800 tons of fish die at once

 800 tons of fish die on a farm in the Phillipines. The change is being blamed on a temperature drop which led to a depletion in the oxygen of the fish. The problem with it I suspect is as confusing to scientists to me since no one with any certainty is well certain of what happened.

If domesticated fish to eat food we feed them and in the case of America food they are not designed to eat then we are going to get inconsistent results.

I find the idea of farming fish to be the strangest ideas being promoted for fish farming. It encourages meeting demand but unlike our mamalian domestic animals they do not fit into our cycle of life as cleanly. They have not developed the relationship that we have with chickens, and cows, and goat- a relationship until fairly recently was mutually beneficial- and in many cases heroic people are keeping it that way. We always caught them wild until recently

I think I'm sceptical that the cause of the fishes death were due to temperature differences. What definately happened was that there was overshoot. Too many fish in an area with too little oxygen. The temperature drop would decrease the amount of oxygen available in the water and/or just maybe they cold water changed their breeding cycle making more. The businessmen were playing with typical cycles of nature trying to manipulate it as much as possible to control the situation.

Nature had different plans though and we lost a lot of fish.

I think what I get from all this is that no matter what they're are things in life we do not have agency over. We can control what we can control. If a friend has a heart attack then we have to get them medical attention- or give them it if we are doctors. There is a degree of life forces that we can not control. But ultimately it is in our self-interest to respect those life cycles. We gamble with life chances either way whether as hunter gatherers or modern people. What we forget those is that we are still in this cycle either way.

The big problem:

"People in overshoot."

From the flip side of the fish story we have us and our huge population of people. We can control conditions but there is no certainty with which we can stop it. We can keep the population increasing and we can try to ever manipulate nature to do it but we can not ultimately control life's cycle though many will try to achieve that ultimately.

I find a lot of alternative lifestyles of people in the cities trying to be environmental rely on methods that are unsustainable- even my own. Vegans and Omnivores try to be eco friendly but we still use grains which to farm is more environmentally destructive than  factory meat production. Facotry meat production would not be possible with a surplus of grain.

Vegans are environmentally friendlier than normal people to not eat factory meat but no more than omnivores eating organic meat with only the consistency of this truism resting on how much the organivore knows about his source of meat. When it becomes a moral issue of non-meat eaters being morally superior way of living I find that offensive because of how stupid it sounds and how it disrespects all the generations of people who lived much more sustainable and simply than ourselves but also because it sounds so religious to me.

"Legistlation"

Liberals favor legislation that makes farmers, fisherman, and anyone more tied to nature grown because this legislation usually is made to regulate big companies, but unfairly requires people. on a small scale to meat the same standards. It will only get worse before it gets better it seems.

False Hope:

This doesn't mean we can't do anything. Or despair. We just need to be humble and maybe study traditional culture and dig a little deeper and do more, and talk less. We have to stop thinking about invovations and technology as the solution to our problems and more growth. Solar panels and filters and lightbulbs may create a new industry and more jobs but it's not really environmental.

We have to do these our selves instead of hoping that other people do this for us. 




Derek Johnson has said that, "We need to eliminate the belief in false hope."

"Hope is a belief in a change of a present condition  without agency."

So hope is inaction and when we hope for things to change that we can change than that's destructive.

A friend of his said to him, "Derek does this mean that if a friend of mine has a heart attack I can't hope he can recover." Derek said, "Of course not, because you can't control that. But that doesn't mean you give him the keys and say to him you hope he makes it."