The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Great Barrier Reef and the bumphead parrotfish > Comments

The Great Barrier Reef and the bumphead parrotfish : Comments

By Nicole Rosmarino, published 23/3/2010

The bumphead parrotfish is the fish that helps make the white coral sands of north Queensland's beaches so breathtakingly beautiful.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Severin,
either silence, or the jeering of cynics from the other side.
Forrest,
I did read your (unpopular) thread on the topic of popularity, but couldn't think what to contribute. Do you have a theory about these anomolies?
Spindoc,
I would hazard a guess that the extra information you seek can be found in the appropriate journal. Do you really think the author had room to go into all that detail, or that it would have suited an OLO readership? Excluding your learned Self of course.
Pericles,
according to your logic, we should kill all the humans before they destroy the planet!
As for your "research", I'll go out on a limb (or reef, I should say), and suggest that poor old Bumphead plays a sustaining role within the ecosystem of the reef? It did after all evolve there!
I also am sure the author meant well, and clearly yes, it was an environmental pamphlet--not "spin" though, I wouldn't think. Anyway, thankfully we have you and Hasbeen and spindoc to see through this kind of woolly compassionate nonsense.
Excuse the tone, I'm just dirty because you've trumped me for the most cynical line of the week.
I said, <The "sanctity of life", what a joke, only applies to humans, I'm afraid.> (I should have said "some" humans).
Your much cynical suit was:
<The reef would be nothing without all the pretty fishes. And yes, the reef is probably the most attractive single natural feature that Australia has to offer.>
Thank heavens we're here to appreciate the aesthetics of the reef (before it dies), otherwise it would be ... "nothing".
Ever the pragmatist eh?
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 6:45:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It all depends on how you present the facts, Squeers, that's the point I was trying to bring out. There's obviously a penalty for attempting to be subtle, though.

>>Pericles, according to your logic, we should kill all the humans before they destroy the planet!<<

Not sure how you extract that from my post, but never mind.

>>I'll go out on a limb (or reef, I should say), and suggest that poor old Bumphead plays a sustaining role within the ecosystem of the reef? It did after all evolve there!<<

Don't have a problem with that. I was simply pointing out that headlines may be manipulated to suit the angle required. But, too subtle, obviously.

But this puzzles me a little.

>>I said, <The "sanctity of life", what a joke, only applies to humans, I'm afraid.><<

"Sanctity of life" is a concept that we tend to invoke when discussing such topics as abortion and euthanasia in humans. It is somewhat odd to see it applied, as I think you intend it to be applied, to the entire population of living creatures on earth.

Are you suggesting that we should put the survival of other species ahead of our own?

That would be very much against nature, which puts survival and procreation at the top of its to-do list.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 25 March 2010 7:46:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, what a curious set of excuses you make for Nicole.

That you <<would hazard a guess>> I’m sure you would and yes it would be a hazard.

<< that the extra information you seek can be found in the appropriate journal>> It is not “extra” information Squeers, it is fundamental research critical to any article of this nature. If it can be found in any “appropriate journal” then where is the reference?

<< Do you really think the author had room to go into all that detail? >> Why not? I did it even within our word limit. Nicole should cover the research or reference it. She has a PhD for goodness sake!

<< or that it would have suited an OLO readership?>>. Yes it would Squeers, that’s what we do here on OLO, remember?

Since when did YOU get to decide what “suits an OLO readership
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 25 March 2010 8:14:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All is rhetoric, Pericles, even faux-objectivity.
The "sanctity of life" is, as you imply, traditionally vouchsafed for humans. Certainly nature doesn't hold with such twee notions. And as you say, <It is somewhat odd to see it applied, as I think you intend it to be applied, to the entire population of living creatures on earth.>
But surely since human's are capable of a great deal of "subtlety", outside their brutish needs, they can afford the luxury of empathising with other sentient beings?
I'm suggesting we should put the survival of other species on par with our own, since we have intellectually transcended brutish nature (or perhaps not). And as to your rhetorical question, <Are you suggesting that we should put the survival of other species ahead of our own>?
At going on 9 billion, I think we can afford to be magnanimous? Clearly you would prefer we follow nature's blueprint: proliferate at any cost?
Spindoc,
I hope the author will come on and defend herself.
There's no doubt scientists seem to be entering the PR war since being routed by the "spin" of the minimifidianists.
I have the utmost respect for the intellectual quotient of OLO, and its strong academic representation, but the average article's what, a thousand words? compared to 5 or 6 on average in a journal. And most of them are testing the water, or fomenting for one cause or another, surely? Like this author.
<Whilst I support conservation, I cannot support conservationists. I never seem to get any information from them, just emotional rhetoric and alarmism,>
Perhaps you should expand your reading; do you mean to suggest there is any doubt about our abuse of the planet, or that this "must" have consequences in a closed system?
Do you really put such articles down to spin and alarmism? Spin needs the right environment to get traction.
I'm more concerned with human potential than eco-politics; we are capable of assessing our actions, ethically and pragmatically, so why don't we?
This is the only game in town you know.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 25 March 2010 7:27:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well of course it is, Squeers

>>All is rhetoric, Pericles, even faux-objectivity<<

That's what we do here, is it not?

>>But surely since human's are capable of a great deal of "subtlety", outside their brutish needs, they can afford the luxury of empathising with other sentient beings?<<

Ye-e-e-e-es. Empathy is good. If unique - or most advanced, perhaps - in humans.

>>I'm suggesting we should put the survival of other species on par with our own<<

That's what I thought. And that is what I consider to be behaviour contrary to nature.

>>At going on 9 billion, I think we can afford to be magnanimous?<<

Going on seven, actually. A thirty percent exaggeration does nothing for your argument.

>>Clearly you would prefer we follow nature's blueprint: proliferate at any cost?<<

My word is survive, rather than proliferate. Most advanced countries already operate below replacement rate, which would seem to indicate that we broadly recognize what survival entails.

>>I'm more concerned with human potential than eco-politics; we are capable of assessing our actions, ethically and pragmatically, so why don't we?<<

In which case, why do you give animals equal status? Surely, pragmatism involves a realistic assessment of whether our chances of survival are improved or damaged by this approach.

Sentiment is a wonderfully human emotion, but it can also be detrimental to our health.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 26 March 2010 8:21:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well thanks for the response, Pericles, though there's nothing persuasive in it.
<Going on seven [billion], actually. A thirty percent exaggeration does nothing for your argument.>
Not an exagerration, old chap, but an error (reminds me of the Samuel Johnson admission; when asked for an explanation as to his (erroneous) curious, and presumedly learned, definition of a horses "pastern", the great man answered, "ignorance, dear Lady, sheer ignorance".
While I'm not averse to rhetoric, I deplore exagerration.
<My word is survive, rather than proliferate. Most advanced countries already operate below replacement rate, which would seem to indicate that we broadly recognize what survival entails.>
Apologies here too, I hadn't realised the human race was so precariously placed!
<why do you give animals equal status? Surely, pragmatism involves a realistic assessment of whether our chances of survival are improved or damaged by this approach.>
I give animals equal status, or at least consideration, due to my sense of ethics. Though, pragmatically, I also recognise bio-diversity, and sufficient species/habitat representation, as vital to human survival. The biosphere is of course a matrix of interdependent life forms; the imbalance we continue to precipitate is bound to have dire consequences--and not merely aesthetically; "the pretty fishes" etc.
Believe me, Pericles, I'm not wallowing in mere sentiment.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 26 March 2010 8:46:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy