…and this is a 
The bluefin tuna is being grossly overfished, and is on its way to extinction. The reason? Fishermen can sell a single bluefin for $173,000. At first thought, you might feel like blaming the greedy fishermen (and I think there is some fault there), but here's an article that assigns the blame more appropriately: fault the rich assholes who regard paying an obscene price for a small bite to be part of the cachet of the fish.
"People believe in their hearts that a piece of raw fish is worth $600. And one of the main reasons that it's worth $600 is because you can't afford it and I can't, but they can. That makes it very special, and it makes people who eat it special.
"Any kind of luxury goods largely come from that sort of statement: I can afford it, and you can't. I'll drive a Maserati, even if I can't drive it faster than 65 miles per hour in most of the United States. I can afford a $280,000 car, and you're stuck with a Dodge Neon. I can fly private jet, drive a Maserati, do anything I bloody well please, including having a $600 piece of fish. And you can't."
And this is the brutal truth: bluefin, which beyond their intrinsic value as living creatures happen to be one of the universe's more majestic species, a Platonic ideal of oceanic speed and grace, aren't being extinguished by our greed. They're being sacrificed to our vanity, pretension, and ostentation — the most pathetic of our vices.
Keep that in mind, rich assholes of the world. When you throw down huge amounts of cash for luxury items, the rest of us aren't watching you admiringly. We think you're vain and pretentious and, well, revolting, in the most pathetic sense of the word.
Environment
Comments
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 24, 2009 9:26 AM
You smell that? Do you smell that? Class warfare, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of class warfare in the morning.
Posted by: JD | July 24, 2009 9:27 AM
Conspicuous seasumption.
Posted by: theareohbee | July 24, 2009 9:29 AM
word up
Posted by: Blenster | July 24, 2009 9:30 AM
I agree regarding the demand causing the price and the "problem" of luxury as a destructive force in rare and regular commodities (for example beaver hats which were "all the rage" for some time, causing much havoc as they were over-hunted) but I would like to point out, as a car-nut myself, that sometimes owning something like a Maserati, which is an artificially scare commodity, not a natural resource that can be over-hunted to extinction, can be enjoyed not for its top-speed (the factor most people seem to focus on when denigrating those who own or desire to own such a contraption) but for the elegance of the engineering and beauty of the design. I do not pretend this is true for all owners of expensive sports cars and will grant that a significant portion of them are purchased exactly for the reasons outlined above, however it's unfair to judge all owners of similar conveyances as rich assholes when in fact some of them are enthusiasts who enjoy owning something special, something beautifully crafted and engineered. To those of us who view these sorts of vehicles as art I think it's less "evil" (subjective though the term may be) to own or desire to own one.
That being said I'd far rather have a Nissan Skyline GTR than a Maserati. :-)
Posted by: blueelm | July 24, 2009 9:31 AM
At the risk of angering people here, I'll say what I find most sad about it all. Bluefin tastes like tuna. It tastes like fish. There's really nothing special there except for the idea of it, and the good feeling you get from contributing to the extinction of a species.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 24, 2009 9:33 AM
I love sushi just as much as the next urbanite, but...$600? For a bite of fish?
See, this is why I used to love reading The Good Life section of Newsweek: it proves that the wealthy are just as stupid as the rest of us.
A rich fool and his great gobs of money are soon parted, and the oceans are paying the price.
Posted by: Casper | July 24, 2009 9:37 AM
I think some of your anger is misdirected.
I'm all for protecting endangered species, don't get me wrong.
Factual error in your cited article: there is no $600 item on the menu at Masa, the restaurant referenced. A whole meal there, directed entirely by the chef, is $400. Still extreme, but that's the price for 10-15 small dishes. I've only paid it once, and no one offered me a $600 add-on option for bluefin. I believe a price of bluefin tuna sashimi is about $15, as opposed to $3-4 per piece for salmon at a high-quality New York sushi restaurant.
Here's the problem - the fish is endangered because of overfishing and because people think it is delicious, NOT because people who think it is delicious are willing to pay a lot. Let's say you got 90% of the "rich a-holes," an infantile generalization, to stop eating bluefin. This demand drops the imaginary price of $600 a piece down to $100 a piece. The fish would still be worth $50,000, and it would still be sought after in similar numbers. And as the price falls, more of the merely "well-off a-holes" will decide they can pay the imaginary price of $100 a piece, and we'll probably be fishing just as much bluefin. Plus, as I said, the actual price is $15, not $600 or $100 - and a lot of your readers are happy to spend $15 for something they really enjoy every once in a while, not just the a-holes.
I don't mind making fishing bluefin illegal at all - that's a legitimate policy. I don't eat it; I didn't eat swordfish for a decade after being told it was endangered (at $18 per POUND, mind you - it didn't take a super-luxury price to endanger the swordfish. But protecting endangered species is about getting hunting outlawed followed by effective poaching enforcement, not about telling people they're not allowed to pay a lot for legally obtained food they happen to enjoy.
Posted by: Thomas | July 24, 2009 9:39 AM
Unfortunately I suspect the rich assholes will enjoy your anger. It is just further proof that they are different, above the morals of the ordinary society.
Posted by: WarrenS | July 24, 2009 9:40 AM
The obvious thought is: why not just buy a couple of cans of Chicken of the Sea and sell them at a 10,000% markup to a bunch of clueless billionaires?
Posted by: saed | July 24, 2009 9:44 AM
I'm not an edjakated man. And I grajamakated in the bottom 20 percent of my high skool class.
I aint all that good at putting what I feel into words.
So, thanks man, for putting that into words. Cause thats how Ive felt for a long time now
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 24, 2009 9:45 AM
When I lived in Russia a couple years ago, one of the very noticeable things about living there was the disparity in wealth. The "New Russians" (as the people who became very wealthy after the fall of communism were known) often had far more money than they knew what to do with... there were stores that would sell $50 cotton T-shirts that would cost only a few roubles in the market that most Russians shopped at. The more expensive stuff was, the more in demand it seemed to become for the people who could afford it. It was really odd... Moscow could be one of the most expensive cities in the world, or incredibly cheap. It all depended on whether you shopped at the stores that catered to New Russians and foreigners, or the ones that catered to your average Russian.
Of course, Russia is not the only place like that... it's just it was very noticeable there.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 9:50 AM
I basically agree with Casper. First of all, it doesn't cost nearly as much as the article is making it out to. Second of all, there are other reasons people might occasionally want to purchase luxury items other than for prestige. Certainly the latter happens way too often, but can you really say that every single thing you've ever bought has been the cheapest possible alternative? Probably not, because quality matters. If somebody thinks bluefin tuna tastes four times as good as yellowfin tuna (not 100x, as the article falsely implies), are you really going to say, "Well I can't taste the difference, therefore nobody can!"? Kinda comes off like the Argument from Design -- I can't imagine how it could happen, so it must be that goddidit!
Should people abstain from bluefin tuna because of the problem of overfishing? Probably. But really -- you're pitching that the real reason they should abstain is because you can't understand why somebody would pay more money for something they think tastes better, when you don't see the difference? Puh-leez...
(Disclaimer: I've never had bluefin, so I'm not making a claim that it is that much better. That said, it's not difficult to detect a quality difference in the types of tuna I have had...)
Posted by: Jimbo | July 24, 2009 9:51 AM
PZ
I agree with you but it gets worse. I would suggest that killing animals to make your pecker hard or ward off evil spirits is WAY worse than killing rare tuna for food (whatever the economics). Killing rhinos, tigers, bears (for gallbladders), primates, etc is a tragedy beyong belief. It's not arrogance, it's abject stupidity.
Posted by: Nichole | July 24, 2009 9:51 AM
It's too bad that asking consumers as a whole to boycott the fish wouldn't work. People would eat it to spite those PETA assholes, or whatever. And it's too bad that no one's in charge of regulating the whole ocean, and controlling the overfishing that's being done in the Mediterranean.
Too bad if you're a blue fin, anyway. They are awfully pretty. So are yellow fin.
People will pay $2,000 - $3,000 for a rare piece of crap atari game in the original packaging. People pay thousands for diamonds. It's sad that we consider living creatures things, and want to collect them in our bellies to show off...
Posted by: daveau
|
July 24, 2009 9:52 AM
B..b..but that's the basis of our whole economy!
I wonder how many rich assholes read Pharyngula? Or have it read to them? Or have it summarized for them?
Posted by: MadScientist | July 24, 2009 9:55 AM
It's not only the bluefin - the oceans of the world are being decimated. The infamous sturgeon (especially the species prized for caviar) is being driven to extinction not only by fishing but by the disappearance of the Aral sea.
I only ate bluefin because it's what bit my line. I was actually hoping for yellowfin which has a more delicate flavor. I just happened to be in a place where the bluefin outnumbered the yellow and I love both fishes. :)
Rich assholes can be very destructive; there's quite a market in stolen artwork. Maybe 15 years ago in Australia someone blasted out a section of rock with ancient paintings on it and hauled it off (presumably via helicopter). Elsewhere on the planet entire altars are stolen from old churches - these are monstrous things which need to be reinstalled in large rooms with very high ceilings and yet they vanish overnight (or at least that's the impression that the news articles with to give the reader). Despite that, since they are vastly outnumbered, ordinary people on a whole do a lot more damage to the planet even though rich assholes have a higher per capita damage.
Posted by: Francesco Orsenigo | July 24, 2009 9:58 AM
No, we drool and envy them, and desire we'd be like them, able to rub our wealth in the face of the lesser masses.
Isn't this the American Dream?
Posted by: mumblefuzz | July 24, 2009 9:59 AM
PZ, You're an athiest AND a Marxist?
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 24, 2009 10:00 AM
Nevertheless, I believe that the free market will solve this problem somehow.
SARCASM
Posted by: Andrew C | July 24, 2009 10:02 AM
Yeah, like others have said, those prices are waaay off. And what about the myriad of relatively cheap fish that are in the same boat as the Tuna (heh, boat). The sorry state of all fish stocks lies at the feet of the fishing industry which continues to exploit a resource they know is disappearing, and governments who refuse to do anything about it. Recommended reading: The Empty Ocean by Richard Ellis, or Song for the Blue Ocean by Carl Safina.
Posted by: rob | July 24, 2009 10:05 AM
protect the bluefin. put extreme limits on the harvest. that way the fishermen can make more by charging $400,000 for a single fish and correspondingly the vain, pretentious jerks will pay even more and can feel vainer, pretentiouser and jerker.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2009 10:06 AM
I think you're balancing on a razor-thin edge of rationality here, PZ...
While I agree in principal with your point about over-pricing driving the demand for the bluefin to the point where it has become endangered, but you have to take care to make sure your statements are factually accurate, as Casper pointed out, or you come off sounding a bit hyperbolic.
And even beyond that, I'd feel better about agreeing with your closing sentiment if I had a better understanding of what you define as a "luxury item". It's a bit of a sweeping generalization, and I'm sure as hell not going to be called a "rich asshole" for paying a premium for quality... (although I'm willing to concede that you might be talking about only the most unnecessarily opulent of 'luxury items', in which case we are in agreement).
Posted by: rrt | July 24, 2009 10:07 AM
Yeah, I have to stand up for the car nut demographic too. Sometimes an expensive thing IS better. As soon a I can afford to, I will be adding a second car to my stable, and it will be a used Porsche Cayman, and it will probably be my daily driver. If you enjoy the actual act of driving, cars like that are a great pleasure. I don't care about price or necessarily even looks (thankfully, that's quite a purdy set of wheels). I just want to enjoy the act of getting from A to B that much more.
All that aside, I certainly agree that a great many cars are bought just to be conspicuous consumption, some Porsche buyers (and a LOT of Porsche options, guh...stay away from those!) are about that.
Posted by: Muffin | July 24, 2009 10:07 AM
Blaming those the buyers is definitely right, but the fishermen are ALSO to blame here. Otherwise, it's pretty much just the Nuremberg defense again - "I was only following orders".
(Orders. Get it? Gosh, I'm so clever sometimes. c.c)
Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2009 10:10 AM
This, however, is a testable hypothesis. If bluefin tuna really does taste better than yellowfin tuna, then the people who claim it does should be able to tell the difference in a blind taste test. I got a dollar that says they can't, at least, not to such a degree that warrants the disparity in price.
On another note, a link in the article says there are researchers in Australia that are having some luck breeding bluefin tuna in captivity. I have another dollar that says, if they are successful, at least some of the bluefin tuna eaters will claim to be able to taste the difference between bred tuna and wild tuna.
Posted by: Nichole | July 24, 2009 10:11 AM
And to all the people who keep saying it's cheaper than the article said: Some tuna are valued more than others. We get the crap stuff imported to the States. They keep the good ones in the markets in Japan, where people are crazy enough to pay that much for them. See here: http://tinyurl.com/msuwxl
I found this useful: http://tinyurl.com/22r7zn
It's a list of seafood, and it tells you where it's being fished sustainably and where it is not. As for blue fin: nowhere.
Posted by: Dave Blake | July 24, 2009 10:13 AM
Are there any good links out there on what fish to eat? I'm always concerned about this - I like to eat fish, but I want to make sure I'm doing it sustainably.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 10:15 AM
Rhino horns, elephant tusks, ginseng, tuna, grasslands destroyed for McCows - whatever.
Yes, some of this stuff is bought and paid for by the wealthy but often, in spite of your populist posturing, it's "wannabes" just as much as it is the wealthy. A lot of the people who engage in conspicuous consumption (think: kwakiutl potlatch) are consuming above their pay grade, as it were. The biggest and most profligate conspicuous consumers I've seen are the upwardly mobile middle class; even if you wanted to assume that the rich are 100% horrible - there just aren't enough of them to do as much damage.
Railing about conspicuous consumption makes some sense but simply assuming all the rich are assholes is just as much irrational prejudice as assuming all the poor are shiftless and lazy.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 24, 2009 10:16 AM
#19 Rey Fox,
Yes, the free market will fix it. The invisible clenched fist of the market *always* fixes it.
In this case, the bluefin (and salmon and sturgeon and whale) will be fished/hunted out of existence, and there will be no more market. So people *will* stop eating endangered species.
When those species are gone.
(Yes, I know salmon are not endangered. Yet.)
The free market always works out. It just doesn't always work out the way you want it.
Posted by: raven | July 24, 2009 10:18 AM
I read that long ago and decided to raise bleufin tuna in my backyard. One 600 lb fish would yield a decent profit. Forget cattle at a few hundred bucks a head.
Of course, it wasn't feasible. But the Japanese are trying to figure out how to raise them in net pens. It has turned out to be amazingly difficult. They can capture juveniles and raise them but can't get a closed reproductive loop very easily.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2009 10:18 AM
Just to clarify for Casper (who's post I agree with to a large extent) et al...
In PZ's defense, and temper my own comment a bit at #22, nowhere in his post does he make the claim that a bite of bluefin tuna costs $600... he merely quotes an article where that statement is made.
So is that fact is inaccurate, blame the writer at hive mind.
Posted by: Dire Lobo | July 24, 2009 10:18 AM
Agree 100% with you PZ, except about the cars. Is this a tend in the comments section today? I would never eat bluefish tuna (though I do eat other varieties, especially yellowfin which I catch myself occasionally) or other exotic, endangered animals - YUK!
But the Masserati? Were I to find myself so well endowed to be able to afford one, there is no question I would quickly acquire a stable of auto-exotica - one Masserati, a Ferrari, an Austin Martin, a DB9, a split rear window '62 vette, etc., etc. I can dream can't I? What's the harm?
Anyway, agree about the ostentatious consumption, esp. with regards to endangered animals. Terribly anti-social behaviour.
Posted by: apthorp
|
July 24, 2009 10:19 AM
We think you're vain and pretentious and, well, revolting, in the most pathetic sense of the word.
Like the vain, revolting ass holes give a shit. (that's how useless the are in case you missed the image :)
The competition is with the competition, not us little people who give them all the cash to screw us over.
Posted by: ZK
|
July 24, 2009 10:20 AM
@1 that's not class war. Social class and money are not so well connected as you appear to believe. I'm pretty much flat broke, but I'd bet that I outclass many wealthy football players, rap stars, and the like.
So there.
ZK
Posted by: hfs | July 24, 2009 10:21 AM
I like this blog, but outbursts such as this are ill-informed as to the issues and do you no credit.
First, bluefin toro tastes *really good* - it is noticeably superior to other sushi. And yes, I'm confident most people could tell the difference in a blind taste test. It's a legitimate luxury good, and luxury goods are a *good* thing, unless you really are some kind of crazy class warrior, and resent people who have more than you for that reason alone. As a poster above noted, it's also 3-5x the cost of normal sushi, not 50x which is a gross exaggeration. Even on a modest academic salary one could afford it now and then.
The root of the overfishing problem is a "tragedy of the commons" problem: no one owns the fish stocks, so no one has any incentive to preserve them. You can try to solve this two ways: make fish stocks private property or pass laws forbidding fishing, and vigorously (and expensively) enforce them. Both approaches have drawbacks, but complaining about rich people really isn't a useful contribution to the debate.
Posted by: Casper | July 24, 2009 10:21 AM
Nichole -
Your own first link contains a reference to an "extreme" price for bluefin at $22 a piece. Your link supports the assertion by myself and others that the price is $15 a piece in New York (the most expensive sushi restaurant in New York is not importing "crap stuff"), by saying that an extreme price in sushi-Crazy Tokyo is $22 a piece. And both data points make the $600 price cited by PZ and the article he linked to look completely ridiculous.
Your other link about where certain fish are being fished sustainably looks like a very worthwhile resource, and people should take a look. Good support for encouraging others not to indulge in eating bluefin unless/until the overfishing can be resolved.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 10:22 AM
It would indeed be interesting to test this. I can tell you one thing, if you think for a minute that I can't tell the difference in a blind taste test between this and this... well, wanna but me a bottle of Woodford Reserve? ;p Granted, the price difference there is only about 2x... But you get my point.
I would say mostly at the feet of the governments who refuse to do anything about it. Blaming a corporation for doing a perfectly legal thing to increase profits is like blaming a wolf for killing a cute little bunny. It's what corporations are designed to do. Careful government regulation can potentially harness these untiring profit-hunting machines for good, but if you let a very bad yet very profitable thing continue to be legal, what do you expect?
(Yes, we can and should blame the individuals running these corporations, but that's not ultimately going to be hugely productive, because there will always be a ready supply of people willing to steer a corporation towards maximum short-term profit. The only productive remedies are regulation, and to a lesser extent consumer education -- though the latter can only go so far.)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 10:22 AM
tsg writes:
If bluefin tuna really does taste better than yellowfin tuna, then the people who claim it does should be able to tell the difference in a blind taste test. I got a dollar that says they can't, at least, not to such a degree that warrants the disparity in price.
If you provide the tuna, I'd be happy to put up my $1 against yours in a taste test. 'Cuz if you lose, I win and if I lose, I win. Mmmmmmmm toro!
(Yes: different types of tuna are quite distinct. The taste/consistency difference between blue fin and albacore is as large as the difference between pork and beef)
Posted by: John | July 24, 2009 10:22 AM
@27
http://www.blueocean.org/seafood/seafood-guide
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx
I also suggest reading Bottomfeeder by Taras Gresco.
Posted by: ron | July 24, 2009 10:23 AM
just like real blame can be assigned to meat eaters for all the destruction our factory farms cause to the environment and our planet's climate.
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 24, 2009 10:27 AM
Unthinking consumption is a big problem among all classes, and the people who aren’t wealthy contribute to the stress on the planet, too. If it’s not rich people indulging in conspicuous consumption, it’s the “lower classes” eating bad food because commercials tell them to—and becoming fatter, slower, and dumber as a result. Slow, dumb people tend to make bad decisions. Diabetes is projected to become epidemic because our kids are so fat.
If things keep going the way they are, the main of the population—of the U.S., at least—is going to become as mentally challenged as the typical Fox News viewer, and then we’re going to be in a world of hurt. We’re already dangerously close.
Posted by: blueelm | July 24, 2009 10:31 AM
It does taste good :P However I have to wonder if it is treated better, better cut, better prepared etc. I'm not convinced that the fish inherently tastes better. I like other fish just as much.
In my experience it gets eaten because people like it and think it tastes good, not because they think being able to buy it makes them better people than those who can't. The question I guess then is does it taste better or not? If not, then destroying the mystique of it would help. However, if it does taste better to some people, then the drop in price from losing it's glamour appeal will just make more people able to buy it.
I'm not sure if the high price doesn't help the fish some what though. If you made it so expensive the average high-end sushi restaraunt couldn't even carry it then it would probably be more helpful to the fish population. Besides, some people are alwasy going to be willing to pay more than you would for something.
Posted by: SteveM | July 24, 2009 10:32 AM
The fishermen don't set the price, the fish are sold at auction and it seems those >$100k per fish prices are not common. And it seems like there are already pretty restrictive conditions on the harvest in terms of season, place, and method, which is part of what makes bluefin so expensive.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 10:33 AM
just like real blame can be assigned to meat eaters for all the destruction our factory farms cause to the environment and our planet's climate.
(eyeroll) Isn't playing blame-games great fun? We could just as easily blame overpopulation! Or the catholic church for encouraging overpopulation! Or ... whatever. There's enough blame to go around that it's rather pointless.
As someone mentioned above, the "free market" will eventually self-regulate. I think it was Malthus said some smart stuff about that.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 24, 2009 10:39 AM
"But the Masserati? Were I to find myself so well endowed to be able to afford one, there is no question I would quickly acquire a stable of auto-exotica - one Masserati, a Ferrari, an Austin Martin, a DB9, a split rear window '62 vette, etc., etc. I can dream can't I? What's the harm?"
I thought that in order to desire such things you have to be NOT well endowed.
Hummer drivers enjoy their hummers. That doesn't mean they aren't assholes for feeling they have to drive those things to work carrying their own selfish asses alone.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 10:43 AM
James Sweet writes:
I would say mostly at the feet of the governments who refuse to do anything about it. Blaming a corporation for doing a perfectly legal thing to increase profits is like blaming a wolf for killing a cute little bunny. It's what corporations are designed to do.
Governments aren't here to help, any more than corporations are. Indeed, it seems that mostly governments are more concerned with preparing to fight other governments and controlling "their" people, than actually doing anything useful. Unlike corporations, which (in theory) try to be profitable, governments are some of the most destructive and profligate wasters on earth. Do you even want to contemplate the ecological damage caused by wars and arms races? And, have you ever noticed how generally the power elite are taken pretty good care of, even in the cheesiest 3rd world nations?
Looking to "governments" to help is naivete of the finest sort. No more than the corporations, they do not exist to help: they exist to perpetuate themselves in the service of their leaders. They may be the only game in town, but it's because they made sure that it's that way.
I like your bunny and wolf analogy: if the wolf's a government it'd tax the bunny for the "privilege" of being eaten, tell the bunny "it's for your own good!" and then waste most of the meat.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 24, 2009 10:47 AM
Yeah, Marcus... and corporations have absolutely NOTHING to do with wars and arms races.
Posted by: stogoe | July 24, 2009 10:48 AM
There has always been class warfare. Most of the time it's the rich waging war on the poor, but very rarely and for brief moments it has gone the other way. The system weans us on scary stories of the poor rising up and destroying things, reassuring us that someday we'll be on top with all out hard work and won't it just be horrendous to have the poor attacking us then? Never telling us the awful truth: We are not rich and we never will be. The system is rigged to keep those who are already on top on top and everyone else fighting against each other instead of their common foe.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 10:49 AM
This is a well-known phenomenon with wine, as it turns out... consumer perception of quality is influenced immensely by price. That doesn't mean that, say, a $100 bottle of wine isn't almost certainly better than a $5 bottle of wine. But in the $10-20 range, there is almost no correlation between price and quality. In fact, there are even some $5 wines that are better than some $20-25 wines. (It's rare -- usually wines under $8-10 are not so great, but there are winners now and then)
And you raise some interesting points about the extent to which the fish is being taken care of being a factor.
The second sentence is an important distinction here. In theory, I would not fault someone with the means and the desire who was really into Hummers and wanted to buy one for occasional recreational usage. I don't think I could ever accept a justification for commuting in a Hummer, though.
Luxury items aren't inherently bad. But the way they are used can be.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 10:50 AM
Jafafa Hots writes:
Yeah, Marcus... and corporations have absolutely NOTHING to do with wars and arms races.
Get back to me when AT&T declares war on Verizon, OK?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 10:53 AM
That person was pointing out that the market will self-regulate when there is no longer any blue-fin tuna in the sea. No tuna means no market.
Personally I would like to not see blue-fin tuna going extinct.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 24, 2009 10:54 AM
There's tuna and then there's tuna.
There's Hummers and then there's Hummers.
There's assholes and then there's assholes.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 24, 2009 10:58 AM
It's more like Haliburton and Blackwater profiting enormously from the Iraq war.
Posted by: Art | July 24, 2009 11:01 AM
In the 1969 movie "The Magic Christian" Youngman Grand, played by Ringo Starr, and adopted to billionaire Sir Guy Grand, played by Peter Sellers, goes to an auction:
"At Sotheby's art auction house, it is proudly claimed that an original Rembrandt portrait might fetch £10,000, yet to director Mr. Dougdale's (John Cleese) astonishment, Grand makes a final offer of £30,000 for it ('Thirty - thousand - pounds? Shit! I beg your pardon, I do beg your pardon!') and having bought it, proceeds, in front of a deeply shocked Dougdale, to cut with his scissors the portrait's nose from the canvas."
From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Christian_(film)
I wouldn't characterize the movie as great, the humor and settings are dated, the plot and script is middling, but it does have a few memorable scenes and fans of music from the period will like score.
The movie is an exploration of greed, vanity and the power of money by way of increasingly elaborate and expensive, often degrading, pranks.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 24, 2009 11:05 AM
"There's assholes and then there's assholes."
Yes Sven, but some of us assholes aren't assholes just for the sake of being assholes... some of us assholes are assholes because we truly ENJOY being assholes - therefore its unfair to criticize us for it.
Posted by: Chris Lamb | July 24, 2009 11:06 AM
$173,000!?!?!?!
Jebus, I can't blame the fishermen, I'd wipe the last pair of Dodo's all over again for that!
Posted by: Randy | July 24, 2009 11:11 AM
I think I mostly agree with the gist of the above comments; that there is not a single cause. It just makes me sad. All the things that have gone extinct or damn near it in the last couple of hundred years where we humans have exerted our 'dominance'. I am not suggesting we don't have a right to be here (this planet), but I would love to see us take a LOT better care of the joint. Not likely to happen. Whatever the reason we drive bluefin extict, rich assholes or not, it is not like we get a do-over on it. Really sad.
Posted by: JackC
|
July 24, 2009 11:12 AM
Anyone saying there isn't any difference in the taste of Bluefin and any other tuna probably also believe there is no difference in the taste of:
Bacon and turkey "bacon"
Aforementioned bourbons
Budweiser products and beer.
So - anyone buying a bottle of Cyr or Russian Standard Vodka should be chastised as an effete snob for not buying Popov?
Anyone buying a bottle of Ommegang, La Fin du Monde or other "premium" beer (though at least Arrogant Bastard is honest about itself!) should be looked down upon?
Well - count me at the bottom of that pit then - along with the RevBDC, Bill D. and I think quite a few other regulars.
Overfishing and conspicuous over-consumption is one thing. Quality is quite another.
JC
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 24, 2009 11:14 AM
At least governments are held somewhat accountable to the public. Corporations are only accountable to their share holders.
What you actually have in the United States is a government largely run by corporations. There's a myth that the US economy is a free market. However companies benefit greatly from corporate welfare and, as we've seen recently, from bailouts. At best, it's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 24, 2009 11:15 AM
AT&T has always been at war with Verizon
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 11:16 AM
Marcus Ranum writes:
Rather than take you point-for-point, I'd just like to ask what your suggestion is. If your suggestion is for individuals to do the right thing, well... good luck, even if you convince me, you've still got another six billion to go.
Posted by: william e emba | July 24, 2009 11:17 AM
Actually, most people cannot pass a blind taste test. You think you can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, but it's simply an illusion. In fact, something as simple as a "triangle taste test", where you are given two of A, one of B, and you are supposed to identify the odd item, is beyond most people.
Really, the reason the major players spend so much on marketing their products is because that is what they are really selling. It's a cognitive illusion that you prefer one product's qualia to another's. In fact, you almost certainly prefer the one's mental association to the others.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 24, 2009 11:18 AM
There is the same problem wrt Beluga caviar, the supposedly good stuff. It's driving the Sturgeon to extinction. It may not be pretty but sturgeons are an ancient lineage and it would be very sad and scientifically impoverishing if we lost them. Eating black caviar should be a wildlife crime as much as eating Bluefin tuna or sharkfin soup.
Roger Waters was wrong, we aren't Amusing ourselves To Death, we are amusing other species to death.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 11:20 AM
In further response to Marcus Ranum about the evil of government... Why do you think there exploitative child labor isn't prevalent in the United States anymore, the way it was a hundred or so years ago? Is it because all of those nice businessmen decided to do the right thing as individuals? Is it because the free market made it impossible?
I'm not going to rebut you point-of-point because I don't even disagree with about 50% of what you said. I'd just ask again: What's your suggestion? I really don't see any better method for large-scale problem management than doing it via government. That method is difficult and sloppy and slow, and goes backwards almost as often as it goes forwards... but anything else is wishful thinking.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 24, 2009 11:22 AM
I see what you did there...
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 11:22 AM
Coke vs. Pepsi, sure. Well, I suspect I might be able to tell, but probably not reliably.
I say again, though, if you think I can't tell the difference in a blind taste test between Jim Beam, at ~$17/bottle, vs. Woodford Reserve at ~$35/bottle, I don't know what to tell you -- except maybe, let's make this a real bet.
Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2009 11:24 AM
Yes, I don't doubt that there are people who can truly tell the difference and prefer one over the other. Someone had to be the first person to say "I'd rather have bluefin then yellowfin tuna, even if it costs more", otherwise there wouldn't be a demand for it. But I'm curious (and perhaps this was oversimplified in my original bet) how many people who are ordering the bluefin prefer it because it really does taste better to them and how many are simply ordering it because of a perceived higher quality due to the price.
As James Sweet said earlier, there is a perception among people buying wine that more expensive = better. It's not an entirely unreasonable perception: demand drives the price and if they can get $100 a bottle it's because people are willing to pay it. And if people are willing to pay it, it's not unreasonable to assume that it's because they prefer it, and if they prefer it, I might as well. Of course that isn't necessarily the case and a particular wine (or fish) might have it's price inflated based on a reputation that is no longer warranted, etc., etc., but people continue to pay the price because the price suggests it is better.
I used to work at a Porsche dealership. A few of the customers were willing to pay the high price for a Porsche because they preferred them. Most, however, bought them for the hood ornament.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 11:25 AM
I mean, wow. You are just insane. So everything is exactly the same as everything else?!?!? All preferences are due to marketing?!?!?!?!? Qualia are manufactured?!?!?!?!?!?!? That's fucking crazy!
Posted by: will | July 24, 2009 11:26 AM
PZ, do you really think the Filthy Rich care what an average joe like you thinks of them?
Posted by: corpus.callosum | July 24, 2009 11:28 AM
PZ - this post really tangles up environmentalism and anti-capitalism into an unproductive knot. As has already been said - shaming really rich people into foregoing this luxury just means the market shrinks, the product is devalued, the price comes down, another bracket of people needs to be shamed. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Seems to me like a good solution would simply be to allow the scarcity of a resource to dictate the price, so that as a commodity runs out its price will rise and progressively price people out. Isn't that what a free market is supposed to do?
I object to the sentiment that highly-priced goods are a symbol of vanity or a lack of compassion per se. For a lot of products price really IS a good indicator of quality, and connoisseurs really can see/feel/hear/taste a difference that the rest can't. Would you deny it to them merely because you can't appreciate it yourself?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 24, 2009 11:30 AM
Ha. I was thinking the exact same thing.
I don't even need to go Woodford. Try Makers or even Old Granddad vs. Beam.
And I've done the coke / pepsi blind test and succeeded.
As well as different wines within the same varietal and location.
But I was a chef for a long while so a large part of my job was knowing my tastebuds and knowing them well.
Count me in on that bet.
Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2009 11:30 AM
@58:
"Anyone saying X must also believe Y" when no one is saying X, and even if they are it doesn't mean they believe Y.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 11:31 AM
It's a cognitive illusion that you prefer PZ's website to this one. In fact, you almost certainly prefer the one's mental association to the other.
Nevermind that one of those websites contains nothing but bullshit... that's a cognitive illusion! It's all marketing! There is no truth, and all qualia are equal to all other qualia. Dog shit would taste just as good as freshly grown vegetables, if it weren't for Big Sustainable Farming and their smear (hah) campaign against canine feces...
Posted by: David Utidjian | July 24, 2009 11:32 AM
Good timing PZ. There was an excellent Nature program on the telly last night: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/?s=superfish
it discusses the biology and lifestyle of the "superfishes" (sail fish and sword fish) and how little we know about them. Also discusses the problem of gross overfishing of all species. Apparently the overfishing is driven not only by the luxury market but also by animal feed, pet food, and fertilizer markets.
As far as the super rich and their baubles... I could care less if they want to spend extreme prices on items that are artificially rare; such as Maseratis, or Rolls Royces, or fancy watches. It doesn't consume much more in resources than a Dodge Neon or two.
If they were to buy 28 Dodge Neons instead of the single Maserati that would be much more of a problem as far as impact on resources are concerned.
The destruction of a rare species though is another matter entirely.
-DU-
Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2009 11:33 AM
It isn't merely about not being able to appreciate it. It's about driving the species to extinction.
Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2009 11:36 AM
I can, and have.
Posted by: Casper | July 24, 2009 11:36 AM
Let's return to the scientific method.
The article makes the following argument.
1) Bluefin tuna are overfished. This is a serious problem.
Response: Stipulated.
2) Some people are paying $600 per piece for bluefin.
Response: Demonstrably false. Therefore, we should be skeptical about any conclusions based on this faulty data point.
3) People paying $600 a piece for bluefin are "vain ... revolting ... pretentious ... pathetic."
Response: The non-existent need no defense.
4) People eating bluefin tuna deserve the blame for its endangerment.
Response: This has merit, but it is not driven by the non-existent price of $600. The problem is that bluefin is delicious, and many people happily pay $15-22 per piece for it. However, even if we got all the "rich a-holes" to stop eating it, and the price fell to $8-10 a piece, we would still have the problem of middle class a-holes eating it. The answer is to advocate that people not eat bluefin, not to demonize people who like to pay a lot for food with cartoonish and false examples of conspicuous consumption.
Many of the arguments in this thread have completely ignored the facts.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 11:37 AM
I actually prefer Woodford to Maker's. Go figure.
My favorite is probably either Baker's or Booker's, but the price differential is too much to lure me away from Woodford as the ol' standby. For me, Woodford strikes an unbeatable balance between price and quality.
BTW, speaking of price vs. quality in liquor, you cannot beat Svedka on that front. Sure, the super-premiums are noticeably better... but at $12-15/bottle, the quality is surprising.
I was going to further the challenge and say, "Line up ten Scotches that cost over $50 and ten Scotches that cost under $30, and I bet I don't miss a single one." However, there is a brand of "cheap" single malt Scotch (the name escapes me... McLelland's, maybe?) that runs about $25/bottle, that might fool me on a bad day. Maybe.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | July 24, 2009 11:38 AM
Well governments are damn well supposed to be. And guess who can largely be blamed for there being any truth in Ranum's claim? Gosh, people who believe that governments aren't here to help...Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 11:39 AM
Hmmm, I believe I may have mis-parsed you. To clarify why I responded the way I did, 'round these parts Woodford is a little cheaper than Maker's. Not by much, but a little.
I keep meaning to try Old Granddad cuz I've heard nothing but good things...
Posted by: Mu | July 24, 2009 11:41 AM
The issue with blue fin tuna is that it's a deep water species, off the continental shelf where you usually have some form of national influence. In truly international waters, you need the catching and the importing nation to restrict the fishing, there's no international body that can just ban the fishing and enforce it. And we all know how well the Japanese react to international bans.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 11:43 AM
We're catching bluefin For Science(TM)!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 11:46 AM
You missed out a bit.
When you claim something is demonstrably false you are supposed to then demonstrate it.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 11:47 AM
Feynmaniac writes:
At least governments are held somewhat accountable to the public.
What fantasy world do you come from? In most of the world trying to hold your government accountable gets you dead or in a small room for a long time.
In the US, you can sue corporations. People sometimes do it, and win. People sometimes sue the government and win. And, then, other times you get a corrupt interaction like the government ordering AT&T to illegally wiretap US citizens then retroactively shielding the company from lawsuits once it hit the news. Nice. The government is beholden to the people, but as The Council of 200 knew, most people will fall for the appearance of representative government over the reality, any day.
I think the ultimate point is that we both think government and industry are so entwined that they're really just appendages of eachother - like some monstrously powerful beast that evolved with a multitude of stupid, schizophrenic brains. Don't look to church, state, or industry for solutions to global problems. Don't look to "the workers" either because - as we've seen - once most people line their pockets enough it's "hey! bring me a Hummer full of strippers, bluefin sushi, and champagne!"
It's more like Haliburton and Blackwater profiting enormously from the Iraq war.
Yep. And Krupp and Sheffield had a lot to do with the outbreak of WWI, etc, etc. There's definitely a connection - and the power elites usually have a revolving door between them.
Matt Penfold writes:
That person was pointing out that the market will self-regulate when there is no longer any blue-fin tuna in the sea. No tuna means no market.
I know. Hence my reference to Malthus. On the bright side, if nobody has anything, it's very egalitarian.
Posted by: protocol | July 24, 2009 11:47 AM
People commenting here apparently have not heard of Veblen goods.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Posted by: No BS | July 24, 2009 11:49 AM
Also the Japanese kill dolphins because they compete with thier tuna fishing.
see;
www.thecovemovie.com
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 11:49 AM
To paraphrase Marcus Ranum in #84: "It's fucking hopeless, give up now."
Nice. Glad to see you are part of the solution. Oh no wait...
Posted by: Breakfast | July 24, 2009 11:50 AM
The fishers destroy tuna stocks for structural reasons; the rich consume competitively for structural reasons. Anger at one group is about as reasonable as anger at the other.
Posted by: Victor
|
July 24, 2009 11:53 AM
Casper is right in his arguments. If the Blue Fin is legitimately endangered, the the fishing of it needs stronger regulation or out right banning. It makes no difference if the end product is considered a delicacy for a few or a staple for a majority, over use is over use.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 24, 2009 11:54 AM
Look on the bright side-- we are producing a massive experiment in applied evolution!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22808526-30417,00.html
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=overfishing+fish+evolution&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=DbxGvy-gOdw
My tip for the future? Learn to like jellyfish.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 11:56 AM
James Sweet writes:
I'd just ask again: What's your suggestion?
I don't have one. Why should I?
I'm completely content to let humanity go to hell in a handcart of its own devising, and take the planetary ecosystem along with it. It's not my problem.
One thing I personally did, to do 'my thing' to help reduce that likelihood by some tiny meaningless amount was deciding not to breed.
Why do you think there exploitative child labor isn't prevalent in the United States anymore, the way it was a hundred or so years ago?
Robotics. That and the fact that our nation has become so wealthy that we can have Indian and Chinese kids do the work instead of our own. Stop being so naive, would you?
Posted by: Michael Simpson | July 24, 2009 11:56 AM
The article was a piece of crap. PZ you should know better. The bluefin tuna that they were eating was the toro, or belly meat, which is fattier. All toro from all tuna species are more expensive. I eat bluefin tuna, though I would never spend $600 for any food or drink (wait a minute, I did spend $1200 for a rare bottle of 50 year old scotch, but that was once, and I still have 3/4 of the bottle). I eat toro, and my local sushi bar sells bluefin toro sushi for about $20 for two pieces, substantially above the costs of about $5.00 for two pieces of regular sushi. Maybe it's because local tuna fishermen sell their catch on the docks nearby, so there is less price pressure. I know Japanese brokers stand at the docks, buying up everything they can, but I don't think they're paying 6 figures for anything yet.
I might stop eating bluefin tuna if I actually believed that the fishery was endangered. I stopped eating orange roughy and chilean seabass because I felt I was contributing to the decline of those species.
Yes our oceans are being screwed up. But worrying about the bluefin tuna, and blaming it on the rich is just crazy. How about writing about the menhaden fishing fleets that are decimating the primary foodstock for almost every Atlantic gamefish just to get omega 3 oils, which have very limited health benefits (another CAM belief that has unintended consequences). Or how about the amount of non-degradable plastics in the ocean. Or what about the destruction of deep-ocean species that have low population replacement.
And I find the anti-Japanese racist comments by some of you quite offensive. Japan is a strong member of almost all international commissions.
You know PZ Myers sometimes doesn't have his facts right. He's not a demigod.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 12:01 PM
Why are there a load of Americans here who the price they pay in the US for tuna is relevant to prices paid in Japan ?
Posted by: Casper | July 24, 2009 12:02 PM
@#83 Matt Penfold -
See posts, #7, links at #26 - by someone taking the other side of the argument, #36 for the proof. The inaccuracy of the $600 price in the original article has been pretty well established in this thread and a refutation has not even been attempted, to my recollection. That's why I did not re-cite the evidence, which I admit would have made my post stronger.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 12:03 PM
Can you provide an example ?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 12:03 PM
James Sweet writes:
To paraphrase Marcus Ranum in #84: "It's fucking hopeless, give up now."
If it was my problem; if I had kids or an ongoing interest in the future of mankind, then I suppose I'd give a shit.
Nice. Glad to see you are part of the solution. Oh no wait...
I'm not. Other than choosing not to breed (which took of my shoulders any weight of worrying about the welfare of my offspring) and trying not to do anything directly harmful - why should it be my problem? I'm doing what I can to make my own little corner of the planet clean and safe and the fact that others aren't taking care of their custodianship is quite outside my ability to change.
Not that it matters, I've preserved 200 acres of woodland up here, which was pretty seriously junked up with garbage. All the garbage is out and it's a wildlife refuge with hunting banned. I've made a nice home for a family of bobcat and some bears (although rednecks shot them last year) and a lot of birds and other squishies.
Yes, if you put me in charge of a larger area, I'd do likewise - because then it would be my problem. Make me planetary overlord and I'd commit to eradicating 1/2 of the human population every year for as long as I was in power. How's that?
Posted by: JackC
|
July 24, 2009 12:06 PM
I am not a bourbon snob - much - but I AM originally from KY (Louisville). This by way of moderate disclaimer.
I have had Old Grand dad in the cabinet and rather enjoy it. I now have Makers and Beam. Can't tolerate the Beam - it goes in coffee. I have also had W. L. Weller (several varieties) and I think they all stand up well to OG. I am not going to say any one is superb, cause I just don't have the experience on the palate.
OG is inexpensive enough to not make me feel like I have to be careful with it. Go for it. Let us know what you think!
Rev BDC, would you be averse to a F2F when I pass through the Carolinas late August? Our tastes seem to be mighty similar ;-)
JC
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 12:07 PM
A good number of those examples are for blue-fin tuna in the US, so must be disregarded as the high prices paid for blue-fin are not paid in the US.
The $400 as opposed to $600 difference is not that great. Can I see you working as regards fluctuating exchange rates please. Japanese restaurants will charge in yen, not dollars.
Posted by: Spiv | July 24, 2009 12:12 PM
Ok, the maserati in particular was a bad example, but there are plenty of reasons why some of us (obviously I'm a dolt who spends too much money on cars) to spend too much money on cars.
Note also I drive a sh'ty honda accord to and from work every day. It gets a solid 30mpg and sips the cheap (easy to process) gas. It's also boring, and terrible, and no fun at all to work on. Which is why I have a real weekend/night toy to mess around in that's fun, looks nice, much more comfortable, and uses about 6 left puppy eyes per mile for fuel. The right eye is unsuitable and must be discarded in wooden crates made from rare rainforest pines along with the rest of the leftover puppies.
Slight hyperbole, especially at 22mpg. But you get the idea. I have both, which is my crappy attempt at an environmental concession for my automotive obsession.
Someone else mentioned diamonds: which is one of the biggest scams possible. It turns out diamonds are not particularly rare, and are certainly another item where "prestige" dictates the price. The saddest part is the abuse and killing in 3rd world countries that has been done in the name of upholding this scam.
Posted by: Lynna | July 24, 2009 12:13 PM
Marcus Ranum brings to mind an old-fashioned word, misanthrope. I think we should put him in a Dickens novel.
Posted by: Casper | July 24, 2009 12:15 PM
@#98 Matt Penfold
A number of the examples are for the US - but the first link for #26 is for the most expensive sushi restaurant in Tokyo. It cites $22 a piece.
The $400 versus $600 example is very great, when:
$400 refers to a 10-15 course tasting menu at the most expensive sushi restaurant in New York, each including at least one piece of sushi/sashimi/other, frequently including two pieces of bluefin.
$600 is cited as the price for a single piece of bluefin.
These differentials are way beyond exchange rates, or the differences in prices from New York and Tokyo. They're just wrong.
Your post just contained multiple errors of comprehension; please stop criticizing everyone else's posts unless you're actually engaging the arguments.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 12:16 PM
Marcus Ranum suggests that robotics appeared in the early 20th century, and then goes on shortly afterwards to call me naive. Classic!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 12:16 PM
And I find the anti-Japanese racist comments by some of you quite offensive.
I see some anti-Japanese comments, but I don't see any that are racist. I don't think anyone here is saying that the Japanese do what they are doing because of their Japanese ethnicity; we all recognize it's a cultural phenomenon.
Culture != Race. More to the point, I suspect most of the readers of this list would agree that "race" is a meaningless concept.
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 12:18 PM
Matt Penfield,
As I read it, the $400 was for a tasting menu, which was said to be the most expensive thing on the menu at the restaurant in question. It wasn't $400 for a piece of bluefin sashimi.
Posted by: frog | July 24, 2009 12:19 PM
PZ: Keep that in mind, rich assholes of the world. When you throw down huge amounts of cash for luxury items, the rest of us aren't watching you admiringly. We think you're vain and pretentious and, well, revolting, in the most pathetic sense of the word.
And you think your rational, PZ. Just take a look around -- at least 90% of the "rest of us" admire and worship the monkey with the shiniest rock. Turn on a TV -- look at the highways -- open up a magazine -- check out the net.
A very few of the "rest of us" consider the rich assholes as monsters eating the seed-corn. Most of "us" love the mana of the priests with the rare feathered headress (or the expensive sunglasses and maserati).
Human beings are, all in all, stupid. We're dominated by primitive drives, among which are following the shiniest peacock feathers.
(And preview doesn't work -- the cgi apparently is missing)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 12:21 PM
Casper,
You do seem to have a point.
I still want to see you exchange rate workings. You imply you have done them, so produce them.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 12:22 PM
Yep. I wouldn't have bothered with my comment in #102 if I had read his comment in #96 first. I think Marcus has just opted out of this discussion entirely.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 12:23 PM
Well I know I can trust you to be accurate, given you cannot even spell my name correctly. However I want the yen price, not dollar price. Japan uses the yen, not dollar you know.
Posted by: Will | July 24, 2009 12:26 PM
ZK | July 24, 2009 10:20 AMI'm wonder if you think you "outclass" people in these professions because they're stereotypically black professions. Hell, most American politicians aren't very classy either; what with all the affairs, bathroom stall anthics and other assorted indiscretions.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 24, 2009 12:26 PM
Reminds me Marlon Brando movie "The Freshman" where people gathered to eat near-extinct animals (in this case, a supposed komodo monitor lizard). To the extent that anyone would ever do such a thing--regardless of each specific in this case--you bet such people are a-holes. And I bet they laugh their asses off at the feeble efforts of hoi polloi to follow the better seafood choices suggested by the likes of fishless ocean documentary "The End of the Line," when they help drive things to extinction with pathological impunity. I wonder if the rich, being rare and well-fed, are delicious?
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 12:27 PM
Nice. Ad-hom me when post #26 shows you to be acting like a moron even before you bothered asking your question. A high end Tokyo restaurant is cited as charging $22 for a piece of bluefin (that's about 2,000 yen). Do you demand all answers be in the metric system before they're considered proper? Nitpicking is a good way to show you can't defend your statements.
Posted by: Casper | July 24, 2009 12:27 PM
@#106 Matt Penfold -
No, I did not claim to have done exchange rate workings. I provide dollar amounts, and pointed to an article that did the exchange rate calculation within it. You made unsupported statements that the prices were greatly different for the same fish in Tokyo and New York.
Please stop being argumentative.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 12:29 PM
James Sweet writes:
Marcus Ranum suggests that robotics appeared in the early 20th century, and then goes on shortly afterwards to call me naive. Classic!
You asked "Why do you think there exploitative child labor isn't prevalent in the United States anymore"
I take that to mean now.
And "the way it was a hundred or so years ago?"
I understand a transition doesn't happen instantly. I'm also not going to argue whether an automated bottle-capping machine is a robot or not just because it works on computers instead of cams and gears. But if you want to nitpick, say "industrial automation" instead.
Consider that sweatshops materialize where manual labor is cheap and there isn't a machine that can do it tirelessly 24/7. Most of US industry for the last 100 years has been moving very quickly to mechanization. Lots of jobs that used to be done by cheap labor are now gone; there's no longer a need for kids to run around changing bobbins in mills because the mills are either gone or completely mechanized. Go on youtube and watch the cool-ass video Intel published a few years ago about the inside of a chip fab plant. "Look ma, no hands!" means no need for cheap labor. Then go to WAL-MART and look at every cheap piece of plastic stuff that had to be hand-painted or hand-assembled and see where it was made.
If you're so naive that you believe we stopped using child workers because we're nice, I've got a bridge in the New York area with a really great view, slightly used, I'll let you have for a good price.
then goes on shortly afterwards to call me naive. Classic!
I slapped you for playing the fool and I guess the best you could do is find the one part of my comment you could nitpick. That's pathetic.
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 12:33 PM
Incidentally, to put some perspective on the high cost of a single bluefin tuna that gets cited. $173,000 was the price paid in 2001 for the first fish auction of the year, and it was an anomaly. 2009 saw the first tuna bought for $108,000, which was the highest price seen since 2001.
These prices are largely used by the company at the first fish auction of the year as a promotion -- they hit the headlines and people flock to their restaurant for the novelty. It doesn't reflect any sort of market price for the fish. A factoid regarding this year's co-winner (they bid together and split the fish):
Just thought I would try to inject a little rationality, as it's painful watching freethinkers fall for the "OMG BIG NUMBERS" argumentation style. There seems to be an issue with sustainable bluefin farming. Something should be done. Running around screaming about big numbers is not persuasive to anyone who doesn't buy into the hysteria.
Posted by: william e emba | July 24, 2009 12:34 PM
To James Sweet (or is that James Bitter, I can't tell):
Go crawl in some creationist hole and don't come back. You seem to think that although you personally haven't studied a subject, you have loads of common sense to back you up, and can say anything you like and it's the troof!
Sorry to pop your idiot bubble, but the studies have been done. (Of course they have been, there's a lot of money at stake, sheesh.) Most people are really really terrible at objectively distinguishing between minor taste gradations but very very good at distinguishing the bottles they come in. Coke and Pepsi know this, and spend their money accordingly. You, apparently do not.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 12:35 PM
Lynna writes:
Marcus Ranum brings to mind an old-fashioned word, misanthrope.
I self-describe as one. What's your point?
James Sweet writes:
I think Marcus has just opted out of this discussion entirely.
That's for me to decide, don't you think? Or is that just wishful thinking on your part? If I kept saying the dumb stuff you say and Marcus kept hauling me up short on it, I guess I'd wish him out of the discussion, too.
Posted by: Strangel
|
July 24, 2009 12:38 PM
Sounds like objectivism.... hmmm.
Posted by: Klokwurk
|
July 24, 2009 12:38 PM
This might be where the $600 number comes from:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/01/05/the-100000-tuna-fish/
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 24, 2009 12:40 PM
Given that the price has halved, wouldn't you expect that fishermen would be less inclined to fish bluefin?
Posted by: william e emba | July 24, 2009 12:40 PM
So what?Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | July 24, 2009 12:41 PM
It has happened that one has an emotional reaction to a situation one finds egregious, where one's emotion over-powers one's mastery of the facts. Sometimes when you are pissed off you don't get everything right. So what? Sometimes you just gotta let people know you are pissed off, and get the facts right later.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 12:42 PM
Look, you cannot get someone's name right when it is right in front of you. That is not an ad-hominen attack, it is pointing out that you were not accurate. I note you do not have the class to admit your error.
I do expect prices to be given in the currency of the country being discussed, yes. Should the author want to provide equivalents they can of course do so, but should be clear as either the date they calculated the exchange, or given the rate used. Giving a dollar price for a yen transaction with no indication of either is misleading.
As for providing metric details, it is better practice to provide metric measurements unless you know your audience is only used to another system.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 24, 2009 12:43 PM
Marcus,
Even the most brutal tyrants need some support from the people. If they rely purely on force then they are often overthrown. They need at least the backing of a significant part of the population.
In either case it's an uphill battle. The courts frequently side with corporations and the government over individuals. When individuals do win it makes the news because it's so rare. There's a reason why the saying "you can't fight city hall" exists.
Agreed, though I probably wouldn't use that analogy.
The problems of climate change are too dire to do nothing.
Industry seems to concerned with their own short term profits at the expense of all else as the recent economic crisis has shown. The church is too concern with their religion and dogma, even if it leads to the suffering of millions. The government is corrupt, abusive of its power, but has the resources and ability to focus on long term problems like climate change. Moreover, it's in their self-interest. The state seems like the least of those three evils.
Well, some of us are concerned with our kids' future.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 12:44 PM
There's a HUGE gap between this assertion (which I agree with) and your earlier blanket statement that "It's a cognitive illusion that you prefer one product's qualia to another's. In fact, you almost certainly prefer the one's mental association to the others." To say that most people can't distinguish minor taste gradations is very different from saying almost all people can't distinguish any taste gradations.
On a side note, why the fuck are you making fun of my (real) name and (bafflingly) calling me a creationist? Fucking asshole... Look, I can play that game too! It's Will E. Emba-lism, and he is a Scientologist! Whoopee!
Man, you know what, fuck this blog, it is too popular, which means there are too many acerbic worthless shitcocks crawling all over it. Bye.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 24, 2009 12:45 PM
IU used to be Jack Daniel as the go to (I know, it's not bourbon) but have switched to Makers as the "day to day" bourbon, but I like most anything you put in front of me outside of Turkey or Beam.
If I go for something a little better, Woodford, Knob Creek are good but Bakers and Bookers are better, though different.
A really really good one I found that packs a punch is Noah's Mill and its less powerful Rowan Creek. If you want something different try Stranahan's Colorado Whiskey. Very good and cool story to go along with it.
Here are some admittedly poorly done reviews of them I had a while bad.
Pappy Van Winkle Family's reserve. If you ever get a chance to get your hands on it, do and enjoy.
But ooops it's expensive, very expensive, so beware of being called a snob.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 12:45 PM
No,. you did make such a claim.
Unless you had done the calculation that is an unsupported claim. Now it might not take much checking to work that out, but it does required that historical exchange rates are checked.
Please stop being dishonest.
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 12:45 PM
@Klokwurk
Wow, I wish I had followed the linkage that deep. That's stunningly dishonest. I'll break down the steps:
The fish was bought for ~100k. That's approximately $370 per pound. They assumed customers would be willing to pay as much, otherwise they wouldn't have bought the first fish of the year for that much. Markup would likely bring the cost up to $600 a pound. Then WSJ laments that American bluefin only fetch $50 a pound.
So the big flaws would be that they assume this is the normal price for bluefin, that the restaurant expects to be able to make a profit buying at that price, and that they use the cost of a pound to show how much consumers would pay (have you ever been to a sushi restaurant with a pound of tuna on the menu?)
Stunningly bad output from the WSJ.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 24, 2009 12:47 PM
Bah no preview causes RDBC to make even more typos.
BAD BAD BAD
KoT
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2009 12:48 PM
The point that Casper and others are making is twofold:
1. Inaccurately over-inflating numbers to the highest degree makes one sound hyperbolic, and weakens an otherwise fair argument. Especially for those of us who are conditioned to research outlandish claims regularly.
2. Blaming the consumer, as PZ and the linked article do, it is terribly misplaced, in our opinion, and doesn't actually address the real problem, nor does the argument lend itself to any practical solution.
Posted by: Tim Murtaugh | July 24, 2009 12:49 PM
This is a test.
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 12:50 PM
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2009 12:51 PM
bybelknap, FCD
Major credibility fail.
You'll understand if I go ahead and ignore that little nugget of wisdom.
Posted by: Will | July 24, 2009 12:52 PM
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD #121
How is that any different from the way a typical religious nutjob acts? Shoot first, ask questions second. Let Gawd sort 'em out! Yeah, I know no one is advocating violence, but it's really no difference between what you suggest and want nutjobs do all of the time.
Posted by: Mark Sletten | July 24, 2009 12:53 PM
Neither the data nor the conclusions in this article are accurate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28503702/
If rich assholes can't spend their money on 'luxury goods' what should they spend it on?
Posted by: bsk | July 24, 2009 12:53 PM
I understand (and identify with) PZ's anger at overfishing, but Casper (#7) pretty much hit all the important points as to why it makes no sense to rage about the economics of the trade.
If extinction is imminent, the fishing of this species should be more tightly regulated - it should not be left to individual consumers to stop buying something they could otherwise afford. (Incidentally, if it already was tightly regulated, that would explain the price tag.)
Conspicuous consumption (the appeal of luxury goods that PZ mentioned) is an economic theory on par with Marxism: asserted long ago by an academic heavyweight with a large e-penis and some weak anecdotal evidence. Since Veblen (the aforementioned heavyweight), we've come to appreciate that the laws of supply and demand are far more salient when it comes to determining prices. Some conspicuous consumption does occur, but its effects are heavily outweighed by market dynamics, as well as class-consumption effects that run in the opposite direction.
Posted by: tms | July 24, 2009 12:53 PM
I have to agree with hfs on this one, in that it's really a tragedy of the commons problem. No one really can claim ownership of pelagic fish stocks, and so there is a collective irresponsibility for their decline.
This is nothing new. Historically, as fish stocks decline, the investment in the capture gear becomes more dire, and the cost of the catch goes up. Thus, it theoretically becomes economically viable to take the last remaining fish from the ocean. This has lead to the collapse of fish stocks from the dawn of the industrialized age to present day.
Unfortunately, it takes the near complete loss of a resource before social pressures can be brought to bear, and equally unfortunate is the capriciousness of social pressure. For example, whales, dolphins and ivory producing elephants are much more likely to be protected from over harvest than are sardines, menhaden and anchovies, even though their loss would have a greater impact on the food chain.
Tom
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 24, 2009 12:53 PM
Took me a second to figure out what F2F meant :)
Not at all. I'm kind of in and out of Charleston the next few months as we just bought a company and I'm busy getting our WAN / LAN and systems up and running between us and them. Bt let me know.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 12:54 PM
No, your inability to spell my name indicates you are slapdash. It evidence of a lack of care on your part.
I note you still cannot produce the yen price. Let me remind you, Japan does not use the dollar. The yen/dollar exchange rate fluctuates. In the last 2 years there has been variation in excess of 25% which is not trivial. Thus asking for the yen price is quite valid.
Posted by: Lynna | July 24, 2009 12:55 PM
Rev BDC @128: I think you should just take advantage of the no-preview bug/feature and use it as an excuse. I know I am.
Posted by: Casper | July 24, 2009 12:57 PM
@#119 Marc Abian -
A price drop may mean that fewer fishermen seek out bluefin, initially. This would be a move along the supply curve. However, once a significant percentage focus on other things, the price will go right back up.
Unless we shift the demand curve (eliminate demand via legal means or consumers simply choosing not to buy), this doesn't solve it. A shift in the supply curve (fishermen only being willing to pursue the same amount of bluefin at a much higher price than today's price) seems less likely, to me.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 24, 2009 12:57 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp writes:
Bah no preview causes RDBC to make even more typos
Are you sure it's not Mr Daniels that's to blame?
:D
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 12:59 PM
For a more normal sense of what bluefin cost at the market, there was a 60 Minutes episode on bluefin tuna in Japanese fish markets (I hope people forgive the fact that they translated the costs into dollars) here.
Bluefin normally go for between $2,000 and $20,000, depending on size. The only specific anecdote that I saw was a 450 pound fish selling for $8,500 (or less than $19 a pound). Portraying rare promotional events as normal market transactions is quite silly and misleading. Conservationists would be better off sticking to facts that can't be shown to be completely wrong with a couple minutes and Google.
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 1:03 PM
The post you replied to gave one. Honestly, you're spending so much time arguing with McCarthy that you're picking up on his method of ignoring anything that you can't address without having to rethink your position.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | July 24, 2009 1:07 PM
OT, friends, but I figured you might be the most likely crowd to know this. There's a Latin phrase I'm trying to remember, referring to religious terror - like, awe+wonder+fear+dread of God - and I can't freaking remember it. It's not for anything important, but it's driving me nuts.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 1:09 PM
If you bothered to read that I have said (you haven't, which is something maybe you picked up from McCarthy) I have already conceded the prices are wrong.
However when an exchange rate varies as much as the dollar/yen one does it is not nit-picking to ask for details of how the exchange rate was calculated. Unless you think prices changes in excess of 25% are unimportant.
In July '07 there was around 123 yen to the dollar. Jan '09 saw a low of 90. Quite a difference.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 24, 2009 1:10 PM
if it was after 6:00 EST you might have a case there, but nah it's just me trying to do 40 things and one time and failing at nearly all of them.
Posted by: william e emba | July 24, 2009 1:11 PM
To James Bittersweet:
You apparently have some sharp pointy object stuck up your butt. I was following up the comments on taste tests, and I merely summarized in very brief language what decades of marketing/psychology studies have discovered: the objective qualia do not play much of a role compared to consumer beliefs and expectations.
There really is such a thing as "comfort" food, and the manufacturers will do their damnedest to get you to think theirs is it. That kind of spending gets a far better return than doing the "objective" obvious thing, like actually making a better product. You decided to take those comments as referring to everything whatsoever, and launched into utterly pointless sarcasm.
But in fact, if you'd bother to think about it for one moment, your sarcasm actually backed up my point. Why do you think creationists make so much money peddling complete crap? Most people cannot tell the difference between PZ and AIG whatsoever. It's been a theme for years here: journalists, politicians, ordinary people honestly truly believe there's some kind of scientific controversy out there. Why? Because they're responding to emotional associations, and not the innumerable, objective qualia that make it clear that PZ is vastly superior to AIG. And worse, they have no idea that they're responding with the lizard part of their brain.
It's pretty much the same with Coke vs Pepsi. Most people are honestly convinced that they like the one much more than the other because of the recipe. But they don't. They like the red cans or the Pepsi moments or whatever, and they have no idea that's what they really like.
As for making fun of your name. Well, hah! We were talking about TASTE tests, so the difference between bitter and sweet, well, it was irresistable. Sheesh, you're being pointlessly dense.
Posted by: cousinavi | July 24, 2009 1:13 PM
Ode to a Large Tuna in the Market
User Rating:
6.7 /10
(22 votes)
0 E-mail this poem to e friend
0 Send this poem as eCard
0 Add this poem to MyPoemList
0 Print friendly version
Among the market greens,
a bullet
from the ocean
depths,
a swimming
projectile,
I saw you,
dead.
All around you
were lettuces,
sea foam
of the earth,
carrots,
grapes,
but
of the ocean
truth,
of the unknown,
of the
unfathomable
shadow, the
depths
of the sea,
the abyss,
only you had survived,
a pitch-black, varnished
witness
to deepest night.
Only you, well-aimed
dark bullet
from the abyss,
mangled
at one tip,
but constantly
reborn,
at anchor in the current,
winged fins
windmilling
in the swift
flight
of
the
marine
shadow,
a mourning arrow,
dart of the sea,
olive, oily fish.
I saw you dead,
a deceased king
of my own ocean,
green
assault, silver
submarine fir,
seed
of seaquakes,
now
only dead remains,
yet
in all the market
yours
was the only
purposeful form
amid
the bewildering rout
of nature;
amid the fragile greens
you were
a solitary ship,
armed
among the vegetables
fin and prow black and oiled,
as if you were still
the vessel of the wind,
the one and only
pure
ocean
machine:
unflawed, navigating
the waters of death.
-Pablo Neruda
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2009 1:13 PM
Matt Penfold
OK, Matt... so if the point of the initial argument was to point out that the prices are wrong, and you concede that point has been made, why the insistence on providing greater levels of detail on how wrong they are (like making sure the exchange rate for Yen is properly cited)? The prices are wrong... that was the point.
Now you seem to be arguing for argument's sake, Matt... doesn't seem like you.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | July 24, 2009 1:15 PM
Re: 144
Never mind, I had a breakthrough and found it. Mysterium tremendum et fascinans :)
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | July 24, 2009 1:15 PM
OK, I agree that shoot first and ask questions later is dumb. But being human sometimes even the smartest, bestest informed people do it. They get called on it, and one hopes they modify their position to fit the facts. I am modifying my position in recognition that it really isn't good to shoot first but that the fact is that it happens.
I would like to also point out the difference between creationists and the rather more well-informed. Creationists *always* shoot first and try to think up some questions later, while the better informed *sometimes* shoot first and generally rethink their position to one that better fits reality when their errors are pointed out.
Does that make everyone feel better?
Posted by: Nichole | July 24, 2009 1:16 PM
$22 per SLIVER, Casper. The price in the article I linked to resulted in a price of $372.16/pound. A bit more than the $20-25/pound my grocery store charges. And that's assuming we eat the whole fish, but I'm guessing some went to waste. Like the head, and bones. I don't know how many pounds of actual meat were on the fish, I only know the fish's total weight.
Don't let's be disingenuous because we don't know metric. I'm aware this is an extraordinary case, but did you read the bottom line where the restaurant said they got so much extra business from all the publicity, they would do it again? You can't really blame the fishermen, the blame is correctly assigned to those who offer to pay these prices: the consumers. Otherwise, the fishermen would fish for something else.
Posted by: Will | July 24, 2009 1:16 PM
Posted by: Angel Kaida #144
Is it Timete Deum Solum? It means "Fear Only God."
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 1:18 PM
I hope you can understand that I'm much less concerned about a possible +-25% difference than the order (or two) of magnitude difference represented by citing prices for a pound of something bought at an extravagant promotional price instead of the more accurate ounce or two bought at normal market price. If all you're interested in is nitpicking the rounding error (comparatively speaking), have fun.
Posted by: Will | July 24, 2009 1:23 PM
Oh, well, nevermind. I didn't read this post before I posted my answer.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 1:24 PM
I guess I was a bit pissed off of with those who claimed variation if prices of over 25% were irrelevant.
You could have saved a whole lot of time by doing what is normally considered good practice, and making it clear when a currency exchange was calculated.
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 1:31 PM
You could have saved a whole lot of time by doing what is normally considered good practice, and actually read the posts before your #98 that showed it to be total BS. You said that links in #26 referred to "the US", which is false since one dealt directly with the restaurant that co-bought the first fish of '09 in Japan. You know, before you pass judgment on the content of links it's generally considered polite to click on them and read.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 1:40 PM
Yeap, Guilty there.
However that does not make your mistakes OK. You still failed to provide the information normally given when prices are converted from one currency to another.
Still, you are not one to talk about being polite. Failing to provide the exchanges rates for prices you quoted, and spelling my name wrongly are not polite, anymore than I have been polite.
I suggest I make a point of ensuring I follow the links given, and you need to make sure that any prices you quote (or articles quoting prices) give the exchange rate. You might want to consider that if an article does not quote an exchange rate then it may well be sloppy journalism. Actually, no, it IS sloppy journalism.
Posted by: Nichole | July 24, 2009 1:46 PM
Dear bicker buddies,
You shouldn't recalculate things every time the exchange rate changes. Only the exchange rate at the time of the transaction is relevant.
Not to butt in, or anything.
:D
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 1:48 PM
It was a blog post, not the Wall Street Journal (although whoever wrote their bluefin tuna article that seems to have started this whole thing up definitely qualifies as a sloppy journalist). The price wasn't relevant at all until environmentalists used it as a scare tactic, at which point showing that it was exaggerated and not typical (not to mention the presentation overly deceptive) was all that was called for (and hardly required an in-depth analysis of exchange rates).
In this situation I do not accept the implication that it was an error not quoting the exchange rate. I was not the one trying to make a point by throwing out figures, other than showing that the ones provided were completely misleading.
Posted by: Pascalle | July 24, 2009 1:53 PM
(haven't yet read the other responses)
And what will the rich bastard answer?
"you're just jealous".
Posted by: dd | July 24, 2009 2:03 PM
"("Outrage at high price paid for a fossil"). Reportedly, the "A" side of the fossil was sold for around $750,000" John Hawks blog, re Ida.
Posted by: logicalTruth | July 24, 2009 2:32 PM
seriously PZ I know Minnesota isn't much of a seafood consuming area of the country but still where is your skepticism? $600 piece of blue fin? This is just laziness on your part and intelligently dishonest on the writer of the article. A simple search on the web for any of the most upscale over priced Sushi restaurant in the country can verify if this price was fact or fiction.
http://www.masanyc.com/pdfs/SPRING%20Sushi%20a%20la%20carte%20Menu.pdf
People aren't paying crazy prices on blue fin to show status. People are just paying slightly more than regular tuna because they believe it tastes better to them. Taste is subjective, there is no way to say one is wrong for thinking what they like is good or not.
If you want people to help stop overfishing these beautiful creatures blindly attacking them with lies about their motives is just not the way to do it.
Posted by: Caymen Paolo Diceda | July 24, 2009 2:34 PM
another idiot poll on Eric Hovind's website
Is there such a thing as sin?
http://erichovind.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Zar | July 24, 2009 2:42 PM
Wow. There are a lot of rich douche sympathizers who read this blog.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 24, 2009 2:50 PM
Wow there are a lot of people with reading comprehension problems that make drive by comments.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 24, 2009 2:52 PM
I have no idea where the $600 number came from; I'm just quoting the article. But I don't care! Some of you are just completely missing the point.
Use the other number people are throwing around here: $22 for a small piece of fish. How out of touch are you to think that's reasonable? It's more than most people will spend for a full meal at a restaurant.
And of course, the main point you're missing is that it wouldn't matter if it was 22 cents. This is an endangered fishery. What are these assholes doing eating it at any price?
Posted by: GMacs | July 24, 2009 2:54 PM
Shit, is this just in Japan or is it in the States, too? Because I know the restaurant where I work sells 3 different kinds of tuna.
I'd feel pretty guilty to know I was cutting into a critically endangered species.
Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | July 24, 2009 3:05 PM
Well said!
Posted by: frog | July 24, 2009 3:08 PM
PZ: But I don't care! Some of you are just completely missing the point.
And now don't you see why I harp on the distinction between reasoning and rationalization?
Posted by: Inky | July 24, 2009 3:11 PM
That being said, it is not only the bluefin tuna that are fished or farmed unsustainably.
Please check out Monterey Bay Aquarium's website and get your own Seafood Wallet Watch card so that you, too, can be part of the solution, and not the problem:
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx
At the lower right there's a link to choose your regional Seafood Wallet Watch Card pocket guide. Print it out, or request them--they're free!
Posted by: GMacs | July 24, 2009 3:14 PM
Well shite.
Bluefin is known in Japanese cuisine as maguro. That's one of the most popular items at any sushi restaurant. Surprisingly, it's cheaper than the other types of tuna. That is, of course, unless you're going for toro, which is the fatty belly of the bluefin. That's expensive, but people always want it.
I'm going to be slicing it tonight, and the next, and the next. I feel a little sick.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2009 3:18 PM
PZ
Come on, PZ... if this were an argument defending creationism by cherry-picking an error in fossil dating and overstating the magnitude of that error, you'd be ALL OVER it. We get the point plainly, and most of us agree with that point, that over-fishing the bluefin needs to be addressed, and quickly. The point some of us are making is that by using a clearly overstated statistic or number to support your argument, you effectively hurt the argument. I know you know this.
Well, that number may not be reasonable, but since that's not the number we were given in the first place, it's not the one we've been arguing over. I personally think that is an outrageous price for what it is, but then again, I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I should be the arbiter of that issue.
And you continuing to say that we are missing the point is... well... you missing the point. Most of those "assholes" probably have no friggin idea that the fish they are eating is endangered... so public exposure to this fact is probably first and foremost on the list of "what to do about it". And that's where I think we come to the crux of the "point". We all seem to agree that the bluefin is being overfished into possible extinction, but your argument railing at the "pretentious" opulence of wealthy consumers rings hollow and, in my opinion, offers no real solution to the problem other than howling at the moon.
At the very least, Casper offered some potential ways to address the problem, in addition to calling the validity of the numbers into question.
Posted by: logicalTruth | July 24, 2009 3:20 PM
PZ,
I get the point that it is a bad thing regardless of the price. However the title of your post is "Destroying beauty because you can afford it" and the article's title was "Frank Bruni, Rich A**holes and Bluefin Tuna as Gucci Handbag". These are the premise that you and the article's author set and painted.
What I'm saying is the article and your post on it is counter-productive to your goals. Both are purely basing the argument on false data and Argument from Personal Incredulity. How can that convince anyone?
Posted by: Inky | July 24, 2009 3:21 PM
Regarding what I see in the comments above:
From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter if the bluefin is $600 or $6. What does matter is it will be commercially extinct, like Atlantic cod, and, like the cod, may never recover.
Besides the decline of an absolutely magnificent animal, removal of top predators do significantly disrupt the ecosystem. Overall, the oceans are simply being overfished.
There are fisheries that do a fair job of managing their resources responsibly; you can refer to the Marine Stewardship Council for fisheries that they have certified:
http://www.msc.org/
Posted by: Breakfast | July 24, 2009 3:23 PM
I mean, it's fun to get mad at rich people and all, but I don't see much more use to blaming them for this than to blaming the fishers or anyone else in the economic chain. This kind of consumption is very predictable human social behaviour. It's done for structural reasons -- their class position, the consumption habits of others in that position. Yell at the individuals involved in a tragedy of the commons all you like, but you are committing a basic Republican-style fallacy -- substituting moralization for psychology.
Governments need to regulate the fisheries better and enforce that regulation, period. 'Everyone print out a Seafood Wallet Watch Card' isn't a solution. A few people feeling moral anxiety about their fish-eating habits will do it, and most other people won't, and the problem will persist -- unless, at least, a truly massive wave of social pressure builds up that frames unethical fish-eating as shameful bad behaviour.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 3:28 PM
I owe Paul and others an apology.
I went over the top in my criticism of them, and that was rude of me.
I am sorry for my behaviour. I think I need to stop reading what McCarthy has to say at The Intersection. It puts me in a bad mood, and tends to make me assume the worst motivation behind what people say. The fact that McCarthy is a lying scumbag does not mean everyone who slips up is.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 24, 2009 3:28 PM
The real question is: How much will people pay for a small bite of rich asshole?
