Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
A hive of inactivity

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                             

Eat The Bad Tuna

... if you care about Dolphins.
  (+5)
(+5)
  [vote for,
against]

On many tuna fish products, a label indicates that this is "Dolphin-friendly tuna".

This is paradoxical.

Many humans seem to harbour a perverse liking for those over-intelligent squeaking marine mammals, and want to be friends with them. Thus it would seem appropriate to encourage other marine organisms to be similarly friendly.

But if humans eat all the dolphin-friendly tuna, pretty soon the only tuna left will be acutely hostile to dolphins.

The answer is to hunt, capture, kill and eat only the bad tuna, leaving the friendly ones alone to be nice to dolphins (and other cetaceans).

8th of 7, Nov 18 2013

Bad tuna http://bwhi.com.au/images/sbt/Pic%202.jpg
(Unknown party affiliation) [normzone, Nov 18 2013]

Catching tuna with hook and three poles. http://content.cdli...oc.view=entire_text
History of tuna fishing before the factory ships. [popbottle, Nov 18 2013]

Dolphins are not so nice, they made #2 http://www.cracked....mal-kingdom_p2.html
[bs0u0155, Nov 21 2013]

[link]






       Philosophically speaking, your premise that dolphin-friendly Tuna will also be friendly to other cetaceans is ontologically implausible.
pocmloc, Nov 18 2013
  

       It is the fishermen who are "friendly" to the dolphins. The tuna don't know and don't care. The tuna are ignorant and apathetic. or   

       "So long, and thanks for all the fish."   

       Earth ends. Expressway is built. Fade to black.
popbottle, Nov 18 2013
  

       // your premise that dolphin-friendly Tuna will also be friendly to other cetaceans is ontologically implausible. //   

       We disagree. Humans that express positive opinions about gorillas are on the balance of probabilites likely to express similar opinion about orang-utans, bonobos and chimpanzees, but are less likely to be positive about, for example, hyenas. The distinction between some species of dolphins and others such as pilot whales, belugas and narwhals are not clear-cut.   

       We assert that it is a reasonable extrapolation based on the available evidence.   

       // The tuna are ignorant and apathetic. //   

       They probably all vote Democrat, then ...
8th of 7, Nov 18 2013
  

       This has worryingly implications. I have been using mainly forest-friendly loo paper.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 18 2013
  

       ... so presumably you're now pining for something better ... ?
.
.
.
.
<slow handclaps>
.
.
.
.......@.......@ ..........@.
.
.
<placeholder for obligatory Monty Python Lumberjack Sketch reference>
8th of 7, Nov 18 2013
  

       Heh. There's a popular bumper sticker in my area that reads: 'If you're opposed to logging, try using plastic toilet paper.'   

       I've long held everyone who identifies themselves as an 'environmentalist' should be required to live for one month in the environment they think they're saving. This would of course mean that people trying to save the dolphins would have to spend a month living in the open ocean dodging sharks and fishing boats.   

       The true environmentalists are those who strive to preserve the environment not because it's beautiful and pristine and romantic but because it's what lies directly outside their front door.
Alterother, Nov 18 2013
  

       Inuit kill seals. They use the fur, the fat, the meat and the bones. Nothing goes to waste. The Faeroese kill whales; likewise, in a semi-subsistence economy, nothing is wasted.   

       The numbers harvested (and we use the word advisedly) are small in proportion to the total population, and small in proportion to the impact of disease, predators and food supply (indeed, in such circumstances, humans can be considered natural predators, even though they are tool-users).   

       We agree about "environmentalists", whos credentials would be a lot more convincing if they gave up all, pronounced ALL, the products of a technological society, including access to vaccines, antibiotics and painkillers, dental treatment, mechanically-propelled vehicles and refrigerators, instead of driving home from protest meetings to their centrally-heated house, opening a bottle of imported wine, and then getting on the internet to check out the best school to send their children to.
8th of 7, Nov 18 2013
  

       // "environmentalists", whos credentials would be a lot more convincing if they gave up all, pronounced ALL, the products of a technological society,//   

       With all due respect, I think that's bollocks. Why can I not be an environmentalist whose vision of the future involves lots of technology that allows people to live with less impact (than current technology) on other species?   

       OK, I might caveatize that by pointing out that I am not, in fact, such an environmentalist. But I _could_ be.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 18 2013
  

       Because // less impact // is not what technology is about. Technology is about loud noises, squashing anything in the way, and setting fire to stuff. Ooooh, lots of stuff.   

       In fact, anything involving "impact" (the bigger, brighter and louder the better) is what technology is for.
8th of 7, Nov 18 2013
  

       Well, yes, I expect I agree with you. Howevertheless, you're still bringing forth vocal gonads.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 18 2013
  

       Go kill a polar bear with your bare hands, and then come back and continue the discussion.   

       Until then, we consider that you are communicating via your lower rear orifice.
8th of 7, Nov 18 2013
  

       How do you know I have not already killed a polar bear with my bare hands?   

