|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 28, 2009 6:40:05 GMT -5
I think the argument that the seal hunt keeps the ecosystem balanced is complete bullshit. Keeping the balance in the eocosystem is what polar bears are for. But hey, let's continue to diminish the polar bear's primary food source and then scratch our heads because we have no idea why the bear populations are starving to death (on top of not being able to reach their food in the first place because climate change is melting the ice flows). Humans don't need to "balance the ecosystem," especially for such an assinine reason like the fur industry. Nature has no problem keeping everything balanced if we just leave it the fuck alone. Polar bears do not rely on Harp seals for food.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Mar 28, 2009 6:43:25 GMT -5
I think the argument that the seal hunt keeps the ecosystem balanced is complete bullshit. Keeping the balance in the eocosystem is what polar bears are for. But hey, let's continue to diminish the polar bear's primary food source and then scratch our heads because we have no idea why the bear populations are starving to death (on top of not being able to reach their food in the first place because climate change is melting the ice flows). Humans don't need to "balance the ecosystem," especially for such an assinine reason like the fur industry. Nature has no problem keeping everything balanced if we just leave it the fuck alone. Seeing as humans are just as much a product of nature as anything else, I don't think nature is quite as good as it's cracked up to be at keeping shit balanced.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 28, 2009 7:16:18 GMT -5
I think the argument that the seal hunt keeps the ecosystem balanced is complete bullshit. Keeping the balance in the eocosystem is what polar bears are for. But hey, let's continue to diminish the polar bear's primary food source and then scratch our heads because we have no idea why the bear populations are starving to death (on top of not being able to reach their food in the first place because climate change is melting the ice flows). Humans don't need to "balance the ecosystem," especially for such an assinine reason like the fur industry. Nature has no problem keeping everything balanced if we just leave it the fuck alone. Seeing as humans are just as much a product of nature as anything else, I don't think nature is quite as good as it's cracked up to be at keeping shit balanced. That's because nature isn't balanced, it's bipolar. Boom and bust cycles are the norm. The desire for an unchanging equilibrium is a human invention. The fire supression policies in fire controlled ecosystems demonstrate the folly of this notion.
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Mar 28, 2009 14:23:05 GMT -5
I think the argument that the seal hunt keeps the ecosystem balanced is complete bullshit. Keeping the balance in the eocosystem is what polar bears are for. But hey, let's continue to diminish the polar bear's primary food source and then scratch our heads because we have no idea why the bear populations are starving to death (on top of not being able to reach their food in the first place because climate change is melting the ice flows). Humans don't need to "balance the ecosystem," especially for such an assinine reason like the fur industry. Nature has no problem keeping everything balanced if we just leave it the fuck alone. Polar bears do not rely on Harp seals for food. When I wrote that I meant seals in general, not a specific kind. But you are right, harp seals are not the primary food source for polar bears. My bad. My response to this issue is kind of reactionary because it is with my with heart not my head.
|
|
vvill
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by vvill on Mar 28, 2009 15:50:48 GMT -5
In a slaughter house the animal is rendered unconscious by an electric shock to the head, a pneumatic bold to the head, or inhaling an inert gas. The animals is then killed by draining the blood from the neck.
I think clubbing the animal in the head with a spike is as close to the process used in a slaughterhouse that can be achieved in the field. It renders the seal unconscious while the blood is drained (I would guess the seal might even die faster from the trauma). So I do not agree with you that it is cruel.
The seal population is in no danger of going extinct. Sealing is a sustainable industry. It does not make economic sense to hunt the seals to extinction. It is comparable to the forestry industry in first world nations. The lumberjack would go out of busyness if they cut down all the trees and did not replant any.
The way I see it the seals are not endangered and they are being hunted as humanly as possible. Forget the fish stocks, maintaining the population, the income of fishing communities, and availability of meat. Put simply, it is a legitimate industry, what right do you have to call for its closure? If you have a ration argument for its closure I have not herd it. If you do have a reason I missed I can join all the cute girls at their protests ;D
I am actually kinda proud that the Canadian government approaches it with such a level head that they upped the quota amongst all the controversy.
I do believe all the energy spend on stopping the sealing industry is detrimental to other ecological causes. Developing nation are responsible for the largest amount of ecosystem loss. The recourses spend on anti-sealing could be used to help advance sustainable industry in places like Brazil.
There are more important ecological problems then where a Newfi gets the meat for their pie.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 28, 2009 16:25:32 GMT -5
(...and maybe I have a soft spot for polar bears...) They are rather charming. I don't have a softspot though, I think there are more deserving flagship species, especially in the tropics; and that whilst the polar bears are indeed suffering due to climate change, they are not the best to capture the real severity of the situation. In my opinion, Flying Foxes, Golden Lion Tamarins, or the Peppered Tree Frog deserve more attention because they are in greater danger and thus present the worldwide situation more accurately.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 30, 2009 1:31:48 GMT -5
Seeing as humans are just as much a product of nature as anything else, I don't think nature is quite as good as it's cracked up to be at keeping shit balanced. That's because nature isn't balanced, it's bipolar. Boom and bust cycles are the norm. The desire for an unchanging equilibrium is a human invention. The fire supression policies in fire controlled ecosystems demonstrate the folly of this notion. Bingo-bango. I'm not taking away from the fact that man has single-handedly wiped out many, many species; accidentally or carelessly or purposefully, but no species has a right or guarantee to exist. Nature doesn't regulate like Alan Greenspan, she flips a coin like Two-Face.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 30, 2009 2:35:10 GMT -5
Has anyone here ever seen any baby fur seal clothes? ( ooh, just saw where Jon says he once had some mukluks)
I've never seen a single item in any furrier at all.
If 500,000 per year are being killed surely they'd be quite a bit of it around. <---- still stand true, where is all that fur going?
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 30, 2009 2:40:16 GMT -5
Then join me in my newest project: Clubbing humans. It's quick and painless and quite practical, and humans have many uses. Plus, most of them are nowhere near as cute as baby seals. Soylent Green anyone?? Modest Proposal anyone?
|
|
Akage
Full Member
Existentialist
Posts: 207
|
Post by Akage on Mar 30, 2009 2:43:33 GMT -5
I just wrote a six page paper on that for my English class-- less than two weeks ago. I love strange coincidences. And hello.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 30, 2009 2:47:52 GMT -5
I just wrote a six page paper on that for my English class-- less than two weeks ago. I love strange coincidences. And hello. hi sweetie nice to have you back here
|
|
Akage
Full Member
Existentialist
Posts: 207
|
Post by Akage on Mar 30, 2009 2:50:04 GMT -5
hi sweetie nice to have you back here It's nice to be back here.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 30, 2009 4:38:36 GMT -5
Bingo-bango. I'm not taking away from the fact that man has single-handedly wiped out many, many species; accidentally or carelessly or purposefully, but no species has a right or guarantee to exist. Nature doesn't regulate like Alan Greenspan, she flips a coin like Two-Face. Even at the cellular level. I had an early cell biology professor tell me that equilibrium is death. Cells struggle to keep themselves compartmentalised and maintain gradients against equilibrium. To be fair though, some species certainly remain more stable than others: Shark taxa for example have been around for what--450 million years now? It isn't a guarantee of course, but that's pretty damn successful!
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 30, 2009 6:38:40 GMT -5
Even at the cellular level. I had an early cell biology professor tell me that equilibrium is death. Cells struggle to keep themselves compartmentalised and maintain gradients against equilibrium. That is very, very interesting, and I think really cool. Anyone have more info/links on that?
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 30, 2009 7:36:29 GMT -5
Even at the cellular level. I had an early cell biology professor tell me that equilibrium is death. Cells struggle to keep themselves compartmentalised and maintain gradients against equilibrium. That is very, very interesting, and I think really cool. Anyone have more info/links on that?Of course! How much cellular or molecular biology are you familiar with? There are so many possibilities to go into because so much of cellular biology is the manipulation of the intracellular and extracellular environment to favour chemical reactions. The concept used to explain it to me was that of simple osmosis. Water will always move to an area that is chemically more concentrated, or, has higher osmotic pressure, in an attempt to reach equilibrium. Simple cells are bags of water and solutes (salts, sugars, proteins, et cetera) that are more concentrated than pure water. As such, pure water moves into the cell via aquaporins ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaporin). The reverse is also true, in an extremely saline environment, salt will rush out of the cell causing it to shrivel. This undeniable desire for water to reach equilibrium is bad for a cells. Concentrations of solutes must be maintained within a cell for a variety of reasons, least of all for enzymatic reactions. In plants, the cell swells until it pushes up against its cell wall causing pressure to build up. When this pressure build up and equals osmotic pressure a steady state is achieved (the plant becomes turgid)( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmotic_pressure). There is no such structure in animal cells however. Animal cells must maintain their ideal osmostic pressure (which is caused by differing concentrations across a membrane). This is accomplished by generating pressure on the hypertonic (internal) side of the membrane so that water will not diffuse inward. It could be thought of as this: water is pushing to get into the cell, and to prevent this, the cell must push back equally. In higher life, tissues and organs work in concert to excrete unnecessary water and/or salts. In single celled organism like amoebas, it is a bit more exciting. Using energy (active transport) the amoeba sequesters its metabolic waste products in a vacuole. This attracts excess water. The vacuoles are then emptied into the environment, removing excess water and wastes. The vacuoles may also store water if necessary. What is very cool is that besides maintaining homeostasis, this process is also used for locomotion and several other functions ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmoregulation). So essentially, life must maintain homeostasis, a stable state where reactions can occur. Homeostasis is not 'universal equilibrium'. It is the fight to maintain an ideal environment, not keep things equal. There are a couple things I glossed over, equilibrium for example, is strictly the condition in which competing forces are balanced--cells maintain a dynamic equilibrium (homeostasis) but this is far from chemical 'equality' with the environment. The cell keeps itself concentrated, as it were, but it does so in a stable way in accordance to the laws of physics, using forces that require energy and those that are passive. If you want more, I've got loads! The links are all wikipedia, but I can do better if it is desired. This information is pretty well established and usually part of basic cell biology curriculum. Getting first source information would mean plunging into the 'physical only' Nature archives in the basement of my uni (aside for aquaporin proteins, which were excitingly discovered within the last 10 years! www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15034115).
|
|