Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

I agree about the two-party system's polarising effects and the issue of exploitation by power players who benefit from divisions, eg. politicians, religions and the media (especially the Murdoch media), and also those that benefit from division via algorithms and engagement like Twitter and Facebook.

[ernestm]

I agree about the two-party system's polarising effects and the issue of exploitation by power players who benefit from divisions, eg. politicians, religions and the media (especially the Murdoch media), and also those that benefit from division via algorithms and engagement like Twitter and Facebook.

Well I grew up in the UK, so Im probably biased by the BBC, which is an incredibly good network, especially compared to anything in the USA. Personally I would favor the same mechanism in the USA: a tax to support independent media so it does not need to rely on advertizing revenue. But I am very much in the minority. National radio and public TV networks lose more funding every single adminisitration.

[Mercury]

There's no such thing as a climate change activist. They're all anti-capitalists and misanthropes. Every single one of them. A genuine climate change activist would demand the application of Magma Energy technology - proven viable by NASA from 1975-1982, capable of supplying virtually limitless quantities of clean energy - massively more than sufficient to meet global energy demand carbon free, plus desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the atmosphere - thus providing for a prosperous sustainable future.
Instead, they want us to sit in the cold and dark eating bugs; while they form a dictatorial green government that hates human beings, and considers their very existence a blight on mother nature - as justification to impose sustainable levels of poverty forever after. Also, apparently, they hate art!

This is a list of straw man attacks, nothing more.

You're right. However, these are no mere raggedy moppets that would fail to scare a crow, but carefully crafted straw men - accurate representations of the real life consequences of following in the course of an anti-capitalist approach to sustainability, based on the false assumption of 'Limits to Growth' - and it's not much better than dying of climate change. Thus I charge them, with the charge their position lays them open to - that they are anti-capitalists and misanthropes - to make the point that there is a better way: an approach that affords a prosperous sustainable future.

Well again I appreciate your sentiment, and had any significant damage been done, I would share your condemnation. And your criticism is correct.

I've been foillowing the debate on salmon farming in Canada for some time, and there is a documentary 'salmon confidential' in which the activists hover in boats around open-net river farms complaining they aren't allowed in to test the farmed fish for viruses. I had to think the salmon farmers have very good reason to think the activists would deliberately contaminate the farm with some lethal virus that is killing the wild salmon population in order to get it closed down. I could talk quite alot about that, but the point is, activists have created an anatagonistic situation that is not helpful, however much one agrees with their concerns.

I had expected to hear from some anarchists on this, I used to be on philsophyforum.com and anarchists have rather taken over there, and they got me banned for expressing such sentiments. I did think about it quite a bit and I try to express my point of view in a properly tempered way, or really I am guilty of the same extremism I criticize.

I'm all for fish farming myself. It's obscene for 8 billion people to continue hunting the oceans. We must develop aquaculture and marine agriculture in the magma powered future. The problem as far as I'm concerned is that fish farming is not done on a sufficiently industrial scale. Government and the banks need to back the industry with significant investment - such that fish farming can be achieved more efficiently, more profitably, and in the most environmentally sustainable way. We need applied science, not have-a-go Harry and a thousand yards of chicken wire. Because the population is growing, and becoming more prosperous - and we need, not only more energy, but more protein. We must move beyond a direct dependence on nature - as we did with agriculture thousands of years ago. That needs to be across the board; we need to produce fresh water - and move out of the river valleys - develop wastelands for agriculture, and aquaculture - rather than exhausting rivers, and burning forests. And it all comes back to the energy issue - the energy required to desalinate and irrigate land that has no water; then we can spread out - use agriculture to resist desertification and increase biomass, that in turn sequesters carbon. It's all related. We have a part to play, and that part is the farmer - and not the hunter. I'm sorry; I know, those indigenous people have been hunting salmon since before the white man came - but they need to stop, get a job in the salmon factory - wear a hair net and pay tax. Because that's the only way we can save the Great River Spirit from Have-a-go Harry!

[Sy Borg]

I agree about the two-party system's polarising effects and the issue of exploitation by power players who benefit from divisions, eg. politicians, religions and the media (especially the Murdoch media), and also those that benefit from division via algorithms and engagement like Twitter and Facebook.

Well I grew up in the UK, so Im probably biased by the BBC, which is an incredibly good network, especially compared to anything in the USA. Personally I would favor the same mechanism in the USA: a tax to support independent media so it does not need to rely on advertizing revenue. But I am very much in the minority. National radio and public TV networks lose more funding every single adminisitration.

