“But Hooked is persuasive evidence of how hard it would be to police such areas, and how intense the pressure would be to open them up again. Like the war on drugs, the war on fish pirates would continue as long as demand persisted for the product. As Knecht's book demonstrates, we are indeed hooked -- by our infinite hunger for a clearly finite resource.”

“This book, in my opinion, represents the pathetic conditions of the human heart.”

…I would respectfully suggest, that it is a different group of organs we need to start using with more circumspection.

Hi dorothy,

I am sure we are on the same page dorothy, but what do you mean by your statement, "…I would respectfully suggest, that it is a different group of organs we need to start using with more circumspection."...??

Bear

I'll take Brains for a thousand Alec....

Hi, Bear:

I have already been accused of being a broken record of this, but what the heck, in for a penny, in for a pound: I was referring to our reproductive organs. The infitnite hunger comes from our idea that we live in an infinite world, where we can just go on spreading and multiplying. It just ain't so. Those cultures that promote 'large families', whether we like it or not, are part of the problem. I am sick and tired of hearing about all those abandoned families with 4-6 kids in the suburbs of nowhere, with the scorched earth. when will these people get it?

Does that include the cultures that promote large families in the thirld world where pensions don't exist? Just wondering where the line is in this ever shrinking finite world. Some say it's not an overpopulation problem it's just a distribution problem. Yeah sure.....

well, it would include those people who for cultural reasons keep insisting that we cannot mange our procreation in a pragmatic fashion, so we see chilren being born and then there is drought, and then they starve, and they get buried, and we are supposed to feel guilty, since we have figured out how many, or how few, people our land can sustain, and are prepared to stick to those limits.
It is not legit to try to secure one's pension by making a surplus of people in the next generation. It's not because we can trust our pensions here. We save up, in part because the law or our contract dictates that we must, but I as well as many others are pretty cynical about that money being there when we would need it. I believe we should learn to grow our own food and not rely on the smaller next generation to look after us, for I don't believe they will. So our situation is not that different. But what you say gives me an idea: maybe helping the children survive in greater numbers is not at all what we should be doing with our help, but rather build some kind of support for seniors in poor countries, and so remove some of their motivation for producing too many children.

It came up last night in conversation. Japanese inlaws are expected to take in the mother of the bride to look after in her golden years. I'm sure other cultures not so far away also have expectations, just as those in India or Africa, but without a large family who would support them? Yes it's sad to see so much poverty and death but that's the risk. If they kept birth rates low then they would truly be on their own after the drought, and famine, and political unrest, loss of habitat, loss of local economy because of corruption and misguided food aid. So while it's not a distribution of food issue it is most certainly as you have pointed out a distribution of wealth issue. It seems to be proven that birth rates fall when there is more hope for the end years. So your idea may be a good one, certainly part of the solution. Seniors for seniors! Anyway, the footprint for a large African family must still be 20 times less than that of the average western carbon abuser...

The footprint will actually be addressed in the same kind of approach, for I think that the footprint and how diffcult it is to address with the heavy-footed, has a lot to do with this sense of the world still 'expanding', in terms of lots of cheap labour, lots of new markets, lots of 'ventures' out there just waiting to be chewed into. If the poorer countries were to close the tap, start consolidating in a serious way, with our more balanced help, then I think this would work to impress on everyone that we are looking at that brick wall. Maybe it looks like a tall bill to write the poorest among us, but then again, maybe they are the only ones in the position to turn things around. It is obvious from the westerners and their shrinking birthrates, that we have seen the writing on the wall. The entrepreneurs among us, who are now hooked on expansion, equally obviously do not like this, and try every which way to have us finance in some measure their plans for the third world. We should see through this and refuse to play.

"It is obvious from the westerners and their shrinking birthrates, that we have seen the writing on the wall." said Dorothy.

It seems more obvious to me that the world of subsistence sees children as workers and the West sees children as too much work.

Here is the divide: we Canadians name our children at birth whereas some in central Africa name them when they're four - six years old and quite often recycle the names of children who didn't live past ten.

