Your mom was wrong, there aren't any other fish in the sea

Tonight I’m just going to bitch about this one article, but there’s plenty of material there. I’ve talked before about global warming, and how the environment as a whole is in a downward spiral. It seems like other people are finally realizing just how bad it is. Kinda. Maybe.

Fishing, climate change and pollution have left an indelible mark on virtually all of the world's oceans, according to a huge study that has mapped the total human impact on the seas for the first time. Scientists found that almost no areas have been left pristine and more than 40% of the world's oceans have been heavily affected.
…
"Our results show that when these and other individual impacts are summed up the big picture looks much worse than I imagine most people expected. It was certainly a surprise to me."
…
The oceans at the poles are less affected but melting ice sheets will leave them vulnerable, researchers said.

And in response to that last bit, I give you this, which says that Antarctica is poised and ready for a massive turnover. So just think of what’s already going on elsewhere that our gurus and scholars haven’t twigged to yet. These are two examples of what’s started, but from the looks of it, they still don’t have any idea just how big the repercussions will be. Anyway, back to the first article.

Fiorenza Micheli, an associate professor of biology at Stanford University, said the maps should guide ocean management in future.

"By seeing where different activities occur and whether they occur in sensitive ecosystems we can design management strategies aimed at shifting activities away from the most sensitive areas."

…and instead shifting them toward other areas that will become sensitive, because we’re now dumping our shit there instead, right?

To make the map scientists compiled global data on the impacts of 17 human activities including fishing, coastal development, fertiliser runoff and pollution from shipping traffic.

That’s a start, but I’m willing to bet they didn’t look at the feedback loops, the other “natural” effects that human activities have set in motion.

Halpern said the results, which were published in the journal Science and presented yesterday to the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, still gave room for hope. "With targeted efforts to protect the chunks of the ocean that remain relatively pristine we have a good chance of preserving these areas in good condition."

Check me on this, but that sounds like it’s mutually exclusive with the previous plan. You can either save the areas that haven’t been tainted yet, or you can take advantage of those areas to try and salvage the areas that are already heavily compromised, but not both.

"Humans will always use the oceans for recreation, extraction of resources, and for commercial activity such as shipping. This is a good thing. Our goal, and really our necessity, is to do this in a sustainable way so that our oceans remain in a healthy state and continue to provide us with the resources we need and want."

Well, no, not necessarily. When the oceans become too polluted, they won’t be usable for recreation anymore. When there aren’t any more resources to be extracted, that’ll be done too. And shipping will be pointless if nobody’s got any goods to ship, or the means to ship them (or is just too greedy to share what they’ve got with those who need it). And what do you mean, remain in a healthy state? They haven’t been in a healthy state for over 200 years. And because of that, they’re already failing to “provide us with the resources we need and want.”

Fools. Blind bloody Panglossian fools.