The term "ghost fishing" refers to fishing equipment that has been lost or abandoned at sea and continues to "function" for many years. Millions of fish and other aquatic creatures are caught in neglected nets and die... in vain
The term "ghost fishing" refers to fishing equipment that has been lost or abandoned at sea and continues to "function" for many years. Millions of fish and other aquatic creatures are caught in neglected nets and die... in vain.
According to a report by the UN Environment Program and the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), abandoned, forgotten or lost fishing equipment makes up about 10% of the amount of trash in the seas. The weight of the abandoned equipment is estimated at 640,000 tons. The situation is getting worse because of the constant growth of fishing fleets and because of the durable materials of modern fishing equipment.
Among the main culprits are "gill nets" that are anchored to the seabed, stretched to a height by buoys and create a barrier thousands of meters long. Lost or neglected gill nets continue to fish independently for months and years, the nets continue to kill fish and other animals indiscriminately and non-stop. Like gill nets, so are crab traps, fishermen in certain areas report that: following storms at sea, hundreds of traps are lost every fishing season. To these can be added fishing lines - we have all seen pictures of turtles, dolphins, whales and others entangled in fishing lines which ultimately lead to their death.
The report was submitted to the World Oceans Conference held in Indonesia in mid-May. Upon submission of the report, its presenters recommend ways to address the problem: providing financial incentives to fishermen and encouraging them to report lost equipment; Marking equipment with means that will allow its detection; Improving the methods of "getting rid" of old and excess equipment; Using bio-degradable fishing equipment.
The report calls on the leaders at the gathering to direct resources to solving the problem because, according to the authors of the report: "The fishing equipment that remains in the marine environment will continue to accumulate, its impact on the marine environment will increase and become worse if the international community does not take effective steps to deal with the fishing equipment and the problem of garbage accumulation The marine in general".
According to Achim Steiner, Director of the United Nations Environmental Program, Achim Steiner - UNEP, "Ghost fishing" is just one of many problems that disturb the marine environment, such as the increase in water acidity due to an increase in greenhouse gases, acidification, the expansion of areas devoid of oxygen, "dead areas" zones") that are created due to the movement of pollutants from the land.
"All of these, as well as the treatment of abandoned and lost fishing equipment, constitute a challenge that the international community must face, since without treatment and a solution, the fertility of the oceans and seas will be damaged even nowadays"
We occasionally publish information about "cleaning beaches" when the advertisers give grades, it's more for me to give a grade - the beaches in our country are polluted, the dirt flows into the sea and thus we all "contribute" to our marine environment...
More on the subject on the science website
31 תגובות
point:
Not everything that is not human is supernatural.
See entry cat.
Besides, you're just playing with words.
There is "human" in the sense of belonging to the human species and there is "human" in the sense of human behavior.
The Nazis were human in the first sense and less so in the second.
I said "less" and I didn't say "no" because in my opinion one of the lessons of the Holocaust is that contrary to what many of us think - a large part of people may be drawn into Nazi behavior under the right conditions.
It is very human to do crazy things under the influence of religious belief with false claims.
Therefore it is advisable to avoid religious beliefs.
The same goes for drugs.
There is no need for you to teach me trivial things.
I am the one who wrote here on the website - and not once - that for me the essence of morality is what I called "the law of symmetry" which finds its expression in the religious tradition in the phrase "Do not do to your friend what you hate" and in your words in the phrase "everyone is equal".
I am also the one who wrote here that unlike animals we are able to expand our moral laws through thought.
The above phrases are just an example of such a thought.
In general, it seems unfair to me to try to "teach" me things that I am the one who said.
Given all this I tried to take the discussion one step further.
Although I have already discussed this step in the past, but the reactions to my study that it was precisely the one that was not internalized (and the fact that you asked me about the previous steps shows that I was right).
After all, it still remains to determine which laws should be formulated as extensions of natural morality.
Why, for example, is the aforementioned law (the law of symmetry) "good"?
After all, it was possible to decide otherwise, but most of us agree on it - why?
Because we know how to calculate its consequences and understand that its application brings to an optimum the feeling of "goodness" that evolution naturally instilled in us.
I repeat what I said on this matter before: the laws we formulate as moral laws that are not ingrained are intended solely to make it so that in the end - on average - our ingrained moral feelings will come to their satisfaction.
I must add a certain caveat to the above - of course, and it is that in defining the group I described in the previous sentence as "we" I was referring to people who try to formulate moral laws worthy of their name and not to people who bear the name of morality in vain by basing the system of laws they call by that name on beliefs instead of critical thought.
Michael, according to your words, the Nazis were humane. After all, they are not supernatural.
I gave you an example of how you can determine what is right, for example starting from the statement that everyone is equal...
point:
Do you not notice the internal contradiction in your words?
What is more human than what is ingrained in humans during evolution?
The feelings of pain and hunger were also imprinted on us during evolution. Should we ignore them too?
Since there is no external source - and you admit it - what will you base yourself on when you come to determine what is "right" for humans if not on an internal source?
age:
The story with the whole and the sum of its parts is not relevant.
Suppose (just for the sake of argument) that a person who believes that he is the sum of his parts thinks that animals should not be eaten. Will a person who thinks that he is the sum of his parts and another garbage can necessarily think differently?
This is a sentence of "Zionism" on which you did not base any reasoning.
I don't think I'm a partial sum - certainly not in the simplistic sense of the word and I don't even know how the operation of summing even between one proton and one electron is defined.
In my opinion, the separation between humans and animals is only as a result of convention and not as a result of introspection.
I don't know how many dog owners here would be willing to eat their dog.
They are not ready because the dog is - literally - their friend.
I repeat and emphasize that this whole matter of drawing the line between your group and the group of "others" is simply a matter of repression or lack of imagination.
There are very few people who will eat their dog - there are a few more people who will eat any dog except their dog, the same goes for cats, the same goes for parrots, there are people who will agree to eat monkey meat even though many of us will not agree to this (by the way - my father in one of his visits In Africa he was forced - for diplomatic reasons - to eat monkey meat that was served to him). The dog-eaters, cats, parrots and monkeys are included in a larger group of those who will eat animals (among them you will find those who prefer game meat and those who prefer butchered meat) and this whole story is related to only one thing - to what extent do you feel that the different animals also experience emotions such as fear, sorrow , pain, on the one hand, or excitement, joy and pleasure on the other.
I certainly get that people say they feel differently.
There is no connection between my approach and the religious approach because I do not attribute any external source to my claims. I base myself on introspection and generalize - with a limited degree of foundation - to all humans.
I simply suggest vegetarianism to others because I believe that this way they will live better with themselves, so that they will not indirectly cause the death of others (animals and humans alike - and I repeat and emphasize that those who eat meat indirectly cause the death of humans).
In any case, I will not try to impose my ways on others as long as their ways do not threaten me.
It's a situation that changes depending on the circumstances - today I manage to get food even though others eat meat and I manage to cope with the weather even though others cause methane to be emitted from the stomachs of hundreds of billions of animals destined for slaughter but if all this changes I will have no choice but to act - just as I act Against smoking - I don't care so much if a person decides to kill himself, but if someone thinks it is permissible for him to cause me cancer, then I believe that my minimum right is to cause him to lose teeth in his mouth.
Come on!!!!! Where did quanta come from... the photon experiment of quantum theory.
EDIT will be allowed!!!! (written in bright graffiti)
Another thing related to this and other parallel discussions.
Both in science and in education, choice is the basis.
As long as you choose to be passive and say you are a product of or anything else tolerable then you will have a problem with my words and world view.
As soon as you choose to differentiate yourself and be active in life then you will see the difference,
Among other things, this is the difference between humans and animals, although some of us still want to be animals.
This is what amazes me that even in the religious approach and the scientific approach things are similar.
The book begins with this basic right, and the famous quantum experiment shows that our choice is something that affects the results of reality.
So you choose to be a vegetarian, I choose to eat meat.
I can describe a perfect green world with eating meat. It is true that it is more difficult to achieve than a world full of vegetarians, but that is not how the world we live in works.
And no I don't want to prevent me from something good because there is a faster way to a green world.
Just choose….
Michael do you think you are the sum of your parts or more than that?
I personally think that I am as unique as any person on earth, and more than the sum of my parts.
After all, only a person who thinks that he is simply here because it is evolution and has no choice would think that I included humans in the group. You think ?
I understand the source of the comparison to the Nazis out of compassion for the animals.
which cannot return and I am also able to deal with violence between humans but not between humans and animals Michael I respect you very much but it is really not comparable. And I guess those who don't understand where it comes from are outraged and outraged.
I wish things were like Douglas Adams where the bull just jumps on your table and willingly cuts you a steak.
again.... If we are sophisticated animals then we are at the top of the food chain and therefore it is legitimate to eat meat.
If not and we are human beings then we have the right to do what we want here and I love meat.
Meat gives me energy like nothing else. And I enjoy it.
Although technically my brain is simply bigger, but so are the elephants.
Technically I am built like all animals but here I am talking to you in a virtual world made like us.