The children in your posts above look like the economy of the rich to me. Don't let the kids walk over my garden and such.....

I'd buy you a ticket to Chad, Dorothy, but I spent the money feeding my kids. After that, I'll spend it educating them.

Got too close to some cherished paradigm, did I?

The propensity of some people in this society for dumping on their own culture will never cease to amaze me! Are you not part of this wealthy decadent society? Are you not sitting there taking for granted that you will have the money to educate your children? So where are you coming from assuming that you understand poverty better than I do, knowing nothing about what I have dealt with in order to feed or educate my children?

For your information, I don’t do air travel. The three times crossing the Atlantic at 10 km up that I ‘enjoyed’ thirty years ago to become a permanent citizen of Canada were more than enough. All you need to give me is ten credits for new soles on my hiking boots. But I don’t think I need to see Chad, and I have no problem with children walking on my garden – what there is of it. Most of my land is in kinnikinick, willow, and dwarf blueberry.

Do you really not see the pattern I am pointing out? As far as too much work is concerned – if people abadon their naturally most cherished pursuit, namely to make a bid for sending their projection into the future, carrying on the family so to speak, because it has become ‘too much work’, I would see that as a natural reaction to crowding, or at least a sense of crowding. Shame on people who see their children as workers! They are far more than that, they are the future, and people in their own right. In my book, old people can take care of themselves, and when they can’t, they can go. Who would want to hang around when this life is effectively done with? There may be another job waiting. We know nothing of these things, but one thing I agree with Thomas Jefferson about: There is not a more undemocratic act we can perpetrate than that of indebting future generations for our own comfort and perceived security. Are you still in the belief that one is meant to have fun at one’s own party?

dorothy said: "I was referring to our reproductive organs. The infitnite hunger comes from our idea that we live in an infinite world, where we can just go on spreading and multiplying".

...Right on dorothy. I love my kids (boys,23, and 20 years old), but if I was without children today, I would NEVER have them. This would be for their sake and the sake of the Earth's survival.

I also appreciate your discussion on which you continued. Here we are, after living the "Life of Riley" by scraping and raping our "Mother" for everything we possibly can, to continue to sustain an unsustainable and destructive existence, we expect and even anticipate being supported by our children and our children's children... Man oh man, how pathetic, out of touch, and imo, unlikely is that??

I too will work towards my own sustainability as I fully do not think "wealth", as we know it today, will "look" the same way in the future. Will our old age security check be mailed to us in the future.........I doubt it, what for, and why should they be?????????

Peace,

Bear

I must be thick from Holiday cheer.... Sorry Dorothy, I don't understand your point or pattern entirely either. On one hand we westerners have an obligation to not burdon future generations but how is a third world family going to know that? Especially when their focus is on the next harvest or worse, the next meal. If we see a wall coming and lowered birthrates in response, wouldn't that leave more so called wealth to share with those in need? Or are there more than just a few of us hording wealth for their own futures? I would say it's less about birthrates and more about consumption rates. How much did we just spend on useless crap to wrap in pretty paper and stick under a tree for the sake of feeding the economic wheel? Entrapreneurs and governments have been stealing wealth on the backs of poor countries and poor westerners for too long now. While I enjoy many benefits to living in this society it doesn't mean I agree with the direction in has gone. It's taken a turn for the worse. The rich and powerful now control too much and we've done a lousy job of being stewards of the planet and taking care of the weak. The price looks like it will be an expensive one, with all kinds of nasty cahallenges to face all at once. Population control is but one, cunsumption rates of all resources increase as we apply relentless pressure on natures capacity to carry our foolish enterprises forward. The bill is coming due soon, and no amount of man made wealth will pay the tab. Population will be subject to market corrections! Looks like a hell of a hangover when our party is over.

clubofrome said: " I would say it's less about birthrates and more about consumption rates".

Hey club.

Happy New Year bro.
I know we are basically on the same page...but I would say in comment to your statement..."Both". Both are the problem...'nough said.

Peace,

Bear

Anyone who thinks we aren't in really deep trouble has to have been in a coma for the past twenty years.

Some twentyone species of groundfish have been reduced to levels so low their very existance is threatened...off OUR coast, not in some far-off place. OUR coast...

The cabizon is an "ugly" fish, sometimes erroneously called "bullhead", she lives in deep water, and lives for a very long time. Native people did not traditionally catch or eat cabizon because her eggs are toxic and it was their habit to fully utilize any fish they took.

And for years and years non-natives threw the cabizon back because, after all, she was "just a bullhead". But cabizon has become a commercial species and is a major fishery off Washington and Oregon...and now the cabizon numbers here are steadily declining.

I find her a gorgeous old girl, mottled skin, huge eyes, and an almost comical little "horn" on her nose...and I try hard not to let anyone know how absolutely delicious she is. Because she grows to significan size sports fishers are starting to catch and keep her.

Last summer I went down to one of the local docks to sit and stare out at the water and just generally "waste" some time...and there, on the bottom, were two very large cabizon which had been caught...someone kept them long enough to pose for photo's, then tossed them away...

And yes, the crabs and shiners and probably even the starfish and tommy cod would strip them to the bone, and the prawns would feast and...but it's that kind of selfish waste which is impacting every type of fish.

I grew up on this Island and not long ago you'd go out fishing and you knew before you left the dock you were going to catch several dogfish... they were out there the way grasshoppers are in a field of long grass or slugs are in your lettuce patch...and only low rent poor folk ate them...now they're commercially fished for the fish'n'chip trade and you can be out there for hours several days in a week and not catch a dogfish. I'm told they also get used to make that pretend-crab and pretend-lobster...

And, no, I'm not going to bore you with another rant against fish feed lots.

We need more than a few "protected" areas for the fish to breed, we need to slam'er shut for five years, and if we aren't going to do that at least lower the catch limits. And for chrissakes ENFORCE the regulations we already have! A couple of guys to "police" the entire coast is raw neglect and madness.

anne cameron said: "We need more than a few "protected" areas for the fish to breed, we need to slam'er shut for five years, and if we aren't going to do that at least lower the catch limits. And for chrissakes ENFORCE the regulations we already have! A couple of guys to "police" the entire coast is raw neglect and madness".

Thanks anne cameron once again for your well presented post. Always so informative and interesting and spot on to me... Your above statement IS what needs to happen and then re-evaluate it in 5 years. My guts are saying we need more time then that, but 5 years is more than no years, which is what is happening now...

Peace ac,

Bear

...and indeed, there is NOTHING in nature that is "Ugly".
-Bear

Sure thing Mr Bear, but we can't do anything about the 6.5 billion and climbing here now. But we could alter our consumption rates. We could as suggested close the oceans for commercial business. Sorry, fish are off the menu for a while. We'd have to ban all fish sales just to be safe.... sorry fish farmers. Many things may still be up for debate, like the carrying capicity for humans which will depend on consumption rates. But lets just say that we cut it in half. It still only buys a few more decades before the same levels are reached. While others may still ridicule Paul Erlich and the limits to growth predictions of the sixties and seventies at least they address the problem based on what was known then. Why don't we just use computers to give us the updated version? Surely we could load much more data into super cumputers to give us a picture of life on earth in 100 years! The number may have changed, but 2 billion should be the target population. The course is set for 12 billion, but I don't think we'll hit that number before hitting the wall first. Someone said a while back... the bus is full speed ahead and the road leads to the cliff. We stop along the way and pick up more and more passengers offering directions like Kyoto and other green merchandise. But the route hasn't changed. The culmination of many challenges are converging. Climate change, loss of species (food species like fish) pollution, desertification, loss of farm land to development. Real wealth being lost and borrowed now against future generations.

Has anyone elsed noticed the creeping upward in food prices? Almost everything is on the rise IMO. This will be followed by shortages and higher prices and eventually market collapse. This could be based on energy costs or other geopolitical issues, but by being so specialized we have more probability of major failures. Consider the consequences of even a taste of loss of electricity to the food chain. How many people lost food because of storm related damage recently? That's just a minot inconvenience compard to the potential crash of the global economy. Once we run out of widgets to sell or fish to transport what happens then. What do these 6.5 to 8 billion people do to feed themselves. The answer is they don't. We're all in the city now. Herded like cattle into feed lots to spin the econ wheel like human gerbels. When the wheel stops we stop. Population problem solved. We were already told that last century was the last to take action, and here we are still debating the issues. Maybe we can slow the bus down but I'm sure we passed the last exit a few decades ago!

Before the usual bandwagon chimes in with doom and gloom, get this straight. I don't care. Doom and gloom is for the war mongers, forcing homeland securtiy down your throats till you're paralized with fear. (You poor bastards) I can say that Mr Bear and I only want to warn you of the likely outcome. We know that this planet will make a vibrant come back after human society has burned it self down. What's left will probably be an improvement over what we have made. Funny humans, competing with Mother Nature. Silly really. Until then, Mr Bear and I will enjoy each and every day we have , to tread lightly and take only pictures and memories with us... Have you hugged your tree today!

Excellent post club...

You may very well be right on the inevitable outcome, but honestly bud, I still have hope. It is writen "when the hope goes, people perish"... so I attempt to keep mine in tack. Indeed, without humans to maim the earth and all Her balance and perfections, as you, I believe our "Mother" would carry on. It needs to be be said though that the earth will have been altered irrepairably in some cases, so we will have made an impact forever even if we disapear today. IMO, humans, at this point in their evolution are but a plague to the earth... Even in saying this, I do believe we humans are a young species, and not yet a proven species... Will we find a way to fit and live within the natural laws of our "Mother"?? Myself, I still have hope that we will find our place... This might be a case of "Science" vs. "Heart", I am not sure...

Club, I so not label things as positive, and negative, doom and gloom. Instead I believe in TRUTH and truth takes in ALL information. So good on ya for speaking up on some obvious TRUTHS bud...

Peace

Ms. Bear :-)

Last paragraph "so" should be "do"...apologies. Oh and club... In my heart, I "hug a tree" everyday... :-), but I appreciate your reminder friend...

Bear

I'm sure you're right about us being on the same page. My reference is for the others who label our warnings as D & G. There will be survivors after the bus goes over the cliff, but I see the future reverting to the past. As society's perish new ones evolve, so unless we do something incredibly stupid and make the planet completely uninhabital, I see humans around for a while longer, just not in society as we know it. What it looks like will depend on how far we fall. It will certainly be less global and more local. So eat and grow local will be required. People will leave the urban centres for a more rural setting, and your basic skill set will include more sustainable options. I'd like to think we can keep forging forward with clean and peaceful technologies so life won't be to much of a burden, but we are animals and we're required to do physical labour. Even if only for our health. Anyways.... Ms. Bear, Peace to you always, and keep those positive thoughts flowing! There is always hope that good will triumph over evil, greed will fade away and Dolphins will one day rule the earth!

"Dorothy, I don't understand your point or pattern entirely either. On one hand we westerners have an obligation to not burdon future generations but how is a third world family going to know that? Especially when their focus is on the next harvest or worse, the next meal. If we see a wall coming and lowered birthrates in response, wouldn't that leave more so called wealth to share with those in need? Or are there more than just a few of us hording wealth for their own futures?"

The lowered birthrates will not result in wealth, just in life becoming more liveable here. My idea is, that others should do likewise. I see it as disrespectful to assume that people in the third world are less intelligent than we are. But as long as there are these entreprenurial types such as World Vision and others, they do not have to think in terms of shifting paradigms, as there are enough people here, who have been made to feel guilty over their perceived wealth, abd who will take care of the 'abandoned families', the father figures of whom likely went to town to work for Nike or some such company. The whole scenario adds up to western money making cheap labor possible in the third world, and, in the process, interfering mightily with the development of the people there. I don't believe in handouts on a perpetual basis from one part of the world to another. Things will never adjust naturally if we keep doing this.