       Actually, I haven't. However, Sturton once strangled a marmoset.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 18 2013
  

       We thought that was in self-defence ? God knows what the intercalary twin was injecting into those poor creatures ... the way that Buff Orpington tore the throats out of those two Dobermans before jumping the three-metre fence, diving into the river and swimming under water down to the sea to spawn is not something we shall easily forget, and believe us we've tried.
8th of 7, Nov 18 2013
  

       The intercalary twin was in Myanmar, I believe, at the time of Sturton's marmoset incident.   

       In Sturton's defense, I should point out that the marmoset had tried to make off with the parasol from his Blue Moon.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 18 2013
  

       I really like this idea. [+]
the porpoise, Nov 18 2013
  

       //live for one month in the environment they think they're saving//   

       I have exactly the opposite objection.   

       I suggest that one of the main threats to certain fragile environments is posed by nature-lovers coming to admire them.   

       For example, there's a very impressive coral reef off the west coast of Australia, which is intermittently at risk from tourist development. I know it's impressive because I've seen photographs. The best thing I can do to protect it, though, is to stay 1000 miles away from it, and thereby *not* add to the commercial pressure to build a hotel and marina on top of it.
pertinax, Nov 20 2013
  

       // the main threats ... is posed by nature-lovers //   

       ... cull the nature-lovers ?
8th of 7, Nov 20 2013
  

       I completely agree in that case, [pert]. Stay The Fuck Away From The Great Barrier Reef is a no-brainer. On the other hand I and about 100,000 other people live in a remote region of Maine that according to the propaganda of a Massachusetts-based environmental activism group* is threatened in some unspecified but dire way. In these parts we encourage people to come here and enjoy our pristine wilderness. Tourism is the second-most profitable industry in this county (sustainable forestry is #1) and we keep coming up with new ways for people to enjoy our mountains without harming them (admittedly the environment here is a bit more durable than a coral reef). So there are two sides to the coin, see?   

       * namely, Friends of the Boundary Mountains (as far as I can tell a made-up name that does not appear on any map**), who have ties to Earth First and other idiot magnet organizations   

       ** maybe one of the other New England 'bakers knows if there are legitimate origins to the name, but nobody around here uses it
Alterother, Nov 20 2013
  

       // "How many years would it take to consume all the worlds silver with these plasters ?" //   

       Longer than you think. Silver is remarkably abundant compared to some rare earths, and isn't actually classified as a precious metal.   

       And there is a significant cost-benefit. With a silver-doped wound dressing, the risk of infection is massively reduced, and the wound heals faster. No need to use as many dressings; no need for other medication to combat an infection; concomitant savings in time and resources as the demand for medical personnel is reduced and you're back to doing whatever you're doing faster. In these circumstances, using silver makes perfect sense.   

       Silver: USD$700k/ton, Tin:USD$23k/ton. Roughly 30 times more expensive; one order of magnitude.
8th of 7, Nov 21 2013
  

       on the original point, dolphins are ar*eholes <link>. Can I have Tuna-friendly Dolphin?   

       I don't eat seafood, because it smells dreadful and most of it is filter-feeders that look like aliens. As a consequence of my not eating such food, people try and convert me: "try tuna steak" they say "it's really meaty".... then all their companions will join in in a proselytizing circle-jerk about the relative merits of their gateway-fish. Anyway, if I could buy tuna-friendly dolphin, it would definitely be meaty. And it would shut them up about me trying seafood in a very satisfying way....
bs0u0155, Nov 21 2013
  

       Hmm! I always took 'dolphin-friendly' to mean 'the fish in this tin would have made a fine meal for a dolphin if we hadn't caught it first & stuck it in this tin for you to eat instead'.
DrBob, Nov 22 2013
  

       What ? From the way the beardie-weirdie greenies and the econuts bang on, you'd think that all dolphins are born-again vegans …
8th of 7, Nov 22 2013
  

       How can you trust anything that spends so much time grinning and cackling?
bs0u0155, Nov 22 2013
  

       No no!! "Dolphin friendly tuna" doesn't mean that the tuna is friendly to dolphins. And of course, if we eat up all the dolphin friendly tuna, it will NOT leave dolphin-hostile tuna around. You got it all wrong.   

       You should read it: Dolphin friendly? Tuna! And what they are saying is: If your dolphin friendly, you should eat this tuna. Because most of the tuna is radioactive from Fukoshima, it will kill the dolphins, unless you eat it, which makes you the dolphin's friend. Hence: "Dolphin Friendly".
pashute, Nov 24 2013
  

       Woudn't that result in a food chain reaction ? And there's sure to be a "nuclear fish 'n" joke in there somewhere, like "Tuna meals from Fukoshima - Nuclear Fish 'n chips !" only of course not quite that funny.
8th of 7, Nov 24 2013
  

       "Who ordered the fugu ?"
8th of 7, Nov 24 2013
  

       Well, cutting down bamboo endangers panda habitat …   

       Dolphin-friendly Pandas ? Bamboo-friendly tuna ? Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were nice ?
8th of 7, Dec 11 2013
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle