Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science News

Sharks in Serious Danger 90

Posted by michael from the need-to-grow-lasers-on-their-heads dept.
jd writes "According to the BBC, shark populations in the Atlantic declined on average 75% (the hammerhead faring worst at 86% loss) in the past 15 years. This ain't trivial. Many sharks produce one pup a year, if that, and less than half of those survive to adulthood. Sharks are essential to the health of the oceans, so this is not a trivial concern. They're mostly in decline because some idiots like to cut off the dorsal fin, to make soup. (You kill a lot of sharks, and get gristle stew as a reward.) Others die because of paranoia, and yet more because of psychotic trophy hunters. If sharks do die out, they will be the longest-lived species that humanity has exterminated. (Who needs Daleks? We're doing just fine on our own... :()"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sharks in Serious Danger More

Sharks in Serious Danger

Comments Filter:
  • What other animals have we extermanted?
  • Sharks have jumped themselves.

  • relativism (Score:4, Flamebait)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @06:22PM (#5105208) Homepage
    some idiots like to cut off the dorsal fin

    Whoa, you just dissed an entire country!

    Like many Americans, we scratch our heads when we hear about idiotic practices like killing endangered species such a rhino for its "horn" (actually hair-based protein), or a black bear for its gall bladder, aligators for skin, or, the classic case, elephants for ivory and the occasional foot wastepaper basket (see Gary Larson :).

    Yet of course we've done all kinds of similar things like the buffalo for tongues and hides, the dodo bird for feathers, fur of various animals driven nearly to extinction, etc. I don't think even now we're particularly unified in our view of spotted owls and other species that "get in the way of progress." So with our history and our modern ambivalence, I don't think we're in a great position to lecture, and we're really recent converts ourselves.

    But we are in a great position to persuade and, of course, to fund. Shifting the African economy near game preserves from hunting to tourism and financeing alternative agricultural techniques near the rain forests are examples, and help more than the most earnest sermon.

    • Stick to the topic, please (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @06:40PM (#5105300) Journal

      Whoa, you just dissed an entire country!

      Well no, Keanu, not exactly. The people who have been dissed are those that engage in the practice or that purchase products based on those actions. I'm sure that there are people in those countries who aren't happy about the practice of cutting off the dorsal fin.

      Yet of course we've done all kinds of similar things like the buffalo for tongues and hides, the dodo bird for feathers, fur of various animals driven nearly to extinction, etc. I don't think even now we're particularly unified in our view of spotted owls and other species that "get in the way of progress." So with our history and our modern ambivalence, I don't think we're in a great position to lecture, and we're really recent converts ourselves.

      I'm sure that the same people who frown on the asian practice of killing sharks just for their fin are equally ashamed of the examples you listed in the western world. And, besides, if we've "recently seen the light", don't you think it's perfectly normal for us to try to explain our insight to others? Maybe they can learn from our mistakes.

      Please, extinction of species is a serious issue in its own right. Don't try to muddle the discussion by throwing in some tenuous link to nationalism or racism.

      GMD

      • I feel silly even bothering to correct you, but you missed my point by a mile. I concerned not just with the holiness of our views, but our chances of actually getting them into practice. Preaching and tading on shame doesn't work.
        • chances of actually getting them into practice.

          Well if its not going to work, lets just leave it all alone. Doesnt matter. Y'nkow women are "never going to get the vote", so why do they bother. The jamacans arent going to win the bobsled race, so no point in entering. The RIAA isnt going to have a change of heart and campaign against the DMCA, so theres no point in saying anything. Blacks will always be inferior, so why all this "civil rights" stuff.

          Just because change is hard shouldnt mean we just go "Oh well".

          Without discussion, change doesnt happen. Oh, and It's my right to think that people that kill endangered species, whether it be shark hunters, or the fleets that overfish the North Sea, are equally stupid as each other.
    • This sounds familiar [slashdot.org].