Anyway you slice it the wealth is stolen from the future. It is stolen on the backs of third world citizens. The west is complicit wether you feel guilty or not. We have the ability to oppress and have used it for as long as history is recorded. It's just on a scale so massive now that it threatens our own existance.

"We have the ability to oppress"

Are you claiming that this a genetically based ability, then, or how did we get it? By understanding the principle of updating the model as needed, perhaps?

Where does the idea come from, that we have an uncanny ability to play with loaded dice in the great game of life? Did we not all start out on this Earth with the same terms? Be careful, for every timeyou somehow want us to be more responsible for things running into the ditch than any other people, then you are at the same time counting them as lesser people with lesser abilities. This whole collective guilt-tripping is at its root extremely condescending, and I am not in agreement that the White Man's Burden has any validity, which is what you are saying it does.

Power, Greed are at work. The wealthiest individuals control the game. They control the law and the military makes sure eveyone plays by those rules. The third world has about as much chance of determining their own destiny as I do becoming president of the US. As well I have made claim to a theory that there is a genetic defect possibly at play. The need for power or greed does not fit in with harmony in community or anywhere elase in the web of life. Cooperation is more a factor than survival of the fittest. You get your way by bashing them over the head, oppression by force. It has always been thus.
Perhaps you are trying to say that all nations should have the ability to choose their own destiny? But not in this global economy. It's a rigged game and forces conspire against true democaracy. I'm sure that I've heard the same versions here on Tyee. Coyote and Ed say it better than I. In Gaian terms I guess we are part of the web of life and therefore can do no wrong. I just think we could do better since we have recognition of a future. I don't mean to imply anything condescending or counting anyone as having lesser ability's. Those are your words Dorothy. Thou does protest too much. Perhaps you are more than a little guilty of your own standing in this world. Hmm?

"Perhaps you are more than a little guilty of your own standing in this world. Hmm?"

Now here you are stating the obvious. Of course, since my 'standing' is the accumulated result of my own choices, certainly i am 'guilty' of that result. What of it?

About the rigged game, it gets worse and worse. Now we are genetic freaks! It is a question of the oppressed not having enough motivation or good ideas to throw off the yoke of oppression. In our history, empires have risen and fallen, enormous power and wealth has been gained and lost. The whole thing is a dynamic equilibrium, which runs in cycles between its extremes. Sometimes we are up, sometimes we are down,

True democracy is an ideal, which we may approach asymptotically, but never reach. There is always some bunch of dumb-asses who screw it up. Dictators have seriously tried to kill off dumb people, as well as smart people selectively, it just makes things worse.

It is just my belief that the less we interfere, the better it goes. If only organized religion could be brought to respect that, we would progress. For the problem with why there are so many sociopaths among us, try this web site:

http://www.empathicparenting.org/

Assignment for Dorothy-

Can you summarize your own argument(s) in relation to the original article and/or the thread above in 10 bullets or less? Fewer , actually. Fewer would be good. You wander without relation to the fish at hand.

O'Leary:

I probably could, but I think I have been doing it. I cannot figure where you are coming from asking me to do it again. I think the wanderings are not entirely my doing. These discussions have a way of wandering and sometimes running out tangents. I don't particualrly see a problem with that, since this is not an assignment, but rather a place where ideas and percerptions can be thrown around in the grinding mill of debate, and soemtimes argument, until they hopefully, through a co-operative effort, become more to the point and sharply directional.

It is precisely because the mainstream media, e.g. Global will not support this kind polemics, that the tyee was created.

Many discussions have a way of gravitating towards 'social justice', the future of the globe, etc., the few pivotal issues that are close to home for us all, and I see this as a necessary part of the process. Could you be more specific as to why you see a problem with this?

Great link, but how do you make it universal so we don't end up with the usual line up of BMW's outside the centre for empathic teaching? It seems the places where it is needed most, for the poor in all countries, is not where the message will be heard. Of course we may just be a doomed species. With the amount of children raised in non caring environments were lucky to have made it this far!! You have a slightly off centre, off balance view on things, I like that. Still not sure I understand it, but I sure as hell can't argue against it!