In Australia we have the ABC, which is a like a lamer version of the BBC. I can imagine the response of many Americans at the idea of using taxpayer money to try to provide objective information that is inconvenient to their cause.

[ernestm]

There's no such thing as a climate change activist. They're all anti-capitalists and misanthropes. Every single one of them. A genuine climate change activist would demand the application of Magma Energy technology - proven viable by NASA from 1975-1982, capable of supplying virtually limitless quantities of clean energy - massively more than sufficient to meet global energy demand carbon free, plus desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the atmosphere - thus providing for a prosperous sustainable future.
Instead, they want us to sit in the cold and dark eating bugs; while they form a dictatorial green government that hates human beings, and considers their very existence a blight on mother nature - as justification to impose sustainable levels of poverty forever after. Also, apparently, they hate art!

This is a list of straw man attacks, nothing more.

You're right. However, these are no mere raggedy moppets that would fail to scare a crow, but carefully crafted straw men - accurate representations of the real life consequences of following in the course of an anti-capitalist approach to sustainability, based on the false assumption of 'Limits to Growth' - and it's not much better than dying of climate change. Thus I charge them, with the charge their position lays them open to - that they are anti-capitalists and misanthropes - to make the point that there is a better way: an approach that affords a prosperous sustainable future.

Well again I appreciate your sentiment, and had any significant damage been done, I would share your condemnation. And your criticism is correct.

I've been foillowing the debate on salmon farming in Canada for some time, and there is a documentary 'salmon confidential' in which the activists hover in boats around open-net river farms complaining they aren't allowed in to test the farmed fish for viruses. I had to think the salmon farmers have very good reason to think the activists would deliberately contaminate the farm with some lethal virus that is killing the wild salmon population in order to get it closed down. I could talk quite alot about that, but the point is, activists have created an anatagonistic situation that is not helpful, however much one agrees with their concerns.

I had expected to hear from some anarchists on this, I used to be on philsophyforum.com and anarchists have rather taken over there, and they got me banned for expressing such sentiments. I did think about it quite a bit and I try to express my point of view in a properly tempered way, or really I am guilty of the same extremism I criticize.

I'm all for fish farming myself. It's obscene for 8 billion people to continue hunting the oceans. We must develop aquaculture and marine agriculture in the magma powered future. The problem as far as I'm concerned is that fish farming is not done on a sufficiently industrial scale. Government and the banks need to back the industry with significant investment - such that fish farming can be achieved more efficiently, more profitably, and in the most environmentally sustainable way. We need applied science, not have-a-go Harry and a thousand yards of chicken wire. Because the population is growing, and becoming more prosperous - and we need, not only more energy, but more protein. We must move beyond a direct dependence on nature - as we did with agriculture thousands of years ago. That needs to be across the board; we need to produce fresh water - and move out of the river valleys - develop wastelands for agriculture, and aquaculture - rather than exhausting rivers, and burning forests. And it all comes back to the energy issue - the energy required to desalinate and irrigate land that has no water; then we can spread out - use agriculture to resist desertification and increase biomass, that in turn sequesters carbon. It's all related. We have a part to play, and that part is the farmer - and not the hunter. I'm sorry; I know, those indigenous people have been hunting salmon since before the white man came - but they need to stop, get a job in the salmon factory - wear a hair net and pay tax. Because that's the only way we can save the Great River Spirit from Have-a-go Harry!

I guess Im a little biased because I won't eat any animal born free. I know, it's weird. Once a Christian decided to make a point and shot all the birds eating at a birdfeeder I'd been hanging, then fed them to me for a thanksgiving dinner. "What's your problem?" he said. "You fed them, and I caught them. Eat it!" So I did, but I haven't eaten a thanksgiving dinner with anyone since.

Anyway, I do feel bad for these kids because they at least have something resembling real ideals, even if their ideals led them astray, and they are likely to suffer miserable lives now which will only make them more inclined to do something even worse, for which reason the state has to punish them far in excess of their actual crime, which there being minimal damage to the picture frame only in one case, was really just the cost of having a painting restorer rinse the paintings with water. And copycats are also likely to do real damage now, as with social media as it is these days it's probably going to become some kind of trend, and that is what we have to cope with in the world these days.

But I had to conclude the anti-fish-farm activists were actually wives of fishing-boat owners (for a long list of reasons I won't go into).

[Mercury]

I guess Im a little biased because I won't eat any animal born free. I know, it's weird. Once a Christian decided to make a point and shot all the birds eating at a birdfeeder I'd been hanging, then fed them to me for a thanksgiving dinner. "What's your problem?" he said. "You fed them, and I caught them. Eat it!" So I did, but I haven't eaten a thanksgiving dinner with anyone since.

Anyway, I do feel bad for these kids because they at least have something resembling real ideals, even if their ideals led them astray, and they are likely to suffer miserable lives now which will only make them more inclined to do something even worse, for which reason the state has to punish them far in excess of their actual crime, which there being minimal damage to the picture frame only in one case, was really just the cost of having a painting restorer rinse the paintings with water. And copycats are also likely to do real damage now, as with social media as it is these days it's probably going to become some kind of trend, and that is what we have to cope with in the world these days.

But I had to conclude the anti-fish-farm activists were actually wives of fishing-boat owners (for a long list of reasons I won't go into).

It is weird, but it's not wrong. Like I say, we need to move past hunting, past a dependence on natural resources. We need to produce our own resources - starting with energy. Then fresh water. Did you know about aquifer depletion? All the major continents' aquifers are becoming exhausted by human exploitation, and that's likely to have a range of knock on effects - from sink-holes to wildfires, deforestation and desertification. The environmentalist movement is not wrong - that we need to change our ways, but their back to nature proscription for de-growth and/or depopulation is completely wrong; and creates a political impasse that means nothing gets done.

They don't want to hear it; perhaps because the self sacrificial quality of anti-capitalist environmentalism must seem so satisfyingly heroic - I cannot get through to them. I've tried. I don't think they understand - particularly how the economy and politics are related. Take Extinction Rebellion for example; they pretend to be democratic - and yet demand de-growth; apparently unaware that capitalism is the basis for the personal and political freedom necessary to democracy. A command economy considers people no more nor less than labor power; a factor of production who need to do as they are told by government, or else! And not only that, but also think and say what they are told - and here's where political correctness comes in - this dictatorial herd mentality, intolerant in its insistence on tolerance!

Between anti-capitalist sustainability and political correctness, I'm really starting to worry that the future could be one of communist conformity and sustainable levels of poverty; not only because that's horrifying in itself, but because it won't work to secure the future. There's absolutely no evidence communism is any better environmentally speaking - and indeed, many stories like Mao's sparrows, that suggest central planning is conducted by those without the expertise of those on the ground in a capitalist economy, and so is much worse environmentally.

The only way to address this problem successfully is to transcend it; harnessing limitless clean energy to sustain capitalist prosperity. Sure, various regulatory and conservation measures would need to follow - like river conservation facilitated by industrial scale fish farming, but it all begins with energy. I do believe, magma energy technology is so fundamental, and essential that given a collective decision to develop it - all our ducks would line up in due course! It would not only change what we could achieve - but what we'd want to achieve!

[psyreporter]

Bertrand Russell as an activist in 1961
mw127618.jpg (86.9 KiB) Viewed 2972 times

The following perspective by Bertrand Russell might be of interest:

Interviewer: Do you think that on the whole fanatics in the world are more useful or more dangerous than sceptics?

Bertrand Russell: Fanaticism is THE danger of the world. It always has been and has done untold harm. I think that fanaticism is the gravest danger there is. I'd almost say that I was fanatical against fanaticism.

Interviewer: But are you then not fanatical also against some other things. You see, your current campaign is in favour of nuclear disarmament.

Would you encourage your supporters to undertake some of the extreme demonstrations they undertake. Isn't that fanaticism?

Bertrand Russell: I don't think that's fanaticism. No, some of them may be fanatical but I do give them support but not from fanatical reasons. I support them because everything sain and sensible and quiet that we do is absolutely ignored by the press. And the only way that we can get into the press system is to do something that looks fanatical.

--

Bertrand Russell once went to jail for his campaign against war.

Russell told one colleague that the talk (On Scientific Method in Philosophy, Oxford) ‘was partly inspired by disgust at the universal outburst of “righteousness” in all nations since the war began. It seems the essence of virtue is persecution, and it has given me a disgust of all ethical notions.
...
In private, Russell referred to the essay as ‘Philosophers and Pigs’.
...
Russell’s antiwar protest was so extensive that it would cost him both his job and, for a time, his personal freedom. His theoretical antidote to the irrational, sectarian vitriol between European nations was to try to show how logic could function as an international language that could be used impartially and dispassionately to adjudicate disputes. His theoretical antidote was, in other words, analytic philosophy.