Well, what did you think he meant when The Amalgam Formerly Known as Christ said, "Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men"?
Anyways, those interested in this potentially lucrative market may contact me: I need at least six other people to help me pull this dredge. And I absolutely can tell the difference between old money and the nouveau riche by taste, despite Penn & Teller's aptly-named Bull$hit.
James Sweet might be interested in the reactions of the linked connoisseurs to labels and prices.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2009 3:36 PM
Matt Penfold
Or stop going there altogether...
I followed the comment threads over there for a few days after the whole "Unscientific America" foofooraw unfolded, but I quickly decided to stop going there once it became the "PZ Myers dungeon role-call reunion" site. There's a reason they were kicked out of here in the first place, so I saw no reason to intentionally subject myself to the same stupid foolishness that got them plonked in the first place.
But that's just me... ;>
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 3:38 PM
There is that option. However it is not often you such stupidity on view, and all free of charge. Normally one has to buy a book, Unscientific America for example.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2009 3:40 PM
I would add that despite his claims to the contrary McCarthy is not actually banned here.
Of course he would be, if he posted the stuff he posts at The Intersection. Five posts would be my guess as to how long he lasted.
Posted by: blueelm | July 24, 2009 3:49 PM
As one of the assholes that has eaten this, I can vouch that I really didn't know it was endangered in the sense that if the fish is harvested at current rates it will become extinct. A lot of people have more faith in the market than they should, and I am no exception at times. A little good PR could help educate people that the fish, even at current market price, is being consumed more than it should be.
As for the price being ridiculous, I don't know what to say. I have bought a similar amount of cow meat for the same price. Is that ridiculous? I have no idea. I'm not wealthy, I drive a 12 year old Honda because it still runs... but I like nice food. I've always tried to be the opposite of penny-wise and pound foolish. So I treat myself with small things, but avoid large purchases that might officially catapult me into the expected circumstances that I don't want to deal with. You know, if you have the right *kind* of yard then you have to have the right *kind* of landscaping, and then the right *kind* of car and it just never ends. If you buy a $30 piece of fish and eat it, you go home happy no one cares how many inches of TV screen you have.
Posted by: Wonko the Sane
|
July 24, 2009 3:55 PM
France and Germany are trying to push for tighter EU regulations on the take of bluefin, out of fear that the stocks will crash at the latest in 2012.
Here are two more lists for sustainable fish:
1. The New England Aquarium's:
http://www.neaq.org/documents/CelebrateSeafoodGuide.pdf
2. And for those in Germany or inclined to practice their German one by Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/meere/Ansicht_Fischratgeber.pdf
As for the filthy rich, I pity them, somehow they never seem to be happy or content with what they've got (probably the reason they became rich). As George Carlin said, it's all just stuff. Now a quote and back out of the asylum,
cheers
Wonko
"Let us define the wealthy man as he who has everything he desires. How to reach that happy condition? Two ways…
(1) Through money: Work, sweat, scheme, grovel, cheat, lie, betray to acquire it. But there’s no guarantee you’ll succeed. Ninety-nine chances our of a hundred, you’ll fail.
Or….
(2) Do without: Reduce your needs to the minimum required for a healthy life. Get by on part-time work. Enjoy the leisure of the leisure class.That’s the easy way to become rich, and anyone can do it; the success rate is one-hundred percent."
Edward Abbey
Posted by: Clemens | July 24, 2009 3:59 PM
I recently read about a study that found out that telling people that the caviar they were about to eat came from an endangered species made it taste more delicious to them. That's... sickening.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 24, 2009 4:04 PM
The Intersection had it's entertainment value. Seeing Mooney squirm and do everything but produce a substantive argument was funny. Watching Kwok name-drop and McCarthy with his mouth covered in fudge, standing next to the brownies and denying he ate them was also good. Then seeing all the clinically insane people defend M&K was just plain hilarious. But it seems most the kooks are gone, and all that's left is Kwok and McCarthy, both doing the same routine. It's boring and not really worth all the head banging.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 24, 2009 4:07 PM
Well, if that's all it takes, then I think you and I might be able to arrange something mutually beneficial. I just bought a shitload of StarKist® canned albacore at 50¢ a pop which I would be absolutely delighted to unload at a 5900% profit...
And if you think I'm kidding, I suggest you check out the some of the recent research suggesting that the pleasure we derive from some things (such as Cabernet Sauvignon and water (linked to in my previous comment)) is not necessarily related to any intrinsic value of the product, but to its cost.
Posted by: Hank Roberts
|
July 24, 2009 4:09 PM
The amount of "money" increases far faster than anything you can buy in the natural world. Thus it goes.
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 4:20 PM
Matt,
Thanks, much appreciated. I noted myself getting rather irritable after much time at The Intersection, so I had to limit myself in how much time I spent there for my own good. I did get a bit upset in this thread, but mainly because the name thing really was an honest mistake. I tend to read for content and don't pay a lot of attention to names, which gets me in trouble when I try to reproduce them without double checking the spelling.
As for The Intersection, I stopped responding to anything that wasn't a blatant lie by Kwok. That was enough posting in and of itself, and it got comments shut down on a couple threads as well as quite a few of his posts deleted. I'd be happier if they'd call him out on his BS in public, but I don't think they want him to feel antagonized and have him do his full-psycho shtick (they have to have looked into his freakouts by now, since they've been linked several times). As for McCarthy, I don't even read his posts anymore. Kwok seems like he might eventually recant a lot of his silliness if forced to deal with content instead of personal attacks, but McCarthy is too willing to consistently misrepresent whoever he is talking to in order to avoid thinking or changing.
Posted by: blueelm | July 24, 2009 5:01 PM
I'm sorry, but canned tuna tastes and smells like cat food. If you think that's all in my head you may need to see a doctor about your sensory deficit. However, the tuna that once went into starkist probably was perfectly good before it was processed into nasty mush. And that is a big part of what you are paying for. So yes, if you are offering to purchase the same tuna that goes into starkist and prepare it for me as fresh tuna then I am game and I will pay you for your effort provided you are rather skilled with your preperation.
While there isn't a big difference between $10, $20, and $200 wines, there is a huge difference between $5 and $10 ones with a few notable exceptions.
Otherwise I hope everything you eat is off the 99 cent menu at Jack in the Box or Taco Bell since there's "no difference" at all.
Posted by: meh1963 | July 24, 2009 5:13 PM
PZ, thank you for posting this.
I've had this argument before and was told that the market will fix it. I responded that the market can't bring back extinct species.
It's interesting that the rich and the free market people seem to think that injustice and wasteful behaviors like making bluefin extinct shouldn't be prevented via prior restraint, but rather via after-the-fact redress.
You can't redress exinction. And, for the xtians, the resources of the world are NOT infinite and you DON'T have the inherent right, as a human being, to do whatever you want with them.
Whoever earlier mentioned the tragedy of the commons was right - and the Xtian/republican ideology based on 'steal from the commons, sell back to the commoners, and die rich' merely exacerbates Garrett Hardin's well-made point.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 24, 2009 5:24 PM
Now it's so hard to not think of before the big war,
When the cod went so cheap, but so plenty
Foreign trawlers go by now with long seeing eyes
Taking all where we seldom take any
...
Now I can see the big draggers that stirred up the bay
Leaving lobster traps smashed on the bottom
And they think it don't pay to respect the old ways
That make and break men have not forgotten
Stan Rogers was writing about overfishing 30 years ago.
Make and Break Harbour (youtube)
Posted by: No BS | July 24, 2009 5:47 PM
Mercury anyone?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/dining/23sushi.html
Enjoy the Bluefin. Have some more.
Posted by: palochka | July 24, 2009 6:03 PM
This thread sure has brought out the libertarians. No real surprise, I suppose.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 24, 2009 6:06 PM
1: I didn't make that claim; and
2: Go tell it to the researchers who found that that price absolutely has an effect on subjective taste when there actually is no difference at all.
But I'm sure all of the foodies here wouldn't have made the Type I error the test subjects did, being so refined and discerning in their tastes.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 24, 2009 6:13 PM
If only we'd allowed all the cod themselves to be sold to private individuals or corporations, 'Tis Himself. They'd surely have found a way to increase the stocks with profit as a motive!
Posted by: JackC
|
July 24, 2009 6:40 PM
I'm glad someone mentioned Cod. I was trying to figure out how to. For a basically boring fish, it is one of my absolute favourites. And it is getting a bit hard to find.
JC
Posted by: Fred The Hun | July 24, 2009 6:41 PM
I think I've found the perfect solution to the problem.
Convince the idiots to eat Koi instead of tuna! It's just a fancy carp that can fetch almost as much as a bluefin.
http://www.thingsasian.com/stories-photos/30430
Rich people, listen up! I tell you, eating Koi is much more of status symbol than eating tuna. Imagine the bang for the buck of a eating a single fish for dinner that's worth as much as a Maserati. Let's see if Joe six pack can top that...
Posted by: Happy Tentacles
|
July 24, 2009 6:43 PM
The most delectable fish in the sea is the skate! I ate them regularly in London the 1970s, and skate was so gorgeous! I haven't eaten skate for twenty years, since I learned the species was endangered. But I have never found any food so fabulous. I still dream of eating skate. I know it will never happen again, but it's a glorious memory!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 24, 2009 6:54 PM
Overfishing has been a problem since World War II (the California coast sardines became extinct in 1944 due to overfishing). With modern fishing techniques (drifting gill nets, drag trawls, etc.) it is possible to remove all sea life from certain areas.
One problem is that enforcement of fishing restrictions is very hit or miss. US and Canadian enforcement is pretty good, African enforcement is non-existent. It costs money to have effective enforcement.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 24, 2009 7:00 PM
protect the bluefin. put extreme limits on the harvest. that way the fishermen can make more by charging $400,000 for a single fish and correspondingly the vain, pretentious jerks will pay even more and can feel vainer, pretentiouser and jerker.
Rob, this is a good idea in principle, except for the fact that there's this little thing called the black market, and when you get prices like that...
Making ivory expensive has only increased the trade in illegal ivory, unfortunately.
there simply aren't enough cops in the entire world to control the black market, nor will there ever be.
As to the actual solution?
*sigh*
practically, I can't see one. Even if you make all tuna fishing illegal internationally, how on earth does one end up enforcing it?
It's much easier for a coastal-based species, but tuna migrate internationally regularly, and are often found in "international" waters.
The only way to legally enforce it is portside, and fuck me, but we can't even inspect 10% of the containers coming through our major ports in the US as it is.
...and that's AFTER a major increase in funding to do so after 9/11.
Posted by: amphiox | July 24, 2009 7:03 PM
Reminds me of that old russian story "How much land does a man need?" where the protagonist is offered as much land as he can walk around in a single day, provided he can 'close the circuit' before nightfall. He does so, claiming a huge area, only to drop dead from exhaustion, after which he is given the amount of land he really needs, 6 feet by 3 feet, for his grave.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 24, 2009 7:06 PM
And if you think I'm kidding, I suggest you check out the some of the recent research suggesting that the pleasure we derive from some things (such as Cabernet Sauvignon and water (linked to in my previous comment)) is not necessarily related to any intrinsic value of the product, but to its cost.
OTOH...
2 buck Chuck
Posted by: amphiox | July 24, 2009 7:09 PM
The only real solution to the tuna problem and other such tragedy of the commons problems is to alter the social setting that makes these things valuable.
We have to make it so that bluefin tuna is no longer a symbol of status or power, but a symbol of moral and ethical degeneracy. It isn't easy to do, but not impossible, I think.
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 7:09 PM
There really doesn't seem to be a feasible legal route to curb bluefin consumption. I think the only way to encourage sustainable use is by voting with your wallet, although it would really require a large organization to communicate the problem and get significant consumer buy-in. In theory I think it is possible, although I might still be in hopelessly optimistic mode since my last trip to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. But there will need to be financial backing coming from somewhere. Not sure of a good avenue for that.
I did read that many countries (including Japan) have resolved to cut their bluefish quotas by 20% next year. That's a start, I guess.
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 7:13 PM
Can you explain how this is any different than PETA calling people murderers for eating meat? We know how well that line of argument goes.
Anything focused on "eating bluefish makes you a bad person" is just going to fail. People have spent years learning to see through hollow invective. Focus on sustainability. Encourage learning what a healthy level of farming is. Convince people that it is in their best interest to pressure companies into farming sustainably.
Easy? No. But it will sure work better than taking plays from the PETA zealotry handbook.
Posted by: blueelm | July 24, 2009 7:20 PM
I don't disagree with the study, I disagree with the assertion you seemed to make as a result of the study. I would expect marketing to work, or else we wouldn't use it. Price perception is real, it's just not the be-all-end-all you make it out to be when you suggest that fresh toro tastes just like canned sunkist.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 24, 2009 7:28 PM
Focus on sustainability. Encourage learning what a healthy level of farming is.
much too late in this case, unfortunately, but the only real chance at a winning long term strategy, for sure.
then, like I mentioned to Rob, you have to deal with the black market, and reducing demand via social stigma does work, even if it's not the most rational approach.
You aren't going to reduce demand in the immediate sense via long term education programs aimed at teaching what sustainable development means.
...and there are a LOT of species out there that need to have the demand for them reduced in the immediate sense, if they are going to be with us at all.
Moreover, it's not always a case of hollow invective; think about all the uses of animal parts as 'aphrodisiacs' and other types of snake oil. Creating social stigmas around the use of snake-oil products certainly isn't hollow invective, right?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 24, 2009 7:31 PM
There is a commercially caught fish called the menhaden. Menhaden are not used for human consumption. They die quickly, and they spoil rapidly if not immediately gutted and iced. They are also very bony and smelly.
However, menhaden are the primary source of fishmeal, used as food for poultry and for pen-raised fish, such as salmon. Atlantic menhaden are what is considered an ecologically critical species. They are an important link between plankton and upper level predators. They are an invaluable prey species for many predatory fish and birds.
People don't eat menhaden. They are still being overfished.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 24, 2009 7:33 PM
It's not, blueelm, and I wasn't trying to make it out to be that way, though looking back over my posts I can certainly see how I gave that impression.
My point is that price perception is real, as you acknowledge, but more importantly that market prices are influenced by more factors than 'intrinsic value' (dare I bring up the mythology of the gold standard?) which is one reason we can't always trust the market to solve our ills--a point I am not claiming you were making.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 24, 2009 7:39 PM
I did read that many countries (including Japan) have resolved to cut their bluefish quotas by 20% next year. That's a start, I guess.
too little, too late. Current stocks are predicted to crash in no more than 3-5 years. cutting Japan's catch by 20% won't be enough.
It's actually moratorium time, if there were any serious wish to maintain stocks for the future.
It will never happen with an internationally economically important species like bluefin.
I'm really sorry to hear myself say it, but I think realistically we have to say goodbye to the bluefin as a wild species, as we basically have to the atlantic salmon, the northern atlantic cod, etc. etc.
Hopefully, there will be at least continuing efforts to farm bluefin via aquaculture, and the collapse of the fishery as being economically viable will happen fast enough that there will be a few left out there to eventually, decades from now, result in some semblance of a wild population returning.