      If people would kill the animal before cutting off dorsal fin, I would object less.
    • Like many Americans, we scratch our heads when we hear about idiotic practices like killing endangered species such a rhino for its "horn" (actually hair-based protein), or a black bear for its gall bladder, aligators for skin, or, the classic case, elephants for ivory and the occasional foot wastepaper basket (see Gary Larson :).

      Actually, I suspect that his point was that a large animal is killed to get a single part, and a relatively small one at that. That "Gristle stew" crack referred to the fact(?) that the rest of the shark is not used (being mostly cartilidge, if I recall correctly).

      That's not a cultural issue... it's more of a point about efficiency. Killing sharks to get one little part wastes a whole lot of shark, not to mention the effect on the ocean's ecosystem.

      • Re:relativism (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @09:14PM (#5105997) Homepage
        Does it matter -- and I'm not being contentious -- how much of the animal we eat, where is the point that we're destroying the population? A dead shark is a dead shark.

        There is an aesthetic thing to it, this efficiency business, and it makes sense only if the result is that we kill fewer animals (or sharks) and, most of all, don't destroy the population.

        There is a wonder chart at the Monterery Aquarium in California, showing the haul of sardines year after year in 40's (or so). Every year the catch grew ... and then the fishery collapsed. Completely, a cliff, not a gradual decline. It shows how things make not wrok intuitively, and after you pass a certain point simply easing off on the take won't fix it.
        • Does it matter -- and I'm not being contentious -- how much of the animal we eat, where is the point that we're destroying the population?

          I think part of the point is that if you kill an animal for a very small part, you're likely to destroy the whole population a whole lot quicker than if you were using the whole animal. Not that such changes the wrongness or rightness of the situation....

    • ...the dodo bird for feathers...

      Suddenly, you feel you are a Dutch settler on Mauritius.

      > EAT DODO

      The Dodo is not palatable

      > TAKE FEATHERS

      The Dodo expires
      [Your score has increased by: 0 points]

  • Need More Info (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jeramybsmith ( 608791 )
    As a conservationist and an avid scuba diver, I am wondering if their data collection methods could be incorrect. 75 percent seems a bit much.
    • I think it's important to look at the source. I don't know how Dalhousie University works in particular, but most state universities here are funded by the government. Releasing a study saying they need research and conservation facilities could polarize people enough to get the government to give them more funding.

      There's an angle to everything.
      • Yeah, that makes sense: Discount the only groups that actually care enough to study it.

        You didn't think to ask, "where do you dive?" Perhaps he frequents areas with shark hunting bans. No, you assume that the data colected by Dalhousie University -- not just one university and marine biology organization by the way -- is tainted. Maybe I'm not as cynical. Maybe it's because I lived with a marine biologist that studied sharks for his thesis. I don't know.

        Shark populations are dropping rapidly. That is a fact. The only people who deny this are the ones who haven't looked. And no, I don't mean the people that scuba dive in local, shark-infested waters. I mean people who are looking at the populations over the entire Atlantic Ocean.

  • sharks with friggin' laser beams attached to the (Score:4, Funny)

    by ljaguar ( 245365 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @06:33PM (#5105260) Homepage Journal
    DR. EVIL
    Release the sharks!

    (to the room)
    All the sharks have had laser beams attached to their heads. I figure every creature deserves a warm meal.

    FRAU FARBISSINA
    (Clearing her throat nervously)
    Dr. Evil?

    DR. EVIL
    Yes, what is it? You're interrupting my moment of triumph.

    FRAU FARBISSINA
    It's about the sharks. Since you were frozen, they've been placed on the Endangered Species List. We tried to get some, but it will take months to clear up the red tape.

    DR. EVIL
    (disappointed)
    Right.

    (to Austin)
    Mr. Powers, we're going to lower you in a tank of piranhas with laser beams attached to their heads.

    (Frau clears her throat again.)

    DR. EVIL
    What is it now?

    FRAU FARBISSINA
    Well, we experimented with lasers, but you would be surprised at how heavy they are. They actually outweighed the piranha themselves, and the fish, well, they sank to the bottom and died.

    DR. EVIL
    I have one simple request- C, and it can't be done? Remind me again why I pay you people?

    What do we have?

    FRAU FARBISSINA
    Sea bass.

    DR. EVIL
    Right.

  • good news for Australians! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @06:34PM (#5105264)
    Wow - the extinction of sharks would mean that Australians could only be killed by dingos - you know that's gotta increase the expected lifespan of Australians by a lot! :)
  • Ok, yeah. Declining populations are 'Bad'. However it may be more in response to food supplies dwindling. Thinly veiled referances about "Shark fin soup" aside, maybe it's time to cut back on those Fish & Chips as well. What they don't tell you about in the fishing industry is just how much gets thrown back as worthless. Sharks included. By the time those fish get back in the water their dead.

    Populationwise the earth can sustain about 10 Billion (with a B and we are at 6 billion now), I tend to think thats a little high, we are already starting to show the signs of ecological collapes now in Thermal increases. I think 4 Billion is a better number.

    Personally I am a big fan of Soylent Green, I find it varys from person to person.

    • Populationwise the earth can sustain about 10 Billion (with a B and we are at 6 billion now)

      We're unable to support our current 6 billion in a sustainable manner. Claims that the planet can sustain our present or greater population rely on either 1) ignorance of the nonsustainable nature of current agricultural, disposal, and economic methods, or 2) an assumption of a deus ex machina of new technology or new social organizations that would radically change resource usage.

      Of course, Nature has a cure for overpopulation. But it's pretty unpleasant.

  • Funny that the 2 billion-odd members of the race you consider stupid tend to think of themselves as pretty damn intelligent...
    • That's right, make it an issue of race.

      Killing sharks for their fins (Americans & Europeans eat it too) is just as stupid as killing bison for their tongues (which is what American pioneers did).
      It doesn't change the fact that it's wasteful and horrible to kill an animal to eat a tiny portion of its body to insinuate that people that oppose the practice are racists.
      • big near-top-of-the-food chain animals like bison (and I suspect sharks too) don't really serve any purpose to keep earth's ecology going. Now large scale changes to ocean's plankton and small fish populations, now that's something serious about which to worry.....
        • Bison are herbivores. Second step on the food chain.

          Predators like sharks help to keep the prey population in check. If sharks decline, the fish they feed on increase. That leads to a shortage of plankton and other producers. It can have major negative effects on the biosphere.
    • gosh I never knew that.

      Did the Human Genome Project do much research into soup preference alleles? [everything2.com]

      I thought that it was people who cut of fins not races.

      You'll be telling me next that me not drinking milk is an insult to my ancestors or some other such nonsense.

  • Whatever happened... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Alethes ( 533985 )
    to survival of the fittest?

    If an animal goes extinct for any reason, doesn't that just mean it wasn't "fittest"?
    • If an animal goes extinct for any reason, doesn't that just mean it wasn't "fittest"?

      No, fittest refers to the evolutionary niche it evolved in. Humans can enter just about any evolutionary niche at will and destroy anything in it, so we're somewhat outside of the model at this point. Unless, of course, you consider every lifeform on earth 'unfit'.
      • No, fittest refers to the evolutionary niche it evolved in. Humans can enter just about any evolutionary niche at will and destroy anything in it, so we're somewhat outside of the model at this point.
        Certainly not! A lot of lifeforms have adapted and thrived because of humans. Rats (genus Rattus), lice (order Phthiraptera), certain kinds of bacteria (Escherichia coli), dogs (Canis familiaris), cats (Felis catus domesticus), viruses (HIV, rhinoviruses), certain kinds of sea life (spiny water flea, zebra mussels), and cereal grasses (grains, wheat, rice, barley) are just a sampling. We're not "outside of the model" at all, humans are just providing new niches and taking others away.
        • What is it with this self-loathing that humans tend to have? This "we're not part of nature" idea seems to have taken everyone.
        • You missed my point.

          The original poster contended that anything that cannot survive an extermination campaign by humans is 'unfit'.

          My point was that just because we can hunt something to extinction, for better or for worse, does not imply that it is evolutionarily unfit in the Darwinian sense.