‘The truth, whatever it may be, is the same in England, France, and Germany … it is in its essence neutral’

(2020) The politics of logic - Philosophy at war: nationalism and logical analysis
https://aeon.co/essays/philosophy-at-wa ... l-analysis

[Belindi]

There's no such thing as a climate change activist. They're all anti-capitalists and misanthropes. Every single one of them. A genuine climate change activist would demand the application of Magma Energy technology - proven viable by NASA from 1975-1982, capable of supplying virtually limitless quantities of clean energy - massively more than sufficient to meet global energy demand carbon free, plus desalinate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, recycle all waste, and extract carbon from the atmosphere - thus providing for a prosperous sustainable future.
Instead, they want us to sit in the cold and dark eating bugs; while they form a dictatorial green government that hates human beings, and considers their very existence a blight on mother nature - as justification to impose sustainable levels of poverty forever after. Also, apparently, they hate art!

This is a list of straw man attacks, nothing more.

You're right. However, these are no mere raggedy moppets that would fail to scare a crow, but carefully crafted straw men - accurate representations of the real life consequences of following in the course of an anti-capitalist approach to sustainability, based on the false assumption of 'Limits to Growth' - and it's not much better than dying of climate change. Thus I charge them, with the charge their position lays them open to - that they are anti-capitalists and misanthropes - to make the point that there is a better way: an approach that affords a prosperous sustainable future.

Well again I appreciate your sentiment, and had any significant damage been done, I would share your condemnation. And your criticism is correct.

I've been foillowing the debate on salmon farming in Canada for some time, and there is a documentary 'salmon confidential' in which the activists hover in boats around open-net river farms complaining they aren't allowed in to test the farmed fish for viruses. I had to think the salmon farmers have very good reason to think the activists would deliberately contaminate the farm with some lethal virus that is killing the wild salmon population in order to get it closed down. I could talk quite alot about that, but the point is, activists have created an anatagonistic situation that is not helpful, however much one agrees with their concerns.

I had expected to hear from some anarchists on this, I used to be on philsophyforum.com and anarchists have rather taken over there, and they got me banned for expressing such sentiments. I did think about it quite a bit and I try to express my point of view in a properly tempered way, or really I am guilty of the same extremism I criticize.

I'm all for fish farming myself. It's obscene for 8 billion people to continue hunting the oceans. We must develop aquaculture and marine agriculture in the magma powered future. The problem as far as I'm concerned is that fish farming is not done on a sufficiently industrial scale. Government and the banks need to back the industry with significant investment - such that fish farming can be achieved more efficiently, more profitably, and in the most environmentally sustainable way. We need applied science, not have-a-go Harry and a thousand yards of chicken wire. Because the population is growing, and becoming more prosperous - and we need, not only more energy, but more protein. We must move beyond a direct dependence on nature - as we did with agriculture thousands of years ago. That needs to be across the board; we need to produce fresh water - and move out of the river valleys - develop wastelands for agriculture, and aquaculture - rather than exhausting rivers, and burning forests. And it all comes back to the energy issue - the energy required to desalinate and irrigate land that has no water; then we can spread out - use agriculture to resist desertification and increase biomass, that in turn sequesters carbon. It's all related. We have a part to play, and that part is the farmer - and not the hunter. I'm sorry; I know, those indigenous people have been hunting salmon since before the white man came - but they need to stop, get a job in the salmon factory - wear a hair net and pay tax. Because that's the only way we can save the Great River Spirit from Have-a-go Harry!

I guess Im a little biased because I won't eat any animal born free. I know, it's weird. Once a Christian decided to make a point and shot all the birds eating at a birdfeeder I'd been hanging, then fed them to me for a thanksgiving dinner. "What's your problem?" he said. "You fed them, and I caught them. Eat it!" So I did, but I haven't eaten a thanksgiving dinner with anyone since.

Anyway, I do feel bad for these kids because they at least have something resembling real ideals, even if their ideals led them astray, and they are likely to suffer miserable lives now which will only make them more inclined to do something even worse, for which reason the state has to punish them far in excess of their actual crime, which there being minimal damage to the picture frame only in one case, was really just the cost of having a painting restorer rinse the paintings with water. And copycats are also likely to do real damage now, as with social media as it is these days it's probably going to become some kind of trend, and that is what we have to cope with in the world these days.

But I had to conclude the anti-fish-farm activists were actually wives of fishing-boat owners (for a long list of reasons I won't go into).

Anyone who kills birds who have been tamed sufficiently to use a bird feeder is doing damage to his own psyche. I don't endorse leisure hunting either as I am not an ignorant yob. Commercial fishing has to be subject to international law.

Fish farms are dangerous to wild fish because some of the domesticated fish who have poor resistance to disease escape from the farms then spread their inferior genes and become havens for wild diseases. They are also cruel to hunting species such as salmon. Our best hope is eating plants and helping undeveloped peoples to practice contraception.

As for the Sunflowers by Van Gogh, it was a good target to choose because it's purely aesthetic. No climate activist would deface Guernica.

[Gertie]

Stop Oil gave 55 Tufton St a coat of paint today

[Mercury]

Stop Oil gave 55 Tufton St a coat of paint today

Well, couldn't have happened to a more despicable bunch of free market fundamentalist climate change denying tax dodgers in receipt of donations from undisclosed sources while simultaneously calling themselves a charity and engaging in political activity at the heart of the Tory brexit government, but ...but erm, no sorry, lost my train of thought!

[ernestm]

You're right. However, these are no mere raggedy moppets that would fail to scare a crow, but carefully crafted straw men - accurate representations of the real life consequences of following in the course of an anti-capitalist approach to sustainability, based on the false assumption of 'Limits to Growth' - and it's not much better than dying of climate change. Thus I charge them, with the charge their position lays them open to - that they are anti-capitalists and misanthropes - to make the point that there is a better way: an approach that affords a prosperous sustainable future.

Well again I appreciate your sentiment, and had any significant damage been done, I would share your condemnation. And your criticism is correct.

I've been foillowing the debate on salmon farming in Canada for some time, and there is a documentary 'salmon confidential' in which the activists hover in boats around open-net river farms complaining they aren't allowed in to test the farmed fish for viruses. I had to think the salmon farmers have very good reason to think the activists would deliberately contaminate the farm with some lethal virus that is killing the wild salmon population in order to get it closed down. I could talk quite alot about that, but the point is, activists have created an anatagonistic situation that is not helpful, however much one agrees with their concerns.

I had expected to hear from some anarchists on this, I used to be on philsophyforum.com and anarchists have rather taken over there, and they got me banned for expressing such sentiments. I did think about it quite a bit and I try to express my point of view in a properly tempered way, or really I am guilty of the same extremism I criticize.

I'm all for fish farming myself. It's obscene for 8 billion people to continue hunting the oceans. We must develop aquaculture and marine agriculture in the magma powered future. The problem as far as I'm concerned is that fish farming is not done on a sufficiently industrial scale. Government and the banks need to back the industry with significant investment - such that fish farming can be achieved more efficiently, more profitably, and in the most environmentally sustainable way. We need applied science, not have-a-go Harry and a thousand yards of chicken wire. Because the population is growing, and becoming more prosperous - and we need, not only more energy, but more protein. We must move beyond a direct dependence on nature - as we did with agriculture thousands of years ago. That needs to be across the board; we need to produce fresh water - and move out of the river valleys - develop wastelands for agriculture, and aquaculture - rather than exhausting rivers, and burning forests. And it all comes back to the energy issue - the energy required to desalinate and irrigate land that has no water; then we can spread out - use agriculture to resist desertification and increase biomass, that in turn sequesters carbon. It's all related. We have a part to play, and that part is the farmer - and not the hunter. I'm sorry; I know, those indigenous people have been hunting salmon since before the white man came - but they need to stop, get a job in the salmon factory - wear a hair net and pay tax. Because that's the only way we can save the Great River Spirit from Have-a-go Harry!

I guess Im a little biased because I won't eat any animal born free. I know, it's weird. Once a Christian decided to make a point and shot all the birds eating at a birdfeeder I'd been hanging, then fed them to me for a thanksgiving dinner. "What's your problem?" he said. "You fed them, and I caught them. Eat it!" So I did, but I haven't eaten a thanksgiving dinner with anyone since.

Anyway, I do feel bad for these kids because they at least have something resembling real ideals, even if their ideals led them astray, and they are likely to suffer miserable lives now which will only make them more inclined to do something even worse, for which reason the state has to punish them far in excess of their actual crime, which there being minimal damage to the picture frame only in one case, was really just the cost of having a painting restorer rinse the paintings with water. And copycats are also likely to do real damage now, as with social media as it is these days it's probably going to become some kind of trend, and that is what we have to cope with in the world these days.

But I had to conclude the anti-fish-farm activists were actually wives of fishing-boat owners (for a long list of reasons I won't go into).

Anyone who kills birds who have been tamed sufficiently to use a bird feeder is doing damage to his own psyche. I don't endorse leisure hunting either as I am not an ignorant yob. Commercial fishing has to be subject to international law.

Fish farms are dangerous to wild fish because some of the domesticated fish who have poor resistance to disease escape from the farms then spread their inferior genes and become havens for wild diseases. They are also cruel to hunting species such as salmon. Our best hope is eating plants and helping undeveloped peoples to practice contraception.

As for the Sunflowers by Van Gogh, it was a good target to choose because it's purely aesthetic. No climate activist would deface Guernica.

Well what you say about salmon is true, and the process of regulation to prevent disease spread is long and complex. So some activists can run around and make noises about it, but the reality of their complaints is totally derailed by their continual assertion that farmed salmon are also bad for human health and shouldn't be eaten. Besides the obvious fact that such latter claims have never been found true, it means their real objective is not to save wild salmon.

Efforts to reduce risk to wild populations continue, EVEN WHILE independent international studies have not found that disease contamination from fish farms is a significant factor in wild population decrease. Besides requiring annual cleansing, open net farms are being phased out. the progress would be much faster if the activists asked for a tax on salmon fishing to pay for farm upgrades, which would also reduce fishing pressure. But the activists have NEVER EVEN RAISED fishing pressure as a cause of wild population loss. The conclusion I draw from the prior fact and this one is rather inevitable. So now I spelled it out.

[Belindi]

Ernest wrote that it's alleged farmed salmon are bad for human health. I never heard of this except in the context of all salmon wild and farmed. I heard that salmon meat contains some bad metals from polluted oceans.

The best we can practically do is eat less first class protein. Say two smallish portions per week per person.

[Mercury]

Ernest wrote that it's alleged farmed salmon are bad for human health. I never heard of this except in the context of all salmon wild and farmed. I heard that salmon meat contains some bad metals from polluted oceans.

The best we can practically do is eat less first class protein. Say two smallish portions per week per person.

Why would we want to do that? I could gladly limit salmon to two small portions a week, but protein? I eat more protein than that per day. Eggs for breakfast say, and chicken for supper - is, as far as I'm concerned a healthy balanced diet. Two small portions of protein per WEEK? Why would you say that?

[ernestm]

Ernest wrote that it's alleged farmed salmon are bad for human health. I never heard of this except in the context of all salmon wild and farmed. I heard that salmon meat contains some bad metals from polluted oceans.

The best we can practically do is eat less first class protein. Say two smallish portions per week per person.

The authors of a recent book Salmon Wars (

https://www.sanjuanjournal.com/life/inn ... -recovery/

got Time Magazine to print its editorial without the magazine researching it, which has become a very common practice in investigative reporting since income loss from the Internet caused a 90% reduction in editorial staff in the USA. The article,

https://time.com/6199237/is-farmed-salm ... stainable/

triggered a rebuttal from the National Aquaculture Association with an unnecessarily rude title

https://aboutseafood.com/time-magazine- ... mon-story/

There is some good news

1. A new kind of fishing net. Commercial gillmets cause a 49% mortality of salmon, but the new fish trap design has <0.5% mortality.

https://aboutseafood.com/time-magazine- ... mon-story/

2. This is a new technique to help baby salmon, or 'salmonids,' get around dams that was started in August. It's called a 'salmnid collection system.' This CBS video has an ad at the beginning, but it's well worth sitting through if you're interested, I haven't seen anything better on it as yet:

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/ne ... oud-river/

[Pattern-chaser]

The alarming thing about human-created eco-disaster afflicting our world is that those who would try to do something about it are actually opposed by those who would prefer to carry on living their lives in unsustainable luxury, regardless of the consequences. Those who try to direct our attention to the real world, and the real problems it has, are called protestors or even eco-terrorists. It's that blind opposition, and the denial that accompanies it, that is truly alarming.