Sardines, for example, have been seen around Monterey again.
Only took about 50 years for them to recover at least some numbers.
*sigh*
Moreover, the really, really bad part of all this is not even the loss of bluefin itself, bad as that is. It's what happens to entire pelagic ecosystems when you remove such and important predator.
Ramifications are staggering, and way too many to list here in a blog post.
I don't know why people have trouble thinking in terms of marine ecology vs terrestrial, but I typically have to ask many people what they think would happen to a given ecosystem in Africa if all the lions were removed from it.
Even that pales in comparison to how many different species are impacted by the removal of bluefin from pelagic ecosystems.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 24, 2009 7:44 PM
People don't eat menhaden. They are still being overfished.
yes, but in this case the problem is just one step removed.
the solution proposed still works, but directed at making fishmeal a social stigma when there are alternatives available as feed.
It ain't a pretty solution; a pretty solution is sustainable development and good education (it's worked, finally, in the case of many coastal Pacific fisheries), but it's often a quick way to slow down interest until the people involved in the demand for the fishery can be educated on the sustainability issues surrounding it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 24, 2009 7:56 PM
I love life and it's pleasures as much as anyone..
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 24, 2009 7:59 PM
#12:
this article about rarity and taste seems appropriate here. apparently, people believe that rarer things taste better, even if it's not true. it's a pernicious illusion, that.
#18
right, because concern for the environment and distaste for pointless waste automatically makes one a Marxist [/sarcasm]
#27
unfortunately, most fish eating, unless you fished it yourself, is unsustainable. some kinds of farmed tilapia are ok, but tilapia isn't exactly the best fish there is.
#28
agree with the first sentence, disagree with the second. while the consumer middle-class is a BIG and growing problem, the super-consumers aren't negligible. they themselves would be doing quite sufficient damage. not to mention that most of them are super-consumers because they make money off the middle-class consumers...
#32
I want a Tesla Roadster. *purrrrr*
are you British? because in the U.S., "class" is almost exclusively a matter of money, and to a lesser degree education.
#35
why?
#58
and unfortunately for us foodies, the latter is not a good enough reason to do the former.
#99
ha! true enough... I actually get a laugh out of all the people with new cars where everything is electric... because all that electric crap freezes in winter, so they can't even open their windows anymore.
I still want a Tesla Roadster, though...
#173
that might work, buy shaming people into not eating it. or it might backfire, as per article linked above.
#176
if a rich ass stops eating a fish, nothing bad will happen to him. if a fisherman stops fishing, he'll go out of business. it's a lot easier, economically speaking, for the rich one to adapt, and do so quickly. that's the difference.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 24, 2009 8:26 PM
It happens that this just opened here today:
http://endoftheline.com/
Hope to see it in the next few days.
Posted by: PapaHans | July 24, 2009 8:42 PM
Marcus Ranum is not a misanthrope, just a goddamn idiot. His even commenting on this site is a travesty, although I'm grateful he didn't reproduce. Bluefin tuna are the most highly evolved fish on the planet; magnificent predators that are so heavily muscled and so active they are for all practical purposes warm-blooded. They are so fast, their dorsal and ventral fins fold into slots in their body to further reduce drag on an already magnificently streamlined body, that mako sharks or any other of their primary predators have difficulty catching them. Except for humans. It's a horrid calamity that these fish are being fished, and eaten, at all. It's not open to discussion or interpretation of the data, these fish are very nearly totally fucked. Ranum and his ilk, the moral-defective pig-ignorant "free-marketers", would casually destroy one of nature's greatest achievements, (or if you're god-inclined, destroy, without thought, one of god's greatest creations). And Ranum, there's no child-labor in this country because liberals, against frantic and outraged opposition from folks like him legislated child-labor out of existence. Robotics, you dumb-ass, had nothing to do with it. Government saves ecosystems, children from being neurologically impaired from lead poisoning, rivers from catching fire, our food from killing us, and fascist demons from killing us, to name but a few things out of multiple thousands of things, all of which the "private sector" is totally incapable, and unwilling, to do anything about. Ranum, please read a book on labor history, for a start, and get off your knees and quit fellating corporations.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 24, 2009 8:55 PM
James Sweet @#124, I was entirely with you until your last para. Getting snitty with an entire blog because you don't like one commenter? Get a killfile.
It's quite true that price plays a role in taste perceptions. All sorts of associations can overrule raw taste in forming preferences. It can be worth doing some of your own blind taste tests to work out your real preferences devoid of marketing cues. You need to be cautious of the bias toward sweetness in single small tastes - some cheaper products win the sip/nibble taste tests even though you wouldn't want to eat/drink a whole serve.
But marketing is not 100% of it, and it's ludicrous hype to suggest that it is. Only marketers think that marketing is everything ;)
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2009 9:05 PM
@Ichthyic
then, like I mentioned to Rob, you have to deal with the black market, and reducing demand via social stigma does work, even if it's not the most rational approach.
I'd love examples where the good in question does not cause demonstrable health risks.
I hope I didn't sound like I disagree. But "fish is murder" or "fish cause cancer" are not likely to help, which is why I've been posting against negative or exaggerated propaganda as a means to help. I don't have an answer. I sure hope somebody does.
Of course not. The nice part is, with those examples there's a chance of contending that they just don't work. Furthermore, sex is an easy stigma to play to. Making people ashamed to feel they need to supercharge their libido would be one propaganda style that might help curb those types of products. Can you seriously think of one that would apply to bluefin? The best chance is to push the "endangered" and "unsustainable" talking points, I don't see any other way of discouraging tuna consumption through social stigma that wouldn't ring hollow. I wouldn't exactly be disappointed if someone could prove otherwise, though.
@PapaHans
You commenting on this site is a travesty (to use your verbiage). The pinnacle of evolution? Seriously? Get ye to a biology book, please. Evolution does not work that way.
Posted by: JackC
|
July 24, 2009 9:07 PM
I really don't think that eating anything that can't tell you how it feels about being eaten
My goodness, I haven't seen that for years.
If you have done 6 impossible things before Breakfast, why not round it off with Breakfast at Milliways?
JC
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 24, 2009 9:13 PM
I'd love examples where the good in question does not cause demonstrable health risks.
fur trade.
great example.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 24, 2009 9:20 PM
I don't see any other way of discouraging tuna consumption through social stigma that wouldn't ring hollow.
not my job to be a marketing expert, but again, looking at the fur trade example, many of the social stigma measures utilized to curtail growth of that industry were indeed hollow, and irrational, but they worked nonetheless.
consider it an unappetizing stop-gap measure until more sensible solutions can be implemented?
Decrying the inanity (which I agree with, btw) of Peta's sloganology doesn't address the fact that it has indeed been successful.
If you doubt that, check out the comments in the various threads on Pharyngula that have related to eating meat, veganism, etc.
there is a large and rapidly growing contingent of animal rights supporters in the US, and while their reasoning is not rational IMO (I've spent some time arguing against it, in fact) it's obvious that PETA, and similar promoters of such messages, have had some effect.
Without going into long debate (it's a nice day here and I want to spend some of it outside!), I realize this smacks of the same kind of debate we recently had regarding the accomodationism issue, and how long term tactics can differ from short term.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | July 24, 2009 9:24 PM
How microcosmic.
The rich guys are the US and the poor guys are everyone else...
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 24, 2009 9:30 PM
The rich guys are the US and the poor guys are everyone else...
huh?
the problem is actually even worse in Japan than in the US.
Posted by: RC | July 24, 2009 10:19 PM
I think it's unfair to blame this just on the rich. How many middle class (Americans, Australian, Europeans, Japanese, basically most 1st world countries) buy plasma tvs, get loans for furniture they don't need, upgrade their perfectly working cell phone, etc, because it's cool.
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 24, 2009 10:20 PM
Sorry didn't finish reading all the above.
Just adding words.
There are 3 great entities in this world, Government, Corporations and Humanity. Some of us belong to one of these organisations ,some of us two, We all belong to Humanity.Corporations and stockholders create an atmosphere of consumption, While Government uses this as a tool.End game religions feed the system.
Long Term sustainability is only achievable by the individual...collectively.
As population demand increases the odds go down,
As population brain pool increases the odds go up.
The pendulum swings....Only logical realist education opportunities can save.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 24, 2009 11:15 PM
Good grief.
The rich guys are the bad guys?
Seriously?
The smart guys are the bad guys!
In other news, Makers Mark is really good for not so expensive bourbon. Especially when the braves win.
Posted by: mas528 | July 24, 2009 11:38 PM
I'm sorry, but the capitalist reasoning that I have read here is stupid, since bluefin is not better than any other type of tuna. It may be different, but not better.
The idea that just because the price drops that the mc will eat it is stupid, market thought.
Capitalist assholes understand nothing.
And example from another food:
A middle class person who has eaten a good chuck steak and enjoyed the flavor will be disappointed by filet mignon's lack of flavor (advertised as subtle) at a "good" restaurant This is even allowing for the fact that most 'fancy' steakhouses do not know how to cook a steak properly.
On another subject, I can tell the difference between coke and pepsi blind.
I never did the two out of three, but I still think I could.
Normally I can drink either and do not care much, but...
Pepsi is undrinkable with vodka in it, whereas coke is great.
So the middle class, who (sometimes) know how to balance cost and pleasure would not just buy bluefin once the cost goes down.
An even somewhat discerning person who has had a fresh tuna steak will not be fooled by the minor differences.
In fact, as a personal experience, I prefer the dark tuna to the 'white'. I still have not tried the canned cat food tuna which is even darker, and most likely better.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 25, 2009 2:03 AM
The pendulum swings....
the problem is that the things that get knocked down when it swings are often destroyed permanently.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 25, 2009 2:06 AM
Indeed, very nice stuff.Posted by: romunov | July 25, 2009 2:54 AM
Check back to this post when you strike oil. :)
Posted by: jo5ef | July 25, 2009 3:41 AM
I generally like PZs rants but this reminds me of the drunk kid who walked into my house and attempted to assault me; as far as I could gather because he didn't see why I should have a nice place and car when he didn't. Now I reckon PZ probably lives in a nicer place than mine so I wonder how he would feel if this happened to him - probably pretty pissed off, like I was. Whats the difference between this and bitching about how others eat more expensive food and drive more expensive cars? (aside from the attempted assault). Yes bluefin is endangered but as is covered above extensively, this is a complex issue, and it doesn't seem to me that attacking anyone better off than yourself (I hear the Queen of England is always bitching about Bill Gates) gets us any closer to solving the problem. Vanity, pretension, and ostentation may be pathetic but envy isn't particularly attractive either. PS I just dont know why you seppoes find it so hard to make whiskey properly, all you bourbon connoisseurs need to check out something called Whiskey (or Whisky) of Scotch or Irish origin esp 12 yr old or more.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | July 25, 2009 3:54 AM
mas528 @ 226
Generalise much? Because there are some very successful capitalists around. They must understand something.
Posted by: Isabel | July 25, 2009 5:06 AM
1. I believe a blind tasting led to the birth of the California premium wine industry. I think they made a movie about it. Maybe it's apocryphal, but I never had any reason to doubt it. And I heard the 2 buck Chuck Chardonnay won a fancy CA blind taste test a few years ago. Ha Ha.
2. Racist? Yeah it's only kosher to bash American consumers in these parts. But I believe in spreading the blame around, and Japan has a terrible record. For whales and dolphins also. They also consume 4 times their "share" of the world's fish stocks.
An interesting perspective:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/revealed-the-bid-to-corner-worlds-bluefin-tuna-market-1695479.html
3. National Geographic did a truly haunting story about the bluefin a couple of years ago. I remember there was something about the fish migrating into the Mediterranean, where they spawn, in such a narrow channel it's almost too easy to catch them. The article left me with a hopeless feeling (more than usual).
4. I like fresh food, local food, and occasional restaurant meals for variety. But I find "foodies" tedious, annoying to dine with, and even a little creepy, I don't know why!
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 25, 2009 7:22 AM
He isn't jealous. What makes you think he's jealous?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 25, 2009 7:41 AM
You've been dining with the wrong foodies
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 9:02 AM
Isabel, what type of people do you consider as "foodies"?
I enjoy a variety of foods from prawns to alligator tail. One of the most interesting cook books is the Rex Stout "Nero Wolfe Cookbook", wherein Rex recreates Wolfe's meals from his mystery books. Culinary delights abound around the world and threatened species should be banned from the dinner table.
I know little about the Coke taste test, but I can distinguish 25 different coffees by taste.
Posted by: Museli | July 25, 2009 9:29 AM
People, regardless of the possibly incorrect figures stated in this post doesn't the whole point of it stay the same?
The over-consumption and greediness of the human race, with the emphasis and blame being on the consumer?
This planet is basically run by rich, 'upper class' human beings while the rest of the world struggles to survive.
Its about inequality and mentality.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 9:36 AM
Museli, is it over-consumption of resources or is the problem over population in the world that stresses resources?
Posted by: Museli | July 25, 2009 9:39 AM
Surely its over-consumption, as a very small percentage of the worlds population consumes a vast majority of the worlds resources.
Just look at the US and its energy consumption per capita compared to the third world countries.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 9:46 AM
As third world countries step into second world economy status, doesn't resource consumption increase? Isn't the goal of the European Union, the U.S. and other countries to raise the economic status of third world countries? Do you see the countries of the world prefering to see all countries revert to third world status?
Posted by: Museli | July 25, 2009 10:01 AM
Yes world consumption will increase, it is happening at a staggering rate in China right this second.
The problem is that the current economic growth is not sustainable and I think that is what this post addresses in its little niche.
Our little blue rocky planet can't take it!
I said nothing about first world 'preferring' countries to reduce their consumption and therefor become third world countries. Its about sustainability.
Posted by: Museli | July 25, 2009 10:09 AM
Btw on a side note:
Remember all those people who are arguing about the schematics of 'price.' This conversation is between those of us luck enough to be able to afford a computer to access the internet and actually participate. What about those who can't? Those hundreds of millions who can't afford a bag of rice to feed their families let alone afford our lifestyle.
But its more than that, its about preserving our planet and the diversity of species....
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 10:14 AM
Can sustainability be maintained with 6 billion people and zero growth of the world population?
The G 8 Summit of 2009 wants to contribute to the further development of agriculture in Africa to aid in feeding the continents starving populations, will this affect the environment in Africa and the dwindling resources of land therein? Further thought, will the population increase again and will starvation be prevalent in another 10 years?
Posted by: Museli | July 25, 2009 10:25 AM
Without over-consumption it can. I may be wrong but i think the world produces plenty of resources for our current population and can with current technologies. Its the mindset of the people that has to change to allow this to happen.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 25, 2009 10:29 AM
Museli
If you read more carefully, museli, it wasn't merely an argument of 'schematics'... it was an argument in favor of accurately representing an argument so that you don't weaken it with hyperbole. Accuracy matters when making an impassioned argument.
Posted by: Museli | July 25, 2009 10:40 AM
But 'price' in our economy is too intertwined with the monetary aspects of the first world economy perhaps?
PZ says "And this is the brutal truth: bluefin, which beyond their intrinsic value as living creatures happen to be one of the universe's more majestic species, a Platonic ideal of oceanic speed and grace, aren't being extinguished by our greed. They're being sacrificed to our vanity, pretension, and ostentation — the most pathetic of our vices."