      • No, fittest refers to the evolutionary niche it evolved in. Humans can enter just about any evolutionary niche at will and destroy anything in it, so we're somewhat outside of the model at this point. Unless, of course, you consider every lifeform on earth 'unfit'.

        There's nothing that's outside of the model. Other organisms count as part of the environment. As for the human factor, there are plenty of organisms we couldn't destroy if we tried: mice, cockroaches, mosquitoes.

    • -If an animal goes extinct for any reason, doesn't -that just mean it wasn't "fittest"

      I know this was modded as flamebait, because, well...it is flamebait. But it does raise an interesting issue.

      Fitness is a measure of average reproductive success. If these shark populations are in fact markedly declining then, yes, these sharks do not seem to be very fit. Fitness is a function of environment. You might say that an individual shark has an particular fitness per particular environmental state. When environments (here defined as including other organisms (including us and other sharks)) change, fitness can change.

      However, even if this statement might be more or less factual, this statement was used to say something else entirely: that it doesn't matter, ethically or practically, that sharks are dying out...because well its how the natural world works.

      But this is a rather weak arguement. First, physical facts, alone, probably do not unambiguously indicate ethical values. This is known as the fact-value distinction. This means that the fact that sharks are not currently fit does not justify our unconcern for their lack of fitness. Still, it does not indicate the contrary either. Personally, I think that it is a very complicated ethical problem. I think we should beware a tendency towards thinking in terms of "presevation" rather than "stewardship." Just because something is natural, doesn't imply that it is the best of possibilities.

      Regardless of the ethics of sharks survival or (non-survival), the decline of shark populations should concern us for other, very pragmatic, reasons. The world's ecosystem is vastly dynamic and inter-connected. 9999999 Changes in one component of the system could have complex, unpredictable, and sometimes dramatic global effects. The world is not so simple as we like to believe. It actually doesn't take much to push a system into a positive feed-back loop that reinfoces some tendency...say an ice-age. And for those who pooh pooh this as some kind of paranoid catastrophism need to take a little closer look at the earth's history (or a look at most of the other planets in our solar system). It is not unusual. It happens all the time.

      • Yes, exactly. In strict terms, the grandparent poster is correct -- any species that goes extinct is, by definition, not fit. But humans are the only species that gets to make conscious decisions about fitness, which means we'd better make good ones ...

        ... and if we make bad decisions, we may end up making ourselves unfit.

      • This is to append what I said previously about the interconnectedness and complexity of ecosystems and why we should be concerned about rapid shifts in shark populations. although this is a rather different example, i think it well illustrates my point.

        Emiliania huxleyi is a unicellular algae living in the oceans. These algae impact weather patterns.

        http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/daisy.htm

        the discussion of the algae is in section 3.

        http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/

        a great site to learn a lot about earth's ecological/geological history.

    • If an animal goes extinct for any reason, doesn't that just mean it wasn't "fittest"?

      "Survial of the fittest" - or more accurately, "best adapted", is a biological observation, not an ethical guide.

      Speices have died out because they were not adapted to human predation or other fucking about with the ecosystem, yes. That doesn't mean that human predation, etc., is ethical behavior; any more than if I kill a man and rape his wife to father offspring, thus increasing my reproductive fitness.

  • How are sharks essential to health of oceans? Seems to me larger concern is cause of the declining numbers....is their food supply diminishing drastically, or is it just the result of human hunting and also killing as side-effect of fishing? I would have thought sharks an indicator more than essential in themselves. Going to do research on that right now.....
    • One of the best explanations I've heard of why shark populations, in particular, are important, was on NPR this afternoon. Basically, the point was that sharks are top predators -- and (unlike most top land predators such as wolves and tigers) a significant portion of their diet is other predators. So by keeping these midsize predators in check, sharks actually increase the availability of the other fish that we humans eat.
    • read peter benchley's shark trouble, he has a good example about overfishing of coastal sharks. basically, if you kill all the coastal sharks, the octopi lose a predator and then your lobsters dissappear as the new octopi eat more of them.

  • Too few sharks? (Score:4, Funny)

    by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos.chipped@net> on Friday January 17, 2003 @09:38PM (#5106078) Homepage Journal
    You gotta be kidding, I thought there were too *many* in this country! Oh, wait, I'm thinking of lawyers. It's sometimes hard to tell those bloodthirsty species apart. I should have known when you mentioned the 'pups'. We all know lawyers spawn fully grown from fissures in the earth. :)
  • They do eat their own offspring on occasion. Well it isn't increasing the population any is it. Well first Bananas now sharks, what next the African Fruit Fly?
  • Environments change. Species die. Other species rise to take their place. It's been the way of the world since like forever. Just because you haven't been around long enough to notice natural selection doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

    If the sharks can't adapt to their new environment, another species that is more adaptable will be able use the newly freed resources.
    • Yes it is "just" natural selection.



      That doesn't make it right.


      Why would you ever think that it did?


      In any case, nothing can fill that available niche if nothing is left to fill it. Its not like there is an endless supply of biotic material.

      • I feel no moral obligation toward sharks. The problem with the sharks is that they don't reproduce fast enough. They're not adaptable. This is their problem, not mine. I see no reason to artifically prop up inferior genetic code. I know they've got be pretty tough to have come as far as they have, but again, they've got to be adaptable to changes if they expect to survive.

        As far as life in general dying out, I think you'd be surprised how resilient it is.

        • I understand how resilient life can be. I am also quite aware at how fragile our viable place is inside it. Life in general may be resilient, but life in general might end up only including microscopic organisms if we are not careful. For my part, I would like to help ensure the future fitness of the human species, and I also understand that a well-informed and responsible stewardship of the biosphere (along with the lithosphere and atmosphere i might add) is integral to this goal.

          You say, "I see no reason to artificially prop up an inferior genetic code." This is an interesting statement. Since fitness is a function of phenotypic interaction with the environment, changes of environment can change fitness. Ok. So a meteor comes tearing through space, hits earth, and obliterates all life. The environment has changed, the fitness levels have changed dramatically for the worst. but we shouldn't care. I anticipate your objection: i care about my own fitness, so I would be concerned about that meteor. But lets break it down a little more. By your same arguement we should feel no obligation to say help starving people in Somalia or even the victims of the atomic bomb if their survival or lack of survival didn't impact negatively your own fitness. This is all hogwash!

    • Re:It's just natural selection. Wake up, people. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mnemia ( 218659 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @03:41AM (#5106904)

      Y'know, it's just not as simple as you think it is. Sharks, by virtue of being at the top of the oceanic food change, are especially vulnerable to large scale changes in the ecosystem upon which they depend. The fact that their population is falling so rapidly should be a major wake-up call about the health of our oceans (especially given the hugely long time that sharks have existed on Earth.) It is fact, not opinion, that humans are rapidly decreasing the biodiversity of the planet at this moment. While this is a normal part of the Earth's natural cycles if you look at it on a geologic timescale, what we are in effect creating is tantamount to a mass extinction. Mass extinctions generally occur because some species or event has destabilized the Earth's overall ecosystem. Due to the huge level of interconnectedness of biological systems things tend to snowball and major dominant species are wiped out and replaced by newcomers. This has happened before (trilobites, dinosaurs) and it will happen again. Soon if we don't make a concerted effort to stop it as an intelligent, self-aware species.

      If you think about it, humans occupy a similar sort of ecological niche to that of sharks. Like them, we are incredibly efficient predators who have spread across most of the earth and occupy a seemingly untouchable position in the food chain. I think if we're not careful and responsible we may soon find ourselves in the same position as the sharks.

      Once we initiate large scale ecological change by wiping out a dominant predator like sharks, there is no turning back. I think we cannot even imagine the vastness of the consequences such an event would have on the biodiversity of the oceans.

      I'm astounded at how many posters like you in this article actually believe that this is inconsequential or right somehow. We as humans need to wake up and make a concerted, united effort to stop wasteful and shortsighted practices that hasten such environmental change. The Chinese (for example) should not be allowed to harvest unlimited numbers of sharks for dorsal fin soup. The Americans (for example) should not be allowed to dump unlimited amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The potential difference between us and the dinosaurs is that we KNOW that we are making ourselves extinct (yes, I think it's possibly that serious.) We need to gain some species-wide sense of restraint if we don't want to lose OUR niche at the top of the food-chain.