Do you really think you are just an evolution of an animal?
Technically yes, but the difference is so fundamental that it is no longer comparable.
The imagination we have does not exist anywhere in the living world and this is already enough linguistically so great that one can say that man is allowed from the beast (although as you said there are many people who are not like that, many of them politicians 🙂 )
When I said ignore her, I didn't mean to ignore her in our day-to-day lives, but to ignore her when we come to consider what is right, humane, etc.
The sense of morality was ingrained in us during evolution and that is exactly why we should ignore it, it is an animal feeling. The goal of feeling good is also an animal goal.
Sanctifying one emotion or another is an action synonymous with religious action. So if you are religious you should be perfumed.
point:
It seems to me that we will return to the same point ad infinitum.
I told you that in my opinion our sense of morality is a product of evolution and when I say that I mean that it obviously has no external source.
On the other hand - everything we do - including defining the rules of morality (as opposed to the sense of morality) - is designed to allow us to live better and ignoring traits that have been imprinted on us in evolution (including the sense of morality) is not a way that guarantees we will feel better, but the opposite.
The brain performs many functions, certainly even for a conscious person most of the brain's operations are not conscious.
When I say soul, I mean only that "I" that is in each of us, that "I" is the one that sees and hears, and if there is no me, I do not have..
I believe that that self is created directly from that ability of speech.
I don't see any place that should be given to the sense of morality when it comes to determining what is right or wrong to do. There is no connection between them. The results of the moral sense of the Germans are well known.
Yes, it is possible to come and claim that everyone is equal, and from that find a "correct" way. But the claim that everyone is equal is certainly not true and certainly very subjective, for example the politicians in my eyes are equal as the skin of garlic, and it is not certain that the world would be less good if they were not among the living. And so there is a law that society has enacted.
point:
After all, you don't need to tell the person who wrote an article in which he defined language as what separates man from animals - that man has a language.
The intelligence I was talking about is created in part by the ability to create language - as I said in that article.
Therefore it is a matter of intelligence.
Is it a matter of soul?
Depends on what a soul is.
I have not found a logical definition of a soul that separates it from the brain.
As far as I know you haven't found either.
We both know that we have the ability to establish what laws we want and I have also made it clear more than once what my opinion is about the origin of the moral laws that we accept.
I also know that most people - including the carnivores - would not want to slaughter the animals themselves or even watch the slaughter.
This is because in the end - even in them this murder arouses disgust.
The ability of humans to eat animals is largely based on the suppression of their sense of morality or a lack of imagination.
It is easier to live when there is a lot of imagination and yet there is no need for repression.
However, even if we agree that there is consciousness or there is no consciousness, it does not lead us to directly conclude how we should behave.
Society has decided that it is forbidden to murder people, another society can arise and decide the opposite.
There is no a priori truth here
Not true Michael, humans know how to talk, this is a fundamental difference. The ability to use a very complex language seems to me essential to consciousness. Therefore animals have no consciousness. (The same goes for babies, and the deaf and in general for those who have not learned to speak).
point:
You're joking because you also know that the whole "mental" difference between humans and animals is a matter of a more intelligent mind.
And if they have souls, then they should be killed because they behave like animals.
I think animals have no soul. There is no reason not to kill them. Except for the matter of preserving nature, and preserving humanity. However, this is not a matter of principle
.
The unsatisfied skeptic:
Gil's response did not mention almost any animal in a specific way and man is only one of the animals not mentioned in Gil's response.
The response was formulated as a principle and nothing in principle explained why humans are different.
In general, our tendency not to kill humans is due to the fact that we associate them with our group, but this is only a private case of defining where the border between your group and the other animals is.
The cannibals and the Nazis defined this boundary elsewhere.
You can keep getting upset and as long as that happens I'll know you didn't understand.
I guess you think I'm doing the impossible.
It reminds me of the person who enters the zoo, sees a giraffe and says "Impossible! There is no such animal!".
Today there is very delicious vegetarian food.
In fact, my non-vegetarian family members always finish the vegetarian food I buy for myself - simply because it tastes good to them (not that I'm complaining - I'm actually quite happy about their transition to vegetarianism in practice, even if it's "not for her sake").
Beyond all this - as has already been said - by not adopting vegetarianism you - in the end - are killing other people from hunger. So maybe you Naa demand that for you the humans are in a different place than where the animals are (and even get annoyed at the comparison) but when it comes to the actual application you are not a Naa Sustainer.
Michael,
Nowhere in Gil's response is there anything or half a thing that suggests that there is any way to eat humans.
There is no doubt for any sane person that Gil's approach does not include humans.
And because it's so obvious, your comment was even a little annoying…
Now, if we ignore the cannibals, I also think again that humans need meat to live! Physically, you may be able to find substitutes, but mentally, there simply aren't any. Nothing like grilled meat!
It is also possible to live without sex (physically. Don't forget that it is also possible to reproduce in a different way) and there are also some who live this way voluntarily (asexuals, monks). But most people will not be able to overcome this need. We need sex! Although much more than we need meat, we also need meat. As Gil said it is our nature...
We just need to know not to mistreat the animals we eat and to know how to beware of cases like what we read in this article! But not eating meat is a pretty bad solution (except that it still won't work because cows will still be raised for the milk and chickens for the eggs, and until something is done they will remain in disgraceful conditions)!!!
What bothers me is not the killing of the animals. But there are individual people who get rich from this at the expense of everyone else. The earth belongs to all of us.
age:
They say that a vegetarian spares the animals and lives on the lettuce.
And on a more serious note, I must tell you two things:
One is that, as already mentioned here - from an ecological point of view, vegetarianism actually allows us - humans - to make better use of the earth for our benefit.
Using animals as a way to create energy for humans is appallingly wasteful.
The second is that it is not clear - according to your approach - why humans should not be eaten.
The truth is that with a slight change the Nazis said about the Jews what you say about the animals.
I will also add that by not adopting vegetarianism for any reason you end up harming humans in any case (due to the problem of inefficiency).
It's fine, eat grass all day and then digest it.
Although turtles live a lot, but what is slow...
One of the best ways to get energy is meat.
There is no substitute for it. This is the nature of the world and also one of its pleasures
So why deny it?
So leave you from being a beautiful soul is just as extreme.
You can only eat what you have grown.
And there is no moral problem here at all.
Man is allowed from the animal...this does not mean that one should abuse or torment or exploit.
And let's just remember that nature is much more cruel in this.
A:
You took the words out of my mouth.
Vegetarianism is both a moral and an ecological choice.
To be honest…..
Veganism (avoiding food of animal origin) is an ecological choice.
The waste that the meat industry creates (in terms of land and more importantly - animal feed) is tens of times more enormous than the "waste" that the vegan food industry creates.
When Denmark was under siege and on the brink of starvation in World War 1, during the war they made this transformation from a wasteful and murderous food industry to a vegan food industry, and on top of that the mortality decreased (in one year!!) by 18 percent (!!!!!!!) from a state of starvation A state of abundance.
Regarding response number 6,
You B-E-C-M-K are creating the existing situation because only for the sake of the consumer, the one ordering the murder, what is being done is being done.
You don't think the fishermen fish for fun do they?
It's just like murder for hire, you pay a business to kill innocent creatures.
How are you different from any other person who hired murder?
http://www.free.org.il
Straw man, one of the most important green reforms needed is to reduce the birthrate. Women's education is an effective means of achieving this goal.
#6
So will the cows say about it?
Oleksya is growing, the world is eroding. All puns are really useless.
With the birth rate continuing as it is the earth will not hold the human race and someone will have to die so that someone else can live (and it is no big secret that the tribes in Africa will not be the ones to live). All the green reforms only push the moment when we cross the threshold, they do not prevent it. Unless someone manages to find a magic solution.
So if you want to help nature, you can reduce here and reduce there, but in the end the thing that will determine the fate of nature is the amount of humans in the Earth. Do you want to help? Don't have children... But who can really demand such a thing? Maybe in China.
Too pessimistic for my taste: but that's what logic tells me.
"Millions of fish and water creatures" all the fishermen of all kinds do not notice that they are actually the main causes of the holocaust of fish, I admit guilt and eat fish but I am not the one who kills them, I am not the one who makes them a holocaust, I am not the one who fishes them dead or alive, and I am not The one that sticks a hook in their brain to get them out of the water in order to sell them for NIS 70 to a person who will be satisfied with it for a few hours. That's why I personally try to eat a little fish, we should all try and try not to eat fish at all. It's hard, but little by little, maybe we can save a whole life of millions of fish that die just, just, just
The title of the article was supposed to be: "Ghost Fisherman".
A distinction must be made between grown food and food from nature.
And as of today, all those who cry over meat and grind sushi are a bit hypocritical.
The sea is a huge resource but we are also consuming it.
Personally, I would ban a fisherman from the sea that was not raised by us.
to A
An example of human bullying, to be eaten by humans is a noble goal and this is written by Adam
He engraved on his flag the saving of the world from that bullying.
It's better to die for a purpose than for nothing.
"And die... in vain"
Yes, and dying to be food is a very noble goal...