Monday, December 10, 2007

Planet Earth - A Monday morning rant

I am familiar with how the US Fish and Wildlife Service conserves habitats by controlling the population of flora and fauna. A lot of people don't realize this but hunters, for instance, are allowed only certain bag limits for certain animals in certain regions/counties in certain times of the year. A lot of the revenue from annual hunting licenses is actually used in such conservation efforts. And I know at least one family in New Hampshire that lives on meat from a whole deer during deep winter.


Apparently a redneck with a DUI conviction...according to an email that is going around.

Did you know that various states have hatchery programs using which they grow fish and then use these fish to stock local bodies of water? So next time you see a bunch of guys fishing in a pond, they likely aren't overfishing that pond.

A lot of developed countries do have such infrastructure in place to monitor habitat use. But developing countries do not have the resources (or the deep-rooted passion necessary) to regulate environmental use. Take India as an example: the Tiger population continues to dwindle owing to habitat loss, poor oversight of poaching by forestry officials and ill-equipped/ill-trained rangers. And, again owing to habitat loss, people here in the US are having more frequent run-ins with wildlife (like mountain lions).

Here are some photographs from earlier this year:

"Sea Shepherd crew in a small inflatable boat throw smoke bombs onto the Japanese whaler Kaiko Maru. February 12, 2007. (Photo courtesy Sea Shepherd Conservation Society)."


I think that they are both idiots.

"The Sea Shepherd ship Robert Hunter, left, and the Japanese whaler Kaiko Maru collide in the Southern Ocean. February 12, 2007. (Photo courtesy Sea Shepherd Conservation Society)."


See what I mean. 'twas a good thing this accident didn't lead to a fuel oil spill.

I do admire these "doers". But in a way, extreme environmentalists remind me of religious evangelists. They are both, in a word, annoying!

The following is a projection of human population all the way to the year 2050:

Year Population(in billions)
2010 6.8
2020 7.6
2030 8.3
2040 8.9
2050 9.4

The United States Census Bureau has projected that there will be around 419 million people in the US alone by the year 2050.

And this is why when conservation groups talk about restricting fishing on "overfished" seas and stopping real estate development on wilderness, I put on a sardonic smile.

9 billion people by the year 2050! No wonder I don't see any point in restricting myself as to how much fish or meat I eat today. Sure I could go vegan but how will that help feed 9 billion people in 2050? Going vegan today so that there can be enough fish for some jerk born into a royal asshold 30 years from now sounds ludicrous. It is f**king ridiculous to worry about people who are not even born. And if everyone does go vegan, wouldn't there be a higher demand for land use so that all the soy and assorted grains eaten by vegans can be cultivated? And what happens when more land is cleared for agriculture? Wouldn't more species go extinct then?



"Let me in! I gotta go save some tuna!! But first I need a shower 'cause I smell like one..."

No. I am convinced that its a simple supply and demand issue. We can either lose species or regulate human population growth more tightly (and we know that the latter is a losing proposition). We have enough people today who have evolved into something that has little resemblance to a once robust species, a direct result of the heavy reliance on the comforts of technology (and watching too many ballgames). Add a strictly vegetarian diet and you probably will end up with humans with hoofed feet. If that is how we are destined to evolve, fine.


"As you know, we are festively plump."

Anyone who wants to know the sad state of human affairs need look no further than the myriad of costly problems (from a bloated public education system to greedy unions to a huge deficit) being faced in California. That American dream state has had these problems for years and there are no solutions in sight (too much partisan politics). I am quite sure that they have time to worry about a bunch of tuna at 35° 41' N 139° 46' E.

Who knows. Maybe a meteorite will crash on Earth and put a full-stop to everything (too bad the planet does not have a reboot button like that on a computer). Then maybe, just maybe, the planet might re-generate life...perhaps without organized religion this time around.

6 comments:

The Lethological Gourmet said...

Ok, so I'm with you all the way to the point where you start saying that we shouldn't care how we leave the earth for the next generation. Yes, there will be some assholes in 2050 who can afford to eat fish when others won't be able to. But if we overfish and overhunt, and cut down all the forests to make room for those 9 billion people, food will be much more expensive and harder to obtain in a healthy balance for the non-rich.

Also, I disagree about your comments on the vegan diet. It's actually more expensive to eat meat. It may seem that it would cost more money and land space to plant all the soy and grain that the vegans would need. However, all the animals we're eating eat that very same grain. You can see the problem this creates by looking at the evolving diets in India and China. More and more people each year are incorporating meat into their diet, which causes more of a demand for grain to feed those animals. It takes 8kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef (and, for example, the average Chinese consumer eats 50kg of beef a year. I'm willing to bet the average American is far above that).