      • I really don't give a crap about sharks. They're vicious, mean predators, not cuddly little bunnies. If a shark met me in the ocean, it might very well decide to eat me for lunch. So how is it that I'm supposed to be morally obligated to it? If there were a race of retarded serial killers roaming the Earth, should I be expected to help them out when they're having a hard time, too? Cry me a river. All they do is kill. They're basically eating machines. I think we'll be okay without them.

        I understand that they have their place in maintaining the precious "balance" of the ecosystem, but you know as well as I that the world will balance itself out without our help. It is not all going to come crashing down just because one species dies out. Another species will evolve and eat its food. There will be changes, but I'm okay with that. I know that this is essentially your argument, and you're just surprised that I'm not afraid of it. Change happens. I'm sure we'll be able to adapt.

        I am against pollution, though. But if they're just dying because people are killing them for their fins, well, screw them. It's kill or be killed.

        • I'm guessing you're trolling, but I'll respond anyway. I'm not saying that sharks are an animal that I'd love to meet up with but I don't think it's ethical for us to wipe them off the face of the earth for no reason. They are extremely advanced creatures that have survived on earth for far longer than we have as a species.

          Moral objections aside, it's also extremely stupid from a pragmatic standpoint for us to destroy a species either intentionally or through negligence. How do we know that the cure for cancer or AIDS is not held in shark genes? How do we know that sharks are not necessary to the survival of the oceanic planktons that produce most of the oxygen on earth?

          The issue is much bigger than just the extinction of one species. The issue is that when many species become extinct all at the same time the entire ecosystem destabilizes. The metaphor I've seen is that the ecosystem is like a pyramid of life - the structure is ok if you remove a limited number of blocks, but if you take out too many the whole thing topples. If that happens as it appears to be at the moment, then we humans will have much bigger problems than sharks. The disappearance of these predators is a sign of large-scale sickness of the oceanic environment.

          • Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate your viewpoint. You make some good points, but I don't agree that the ecosystem is like a pyramid at all. It's much more fluid than that. Something will doubtless step in to fill the niche that the shark filled.

            The whole cancer/AIDS cure thing just seems like second guessing to me, and I'm not too fond of that. How can I risk leaving the house tomorrow? After all, I might be hit by a car! If there were actually evidence to show that sharks might prove medically benefical, I'd probably change my mind. :) But it just seems like speculation at this point.

            Tell me something: How do you tell the difference between a troll and someone who just disagrees with you?

            • Sorry about the troll thing, I believe I misjudged you there. Thanks for replying in a calm manner. It's just so hard to separate the decent posters from the morons here.

              As for medical benefits from sharks: I have in fact heard (and another poster in this story brought it up) that sharks have some interesting cancer-preventing abilities and quite developed immune systems for a fish. I found a little more info here [mote.org], which was the first result returned by searching Google for "sharks cancer". Disease fighting chemicals useful against virtually all disease exist in natural genetic resivores; the problem is that we are losing that genetic diversity before we can study the benefits. It may be (mostly) speculation at this point, but that's precisely why we should protect natural diversity: so we have time to research it for useful substances and genes.

              As for elasticity of ecosystems, you are correct up to a point. Yes, if we wiped out sharks, other animals would step into their ecological niche. But diversity is the source of this elasticity, and it is not bottomless. If we wipe out too many key species like sharks, the elasticity will disappear and the whole thing will start to break down. At that point a large part of the species in existence will disappear and over millions of years new ones will take their place. This process takes much longer than all of human history so far.

    • If the sharks can't adapt to their new environment, another species that is more adaptable will be able use the newly freed resources.

      Ecological niches are not static. Wiping out a species has ripple effects thoughout the ecosystem.