The price we pay for our greed isn't just about the dollar value of a piece of meat.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 10:40 AM
How do you define over-consumption?
Does over-consumption occur with each additional extinct species on the planet?
Would the resources be sustainable with 10 billion people?
Posted by: Museli | July 25, 2009 10:55 AM
Over-consumption....well. In general the first world wastes too much.
There are many reasons, we depend on fossil fuels too much, we are a throw away society, i see it first hand. We use and discard.
Just like the Bluefin Tuna, we catch them, eat them and in general have no regard for where they came from.
The whole big massive stupid ignorant arrogant problem is that we don't think to look to the future of our planet. We are handing down a terrible legacy to the next generation that we expect them to do something about.
We CAN make our planet sustainable, we are just too used to our first world way of life to do anything about it. Too comfy.
Like the frog that sits in a pot of water waiting to boil.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 11:12 AM
I would love hearing your solutions, but all I'm seeing is condemnation without proposals.
Are you willing to reduce population growth to the point where there are 4 billion people on the planet within 50 years?
Posted by: joemac53 | July 25, 2009 11:24 AM
I can't believe there are so many comments here. PZ has hit a nerve. Bluefin tuna are not overfished on the East Coast, but elsewhere. When I was a commercial fisherman and took time to chase tuna, I could catch one per day. Weather and distance ensured I wouldn't chase them every day. Chance and circumstance ensured I would not catch one everyday that I tried. If I got four or five in a season I was happy. I never got $100000 for a fish.
Twenty-five years ago we were told that we were actually fishing a "research quota", picking a few to determine the actual population. In recent years this quota has not been filled.
Posted by: Museli | July 25, 2009 11:37 AM
Well as far as condemnation goes I condemn the human race for messing up our planet in the first place, Im frustrated. Now we have to try to reverse the damage we have caused on it before we go any further.
I never said we need to reduce the population or implement changes to do so. I said we should be looking toward providing a sustainable environment whatever the population may eventually be.
I think you have me all wrong, and perhaps my last couple of comments werent worded well.
I myself do not have the solutions, however I do believe as a worldwide scientific community we do. Just like we have the technology to go to Mars or set up a colonial base on the moon. We know how to solve these problems.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 11:49 AM
Yes humans have impacted the the environment as soon as we entered sentience as a species. I'm trying to get you to think, but it seems you are only mouthing feel good solutions like advertising. Sustainability is a worthy goal, but it is destroyed with ever expanding population growth.
Posted by: Museli | July 25, 2009 12:20 PM
Ok so solutions.
For example, on a small scale. Relevant to this post.
Lets say we capture enough live Bluefin Tuna to breed them in captivity. Create a sustainable resource of this particular species. Maybe we can introduce breeding programs that help to repopulate the under populated populations of these fish? Just like we should try to do with other over fished regions of the earths seas.
What I am trying to say is that population growth does not necessarily mean a decline in economic growth. I think that the economy needs to get its priorities right. There is a whole new horizon to look forward to.
An increase in spending on renewable resources, a mandate that means more corporations and businesses must get a certain amount of their energy from renewable resources. More solar panels, more wind power, more tidal power.
There is so much more to say about it..
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 12:31 PM
Will Bluefin Tuna farming cause similar problems that Salmon farming has created? Is this sustainability? You may want to read the National Geographic link I provided.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080212-salmon-lice.html
Posted by: Museli | July 25, 2009 12:53 PM
Interesting, its a bit of a worry indeed.
So...lets not release the farmed salmon into the sea and just eat the farmed Bluefins. Let the natural population recover.
The taste is most definitely subjective.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 1:07 PM
It may be time for a worldwide ban on Bluefin Tuna fishing in order to save the species. The population may have been overfished where they will never recover and become extinct. For a comparison you may want to look up the Passenger Pigeon and it's extinction. The problem for many species is when the population reaches a minimum it does not have enough genetic diversity to breed enough viable offspring to replenish it's population (Snow Leopard).
Perhaps Prof. PZ Meyers can write an article on the Bluefin Tuna and the possibility of farming or the ability for them to recover.
Posted by: Fred The Hun | July 25, 2009 1:11 PM
Here's an open water fish farm that at least gets around some of the salmon farming environmental issues. However I have no idea if a scaled up version might work for tuna...
http://www.openblueseafarms.com
Posted by: Kemist | July 25, 2009 1:12 PM
Indeed. My brother in law has accumulated the highest debt he could building his over-the-top house and buying luxury items (for example he's bought a 400$ carpenter tool which he does not need, not being very handy with this kind of work. Professional carpenters don't even have that thing, but, understand, he has to get the best).
And does he likes to show his stuff around !
The most pathetic thing is that if you go to a restaurant (or anywhere) with him, he'll do everything in his power to get you to pay for him. Even at Burger King's. We're now refering to him as Mr. Cheapo.
I have been a gas station attendant for a while, and have observed that those costumers who come in the most expensive cars are the skimpiest a-holes you ever get to serve, in addition to treating you like shit.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 1:56 PM
Fred The Hun, Thanks for the link. Although, it might be more appropriate if there were other links to biologists instead of a corporation.
Posted by: JThompson | July 25, 2009 3:49 PM
I don't think I've ever seen this many red herrings in a Pharyngula thread.
It's amazing how many people utterly missed PZ's point, then proceeded to pretty much make it for him.
If you struck out any reference to the fish, this could easily be an argument about global warming.
"Look at the other fish that aren't edible that are being decimated!" sounds remarkably like "Why should WE reduce carbon emissions? China and India won't reduce theirs!"
"If we don't eat them someone else will!" doesn't just sound like "Why should we reduce carbon emissions...." it's exactly the same.
What mental hoops must one jump through to think "I don't eat an endangered species for what other people think, I eat one because I like the taste!" is an acceptable argument? It just makes you a douche with discerning taste. Good for you.
Or that it doesn't sound exactly like "I don't drive a hummer for status, I drive it because it's pretty."
Maybe the idea of killing a panda with a hammer excites me sexually. It doesn't mean I should be allowed to, even if I can afford both panda and hammer.
All that said, your logical arguments have swayed me. I admit it, you bluefin eaters are right. You are a special person. If you want it and can afford it, then it is your god given right to possess it. Consequences for the world be damned, you deserve it. Anyone trying to stop you from having what you desire is as bad as (insert group you dislike here).
No, no. You're not part of the problem. They're just being silly. Don't worry, they're just jealous. You don't sound like a Global Warming denier at all.
(No, I didn't address the "Free Market Will Provide!" people. The cult of the free market are idiots.)
Posted by: GMacs | July 25, 2009 4:44 PM
I mean, it's fun to get mad at rich people and all, but I don't see much more use to blaming them for this than to blaming the fishers or anyone else in the economic chain.
Blame away. I am at the bottom of that economic chain. I'm a 20-year-old sushi chef, transferring schools, paying rent on a house at school in which I'm not even living yet. Also, my family is in a budget freeze right now.
It doesn't matter because rich people aren't the problem. It's awareness. Hell this stuff isn't even expensive. I bought a pound of it a few months ago for $24. 2 pieces of maguro nigiri (about 1 to 2 oz of fish) go for about $5. I didn't know it's an endangered species until yesterday. I don't think anyone at the restaurant, or any of the customers, know either.
But what do I do? Refuse to prepare it? Inform people that they are contributing to the destruction of global marine ecosystems? I wish I could, but I'd probably lose my job.
Take out an add, write a senator, something. Rich people aren't the proper target (though it would be so much more fun if they were).
Posted by: Isabel | July 25, 2009 7:44 PM
"I don't think anyone at the restaurant, or any of the customers, know either.
But what do I do? Refuse to prepare it? Inform people that they are contributing to the destruction of global marine ecosystems?"
Well you could tell them. You think you sill lose your job for that? And if you tell them it's an endangered species, and they ignore you, how can you continue to prepare it?
We all have to make sacrifices. You may have to make a bigger sacrifice, but you are also in a position to have more effect than others. Spread the word.
Stand up to the challenge! Don't pass the buck. The things you recommend won't solve the problem on their own either. There has been awareness for years, yet quotas are routinely exceeded anyway.
I'm sure you and your family will survive somehow. But the future of the species looks extremely bad. Do you want it on your conscience that you served up some of the last tasty morsels?
Good luck.
Posted by: maseratifan | July 26, 2009 9:29 AM
The bluefin tuna industry harvests the fish before they can even start reproducing. Better to do a blanket ban on bluefins before they go the way of the Atlantic cod.
But hey, lay off the Maserati, those V8's sound mighty good...
Posted by: Andrew @ EC | July 26, 2009 4:18 PM
Bluefin tuna is roughly $10-$15 per order (two pieces of nigiri or three pieces of sashimi), not $600.
Posted by: Philip H | July 27, 2009 8:59 AM
Prof. Myers,
Thanks for bringing this up. As one of those often harried fisheries oceanographers now stuck trying to untangle the . . . intrictate web . . . of bad ocean policy in our nation, I'm always appreicative when issues like bluefin tuna make it in the non-ocean blogosphere.
You and other commenters are spot on when you decry this harvest as intentional. International governing bodies, who are supposed to protect tunas because they migrate across the boundaries of many countries, have failed to do so because many of the member states make too much money and would have to put certain fisheries out of business if they actually followed the science. The U.S. government's position, both publically and privately, however, has been to advocate the opposite for many years. Its just that we don't control what other nations do with their fiheries, in their waters, and so bluefin (and other tunas) continue to be fished toward extinction.
The same, sadly, can be said for many other highly migratory fish species - swordfish, sailfish, and sharks all come immediately to mind. Again, since these fish cross arbitrary lines we've drawn in the ocean to separate nations, the only real way to save them is to get EVERYONE to work together. Show me how to do that, even on a fishery issue, and I'll show you a Nobel Peace Prize. Or a cup of coffee. Whichever motivates you.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 27, 2009 9:37 AM
I think I've detected a new irregular verb:
Several people have mentioned farming the bluefin tuna as a possible solution. It isn't. Tuna are carnivorous, so farming them requires taking large quantities of prey species from the ocean; salmon and trout farming may be responsible for the decline of sand eels in the north Atlantic, and hence of many seabirds. Farming carnivorous species is an unsustainable and irresponsible practice.
Posted by: JohninLondon | July 27, 2009 10:39 AM
Wow, what a profoundly disappointing entry from someone with whom I normally agree.
I, I suppose, fall well into the category of "rich", having swapped my previous career as a scientist for one in banking, then finding that my bosses chose to pay me a seven figure salary to encourage me to keep working for them. I had no idea that this made me an asshole, but, well, I am pleased to have that explained so nicely.
I also drive what is a very expensive car. Strangely, I agonised over whether it made sense to spend so much, especially given the negative view that I knew people had about owners of these (strange, eh, some of us actually don't believe that the people we pass are swooning at our greatness, but know full well the way others view us), but it was so very nice to drive, and such a thing of beauty, that I dived in and made the purchase.
Again, I must be thankful that it has been explained to me that owning a beautiful and exotic car makes me revolting, so that next time I don't make the mistake of buying what I like, but instead base my decision on an angry man in a far away country.
The horrible fact-checking, the irrelevancies, and the bile in the rest of the post just add to the infantile ad-hominem attack here to make for a strong implication that this is actually a joke piece.
PZ, you should be ashamed of yourself, for stooping to this level of tripe.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 27, 2009 6:02 PM
GMacs comment on maguro (which is served with even the cheapest sushi combos in U.S.-based Japaneses restaurants) got me wondering about canned tuna. In the U.S. they have a company called StarKist Tuna that features Charlie the Tuna on its cans - and Charlie is blue! Could it be that the bluefin tuna industry is so interconnected in American culture that even eating a tuna sandwich is complicit in the bluefin tuna industry?
I went to the source, first. StarKist says this in their FAQ:
A. Tuna labeled as "Light Meat" may contain one or more varieties of light meat species, usually Skipjack or Yellowfin tuna. Tuna labeled as “White Meat” contains Albacore tuna.
OK, but what about cans not labeled "light" or "white" (if they exist)? So I checked WWF, and it says:
So maybe there is nothing to worry about when eating canned tuna.
I also came across the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, and according to one of its publications:
So bluefin only make up 1% of all tuna caught. That makes me think that the association of bluefin tuna with maguro may have been faulty or maybe there is a language translation error not picked up by journalists covering the annual tuna catch. The small percentage of bluefin caught also lends credibility to PZ's original claim that bluefin is a rare delicacy and not a standard sushi item in restaurants.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 27, 2009 6:09 PM
Lets say we capture enough live Bluefin Tuna to breed them in captivity.
One big problem with this is that these fish have planktonic larval stages that are intractably difficult to manage to get to live to the juvenile stage in captivity.
all of the tuna "farming" that has been done so far has been along the lines of catching small tuna and feeding them massive amounts of food just to get them bigger.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not like a putting together a salmonid farm or catfish farm, for example.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 27, 2009 6:18 PM
the association of bluefin tuna with maguro may have been faulty
good point.
Posted by: Martin | July 30, 2009 5:42 AM
Raging against luxury goods? Puh-leeeease. They say that to a hammer everything looks like a nail. I guess to this particular socialist, everything looks like a class issue.
I think Casper said everything that needed to be said on this topic, albeit vastly more polity than I could manage.
Posted by: Karl | August 12, 2009 12:02 PM
Good afternoon. I like weights. You know where you stand with them. Well, sometimes you're lying under them, trying not to let them crush you, but you see, you KNOW they'd crush you if they could. There's honesty. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Refinishing bathroom cabinets. I found only this - zenith bathroom cabinets. The name is santa maria del buen ayre. I remember last week, one of the shelves in my medicine cabinet actually broke because of the. Thanks for the help :-(, Karl from South.
Posted by: John1149 | August 23, 2009 4:28 AM
Nice site! Thank you!
Posted by: John1149 | August 23, 2009 8:32 AM
Incredible site!
Posted by: John1149 | August 23, 2009 1:40 PM
Great .Now i can say thank you!
Posted by: John1149 | August 23, 2009 6:03 PM
Great site. Keep doing.
Posted by: John1149 | August 23, 2009 6:44 PM
Hello!
Posted by: John1149 | August 23, 2009 11:13 PM
Hello!
Posted by: John1149 | August 23, 2009 11:34 PM
Hello!
Posted by: John1149 | August 24, 2009 5:09 AM
Hello!
Posted by: John1149 | August 24, 2009 5:35 AM
Hello!
Posted by: John1149 | August 24, 2009 6:01 AM
Hello!
Posted by: John1149 | August 24, 2009 8:51 AM
Hello!
Posted by: John1149 | August 24, 2009 12:37 PM
Hello!
Posted by: John1149 | August 24, 2009 2:42 PM
Hello!
Posted by: Andrew | August 28, 2009 3:29 PM
If you moonbats would take your head out of your ass and not paint broad brush strokes then maybe people would take you seriously.
The Western Atlantic fishery is far from endangered. You can walk on the fish from PEI to NJ. The eastern Atlantic is where the regulation is needed and where people flat out refuse to play by the rules of ICCAT.