists want to save the world, scientists merely want to find the truth. This report was written by 27 people who came together for the express purpose of sounding the alarm and saving the world. Sure they are marine scientists, but this group did not start out as 27 objective and open minded scientists who studied the ocean and published their conclusions. They came together because they already shared a common conclusion (belief?), not because they shared a common desire to objectively seek the truth. These are people with an agenda, not people presenting the results of objective scientific research.

Scientists need to be people that we can trust to discover and tell us the truth, and this kind of bias destroys the public's ability trust the conclusions of scientists. That is very very dangerous for a society. I really want to know what the true state of the oceans is, but I clearly can't believe what this group of activists with PHD's writes. The end result of people like this undermining the credibility of science, is that the public will turn a deaf to all scientific conclusions, including the valid ones.

Uh, the conclusions have been published from mountains upon mountains of studies on the ocean, and they support the course of action they suggest. Are we not allowed to make recommendations on courses of action ourselves provided they are supported by evidence?

You seem to wish that we in science were amoral beings.

 

[neurobadger]

The only person I belittled if at all, skywindsurfer, was the Dr. Ward SteveM was referring to.

 

[DWhatley]

Any opinions on the Medea Hypothesis?

I rather enjoyed my first exposure. Certainly the hydro thermal vents and animals living there give credibility to some of his thoughts about hydrogen sulphide.

 

[SteveM]

I rather enjoyed my first exposure. Certainly the hydro thermal vents and animals living there give credibility to some of his thoughts about hydrogen sulphide.

Another (perhaps more appropriate on the ceph diving adventures threads). In any case, Ward is certainly legitimate science, and deserves more exposure at TONMO than apparently he has received to date. His 1987 The Natural History of Nautilus and 1985's In Search of Nautilus were the most important works on this mysterious mollusk since Arthur Willey's famous 1902 monograph Contribution to the Natural History of the Pearly Nautilus. Ward's range of popular and scientific publication on Nautilus, Paleontology and Astrobiology is legion—possible skepticism earned for publicity-grubbing (the nature of book selling).

On the other hand, if humankind is to maximize its viable existence on Earth then some harsh or even grossly pessimistic prognostications are likely essential to get the politicians' attention.

 

[Joe-Ceph]

if humankind is to maximize its viable existence on Earth then some harsh or even grossly pessimistic prognostications are likely essential to get the politicians' attention.

This is the sentiment that I think is threatening to destroy the credibility of scientific conclusions. It is saying that when a scientist believes (not concludes) that our existence is threatened, it is "likely essential" for him/her to make frightening predictions about the future which are designed to get the politician's attention.

I say "believes (not concludes)" because climate change is so multidisciplinary that few (any?) people are qualified to predict the future climate using their own expertise, and can only make such predictions after first believing the conclusions of others (who themselves drew their conclusions by doing the same thing).

Once a scientist allows their conclusions to be influenced by fear, peer pressure, or a desire to save the world, they stop being scientists, and lay-people stop trusting their conclusions. It is very dangerous when a society stops listening to it's scientists. That's why I think it is dangerous to encourage scientists to believe that:

"grossly pessimistic prognostications are likely essential"​

What is essential is for scientists to maintain their objectivity, and there by their credibility. Otherwise they lower their stature to that of a doomsday activist, and leave the rest of us in the dark.

 

[SteveM]

I suppose it is simply a question of whether to err safely or otherwise. Not to say that civilization has ever demonstrated any effective sense of self-determination.

Here's another view, angry albeit distinctly brighter, in a personal communication from a world-renowned conchologist and author:

The [Pacific Islands Nation] are saturated by NGO people coming with dramatic stories on protection of animals: NONE OF THE MARINE MOLLUSKS is endangered in the [Pacific Islands Nation], we even do not KNOW half of them.

I'm quite sick of scientists that know close to nothing and coming from the west here declaring that the [Pacific Islands Nation] are POLLUTED !!! There is not even one hundred km polluted out of [xx000] km of coast. I wonder which country can tell that in the west.

I'm now busy lobbying already for weeks because of a few poachers of corals: they want to prohibit ALL sealife. Corals "grow" by 460 containers A DAY in the [Pacific Islands Nation], but because of all the NGOs they want to punish all science.

Thanks to ecologists, we will NEVER KNOW 70% of the land fauna already. They now start with the marine things of which we know only 50%.

 

[gjbarord]

I wrote and re-wrote a reply but could not get my thoughts in order so the only thing that I will say is that I have read most of Dr. Ward's books and publications and believe them to be thoroughly supported by facts.

Greg