      Not to mention that the current rate of specied extintion is like nothing since the dinosaurs were wiped out and the whole ecosytem pretty much got rebuilt. Since we are a part of this ecosystem, fucking about with it is not intelligent behavior.

      Sometimes I imagine the first blue-green algea having this conversation:

      "Hey, all this oxygen we're releasing...it's going to mess up the ecosystem. You know, we're destroying all sort of anaerobic bacteria."

      "Ah, screw them if they can't adapt."

      And so evolution creates an adaptation - primitive animals. That feed on algea.

      • Ecological niches are not static. Wiping out a species has ripple effects thoughout the ecosystem.

        Yeah, I understand this. I'm just saying that I feel that we'll be able to adapt to the resulting changes. Is this such a hard thing to believe? Are we really so weak? We've been to outer space, for chrissakes. I think we've got a few tricks left up our sleeves.
        • We've not found a *sustainable* way to *stay* in outer space.

          NASA is seriously looking at mothballing the ISS because the Russians are broke.

          We don't have the technological ability to get a manned mission to the moon anymore.

          And that's just pure engineering that we *understand*. We don't understand ecology to the point of being able to make designs/predictions. Also, I suspect that you don't realize how *BIG* an ocean is. Sure, we may be able to launch several tons into orbit. But...

          The sharks disappear. The resulting explosion in second-tier predators causes a drop in plankton-eaters. The resulting plankton bloom makes the various "red tide" outbreaks look tiny. The whole thing might take 5-10 years tops. If we can't stop it *before* it goes critical, what makes you think we can deal with it *after*?

          Sure. We might be able to launch a few guys into orbit. That doesn't mean we know how to clean the algae out of a swimming pool the size of the North Atlantic without killing ourselves in the process.

          Large-scale ecological collapse sucks, and we don't have the ability to deal with it. We couldn't stop the Dust Bowl in the central US in the 1930s once it got started (if we had more clue we might have prevented it, but once it got established.. yow). We don't have *THAT* much of a better grip on that stuff now.
        • Whales have not been to space, nor have seals, or plankton. Do you think that killing off all the sharks won't affect these species? Getting to outer space is really easy compared to predicting the effects of extermination of a species. Don't laugh! Our knowledge of science is really good with problems that require brute force (getting into space being one of these examples) but when a little bit of finesse is needed (like to kill a virus without liquefying the host's insides) we are very very sloppy.

          We won't die from killing sharks, but who knows what will result from it? Maybe sharks feed on a type of fish that eats a type of plant that carries a type of bacteria that will prove to be very harmful to humans, and by sharks culling the stocks we are protected. Or perhaps a particular type of photosynthtic algae or plant will die off and the ocean's oxygen levels will decline. No one knows, and no mass computing, Beowulf cluster-driven approach (again, brute force) is going to give an answer.

          Besides, what's the harm in keeping a few sharks around? Bears attack people, and so do dogs, but we don't try to kill them too often! Sharks are one of the most interesting creatures in the world and they have much to teach us if they live long enough.
  • They also :
    Dont get cancer and no one knows why.
    Have built in natural antibiotics we are still finding.
    Are one of the oldest most durable animals on the planet, if we are taking them out, we should really look at what the hell were doing.

    And yeah, they make tasty soup. Im one of the bigger anti enviornemntalist cranks youll come across(Aint againt the enviornment, just the current crop of enviornmentalists). I also love swordfish steak. I havent had it for 5 years because i saw the studies about how fished out the stocks are. If -I- am willing to give up one of my favorite foods to ensure future supply, the maybe people coud skip that second bowl of shark fin soup for a while.
  • Hollywood should create a 21st century _Jaws_ rewrite called _Hands_. The idea is that all these sharks are cavorting happily when (cue the ominous music) out of the blinding heights of the ocean come these bubble-trail-leaving rubbermen with opposable thumbs and harpoons...

  • I thought only *cute* animals go on the endangered list.

  • O no! (Score:2)

    by tsa ( 15680 )
    We all know what the extinction of the sharks means: no more Animal Planet!
  • ...we'll no longer need a bigger boat?

Slashdot Top Deals

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Close