There's something to be said for enjoying what we have. But if that's at the expense of everyone else, I can't get behind that. I'll eat some meat and animal products, but I'm not going to condone overtly anti-environmental and unsustainable policies. The problem is that we don't often know exactly what it took to get that steak/pork chop/honey on our table.

You're right that the average hunter/fisher is not going to overhunt/overfish/etc. It's the big companies that are the problem. The companies that supply the beef to McDonald's or the fish to the restaurants. It's big business who doesn't care about creating a balance, and who care much more about their own bottom line, they're the problem.

But we might just be slowly pressing that reboot button - population increases reduce the land available for agriculture, and people start getting in each others' way. When population gets to high in any area, history has shown that wars start. Plus, the diseases that could spread so rapidly in our global climate. We might just end up regulating the population through war and epidemic rather than common sense. Either that, or we'll destroy the climate so thoroughly that we'll melt the ice caps, stop the movement of the oceans, and bring another ice age down around our ears. Talk about reboot.

Hoarse Whisperer said...

Raina, it seems silly that one has to choose what foods one should eat and not eat when there are so many millions of people around the planet who don't get to eat a single decent meal a day.

Are you assuming that because I said I wouldn't care about some dude in 2050, I am going to go ahead and eat left and right? Hardly. If I feel that eating fish or beef lends well to my lifestyle, then I am going to eat fish or beef. So I meant that I am not about to put some guy not yet born in 2050 before my well-being today.

True, animals need feed. And some people are vegetarian simply because, like you said, they cannot afford prime steak. Either way, a growing population, vegan or not, is going to require more land use! 9 billion people in 2050. Can you imagine how many of us will be there in 2100? That's my point. There is no stopping human consumption of all types of food, meat or not. The planet evolves. But the industrial revolution cannot be reversed. If there isn't any Tuna in 2050, I am quite sure humans, with their usual audacity, will clone a few :)

And if we run out of Tuna in my lifetime, I won't complain. I will adapt. But if there is one thing that I am concerned about, its environmental pollution from industrial waste such as greenhouse emissions.

The Lethological Gourmet said...

Oh, I'm by all means not saying that you shouldn't eat meat or fish (that would make me a hypocrite!) :) But just that we can't turn a blind eye to the unsustainable practices of big business. Honestly, I'm not really sure what can be done about it, but many of the big business practices surrounding meat and grain production take a huge toll on the environment. So if that means doing a little investigating and finding out what companies/products are grown in a sustainable way so we can choose to give our money to them and penalize the bad ones, then that could be a good option.

It is a bit of a paradox - more people needs more land, but we'll have less land to go around. Either we'll just start building lots of really damn tall skyscrapers, or we're going to start having problems and arguments over land, and the prices will skyrocket to a point where they won't be affordable for farmland, which would in turn make the prices of food very high. Bad situation all around. Makes me want to start growing my own food (except that I hate gardening!).

Hoarse Whisperer said...

Yeah, the industrial waste from food processing plants cannot be discounted.

These days I eat only grass-fed beef, which gets sold out real quick. This means I don't get to eat red meat as much as I used to. Also I buy game meat from Cabela's like rattlesnake and venison. When it comes to fish, I prefer wild (smoked) salmon and the occasional tuna, not the farm-fed version. All that might sound costly. The thing is I am not a big eater and when I do eat, I stay from processed foods that a lot of people take for granted like cereal, this food bar, that burger, etc. (bacon being an exception). So my food bill isn't sky high at the end of the month. Plus stuff that I regularly eat like bananas, bread and eggs are cheap, nutritious and available in abundance.

Now it sounds like I am somehow trying to justify myself. I think that I better have a separate post on this :)

The Lethological Gourmet said...

Where do you find grass-fed beef?! I've been looking for it and haven't been able to find it yet, even at the farmstand/grocery where I shop. I dont' eat very much fish, but that's more because it won't keep for long in the fridge without going bad after I cook it. I've tried venison, but what's rattlesnake like? They must have some interesting stores in the North End!

Hoarse Whisperer said...

Raina, Whole Foods should have grass-fed beef. Rattlesnake tastes like chicken but I am willing to bet it's healthier than chicken.

I get my Elk meat (not venison, sorry) and Rattlesnake meat from cabelas.com. Go to the Gourmet Meats link and then click Exotic Meat Gift Set :)

Is it better to work out in the morning or the evening?

If you do a web search on this topic, you will get all kinds of studies pointing out why training at one time or another in the day is best ...