Environmental Outlook: "The Ocean of Life" by Callum Roberts
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-05/environmental-outlook-ocean-life-callum-roberts
The world’s oceans cover 140 million square miles and have remained stable for most of human history. But in the last 30 years, man’s impact on the seas has taken a heavy toll: global fish supplies are declining thanks to new technologies and overfishing. Climate change has led to a rise in ocean temperatures and the loss of 75 percent of large sea animals. Plastics and agricultural fertilizers are polluting our oceans and killing marine life. On this month’s Environmental Outlook: How humans are harming the world’s oceans and what can be done about it.
Guests
Callum Roberts
marine scientist and conservationist, University of York (England); author of "The Unnatural History of the Sea" (2007)
Related Items
Program Highlights
A recent survey of California beaches found 140,000 bits of plastic trash for every 100 yards of beach. Marine scientist and conservationist Callum Roberts discussed water pollution, climate change, overfishing and other human impacts on the seas in his new book, "The Ocean of Life." In it, he traced the origin of the world’s oceans and proposed a new deal for oceans that aims to establish marine reserves.
More Fish In the Sea
Roberts said there’s a false assumption that there will always be more fish in the sea. He said fish are the perfect renewable resource if you take less than is being produced, but the amount of fish dwindles over time if more is taken than is produced. He said this is what’s happening now, in a form of exploitation called serial over-fishing. Once a species has been depleted, we move on to something else, which is why we eat more squid and lobster today even though these species were used as bait 50 years ago.
Early Humans Ate Seafood
Roberts said humans are creatures of the sea, and that the building blocks of human nervous systems come from omega-3 fatty acids found in marine life. Humans owe their large brain size, cleverness and heart health to a diet that’s rich in seafood. Roberts said some of the earliest evidence of modern humans comes from South African coastal caves, where they gathered and ate lots of shellfish.
History Of Fishing
Fishing is one of the earliest ways that humans affected the seas, Roberts said. Commercial fisheries first developed in the Mediterranean, evidenced by a type of canned tuna that shipped around the Black Sea five millennia ago. “Five thousand years ago, just think that people were packing amphorae with fish and then shipping them hundreds or even thousands of miles. That's quite extraordinary,” Roberts said. Roberts attributed the industrialization of fishing to the invention of boat engines in the late 19th century. He said sea ports were full of engine-powered vessels, which meant boats could drag bigger fishing gears. “We could get out further and faster. We could bring back fresh fish from further afield. We could go deeper down in the oceans,” Roberts said. Later, the invention of flash freezing allowed people to go further offshore and preserve more types of fish.
Technology Paradox
Despite improved fishing technology, the life of a fisherman has become more difficult. “The paradox of improving technology is that it's always chasing a dwindling prize,” Roberts said. As the ability to catch fish improves, the amount of fish that can be caught declines. About two-thirds of fish species have collapsed since the 1950s, such as the Atlantic Blue Fin Tuna, and the rate is accelerating.
You can read the full transcript here.
Read An Excerpt
Excerpt from "The Ocean of Life" by Callum Roberts. Copyright 2012 by Callum Roberts. Reprinted here by permission of Viking Books. All rights reserved.
Appendix from "The Ocean of Life" by Callum Roberts. Copyright 2012 by Callum Roberts. Reprinted here by permission of Viking Books. All rights reserved.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
All the "fishcamps" near where I live on the Catawba are either closed or serving mainly pork barbecue with fried bread. So when your doctor suggests eating fish those salty little orange crackers are waiting. (Goldfish) Some say soy protein can be molded in the shape of an octopus. Soylent green is getting close.
For me, the difference between the overfishing of the oceans and depleting other wild animals eaten for food is that the "strip-mining of the oceans" simply isn't as visible. Looking at the plains (or skies) once awash in bison (or passenger pigeons), and it hits home.
This is an incredible, shocking image representing just how precious water is on our planet. We think of it as "water, water, everywhere" but look at how much there really is:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120515.html
At the beginning of the segment you were talking about the ocean water not containing oxygen. How can this be? I thought water was H2O, how can it be water without 2 oxygen atoms?
Thanks and wonderful show!
-Pat
nothing can growth for ever .that sick over-consumer mentality will bring humankind to big problem.only scientific administration of fishing will solve the problem(no political or economic view)
Isn't this yes another example of "The Tragedy of the Commons"?
One of the emails you just read indicated that the sender somehow was differentiating "Human" and "Industrial" effects on the earth.
My point is that "Industrial Contamination" IS "Human". this is the problem - people don't believe that is ALL OUR FAULTS
"hcky18 wrote:
At the beginning of the segment you were talking about the ocean water not containing oxygen. How can this be? I thought water was H2O, how can it be water without 2 oxygen atoms?"
It means that there was no free molecular oxygen ( just O2) dissolved in the water. Oxygen-breathing life needs free oxygen to breath and cannot breakdown the bonds of H2O to get it.
Despite the romance of the oceans and fish, and the eating of fish, I stopped eating seafood about 10 years ago because I'd heard so much about trawling, long lines and overfishing... I've have been surprised in all that time I've only ever met a very few people who felt the same or had taken the trouble, despite changing their diets, to reduce their consumption of fish or to distrust the mass availability of deep-sea fish in inland markets. In fact many people who give up meat still turn to fish (becoming "pescatarians.)
There are some fish stocks that are managed sustainably and are safe to eat (low mercury etc). I still eat fish, but try to stick to safe species. The Monterey Bay Aquarium produces a good Seafood Watch Guide that lists the species that are ok to eat.
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/download.aspx
This is a moral issue. Fish are lovely, sensitive creatures. People shouldn’t be eating them…period. There's plenty to eat if you don't eat meat or fish. People rationalize their actions because they think it’s healthy to eat fish or they like the taste. But it’s not ethical – no matter what the reason or how many people think it’s okay - even if these people are scientists or news reporters.
This is a moral issue. Fish are lovely, sensitive creatures. People shouldn’t be eating them…period. There's plenty to eat if you don't eat meat or fish. People rationalize their actions because they think it’s healthy to eat fish or they like the taste. But it’s not ethical – no matter what the reason or how many people think it’s okay - even if these people are scientists or news reporters.
Not long after the close of the second world war, a gathering took place in the upper Mojave Desert of the United States; among those in attendance were Dr. Bertrand Russell and Dr. Edmond Jaeger, the dean of American desert naturalists.
Around the campfire one evening, the topic under consideration was Right and Wrong. After listening to the discussion amongst his distinguished colleagues for a fashion, Jaeger turned to Russell, whose white wispy hair and pipe smoke were outlined in the flames, and said, "The environment, since it cannot run away nor defend itself, must be protected. And THAT, sir, is the difference between what is Right and what is Wrong."
More than six decades later, that definition of absolute morality has, if anything, gained even greater currency.
Right wingnuts have no comment to make on this topic (conspicuous absence)
except maybe "The web of life is a hoax by scientistes." or "Jesus will be mad if we don't eat all the seafood before his return, since he obviously put it here for us to eat." (loaves and fishes? Is communion a pig-out?)) Dominionism is both wrong and stupid!
ornendil, thanks very much for the link!
Absent from the discussion were ways that you plan to change your behavior as a result of this information. It mostly seems that those that report on the news, rarely discuss the impact of that news on themselves. As a news leader, this could be helpful to motivate a larger scale change. Thank you for your informitive show today.
Hey Pancake,
Not all of us have 24 hours a day to hang out here. But anyway, I don't see much from you other than your usual hate and sarcasm.
Thanks for the inciteful contributions.
Now, I'm gonna go boil me a lobster!
Great show today Diane, we've been waiting for this issue to get better prominence, could we have a follow up discussion? We would like to hear more scientists talking openly about " system collapse" and how things don't just tail off they come to an abrupt and definite end. thank you. as terrible as this news is real.
On a personal note....How impossible is it to convince people to do the right thing for the environment when they insist it's all God's creation and a miracle will save us because...etc,etc. Religion is the Piper and Humanity ... the rats.
"On a personal note"
On a personal note, painter, Diane is a religious person. Belittling one's religion? Probably not the smart move here. Make your argument for environmentalism. You don't have to set up insulting strawmen like "it's all God's creation and a miracle will save us". I don't know anyone who says that.
It occurs to me that the main difference between "liberal/progressives" and "libertarian/conservatism" is one of subservience or free will. The progressive seeks the shelter of the state and the comfort of being subservient to government authority. Those that reject the state and prefer self determination are a threat to government authority and are feared and hated for their desire for free will and unpredictability. The political liberal/progressive movement is a conglomeration of special interest groups that all share the same ideology of victimization, the permanent victim mentality. Being the permanent victim absolutely requires the constant refreshing of who the victimizers are and why. There are never enough issues at any given time to satisfy the appetites of the permanent victim so they create them with self deception and exaggeration. Have you ever noticed how the political progressive movement responds as a collective, if one feels offended they respond collectively offended. This is a built in response mechanism of the progressive ideology that requires no thought process but only the detection of information that challenges tightly held and largely unexamined beliefs. Depending on the magnitude of the "perceived"offense liberal/progressive groups respond as a whole much like a school of fish, darting in all directions simultaneously responding loudly and grief stricken. While the libertarian/conservative movement also has a sizable and similar group in it's ranks, the devoutly religious, this is the exception and not the rule. Generally speaking libertarian/conservatives just want to be left alone and prefer the live and let live philosophy. They do not seek to control every aspect of life and they do not seek government sanction on every personal activity.