Kevin Parcell


This conversation is closed.



  • thumb
    Mar 31 2013: I think a right step is to begin by not eating ocean fish. A recent study in NYC found that a high percentage of fish is mis-labelled, so trying to eat the "right" fish is hopeless. The talks here on TED regarding destruction of the oceans are enlightening and probably the best one can do is to contribute to efforts to battle environmental destruction. Think of NRDC. Also, consider switching to a vegetarian diet. It will minimize the damage of livestock to grasslands (desertification), increased resistance to antibiotics, energy usage, along with making animals happier!

    The point made by another commentator regarding the infiltration of microscopic bits of plastic is a horrific development which we cannot stop. For a further explanation of this topic, I'd recommend the book The World Without Us - an exploration of how the world will fare if (once) we are gone. Which after viewing many of the videos here seems inevitable.
  • Mar 28 2013: Please stick to the words(concentrate) 40 shrimp per year is the "last fish in our dying ocean" Touching. Absolutely out of left field ,rabbit out of a hat but. Nonsense perceived from (I am not even going to guess where or how you came to that conclusion) but as you say It is Very Telling. Have a good one. Too bad that we can't do this at the coffee shop See ya. Ps feel free to let me have it. Nothing is Personal unless one lets it be Peace.
  • Mar 28 2013: That's all nice. We tend to expect a certain response (pre conceived) in our thoughts. Especially when we are writing our minds are already anticipating what the response will be. It works thousands of times faster than your eyes or hands. That is most likely why you "usually encounter" a certain response. You get what you were seeking. 101 If you would dissect your OWN writings as you do others you would learn more. After all it is knowledge you seek correct? I stand by what I wrote. Your writing is a rant all three the same rant.
    "attack" "personal attack" WHAT? I said you are arrogant IMO after corresponding briefly I stand behind it.
    I also wrote that you are much more interested in the human psyche than the oceans (reference your comments) of course that would involve doing as you so eloquently put it Looking at one's self and owning responsibility. You have proven unwilling to do that. The help you need is (you cannot do it alone) you perceived it WRONGLY AGAIN. Say what you want but you are extremely arrogant. The truth is I will be arrogant in telling you in reality you do not have a clue as to how to save the planet (not just an ocean) By the time you talk 20 million people into "just say no" Reagan jumble the oceans ARE DEAD.
    All you have talked about is how angry a response to this I perceived ,attack personal Here is the best and TRULY most telling "Clarify for ME the core hurdle" LMAO you think you are up against a hurdle do you. Silly silly I am a gentle saint compared to what you are unwilling to take on.
    I will do what I can to save the oceans NOT and neither will you.
    Since you are seeking the core hurdle's to overcome in order to save the oceans from demise, Oh one who critiques others but not oneself.(even have the audacity to use the reference in your ripping response, amazing)How long before the world's oceans start recovering with your plan that cannot possibly be wrong or improved upon? Why hasn't it worked in the last 100 years?
  • Mar 28 2013: Sorry bro but I believe that there is nothing to gain here.You seem way more interested in Psychology than reality.The capitalization is merely (emphasis) but I am not surprised by your perception. Sure we will say you were correct in my "denying" BLAH BLAH BLAH, OMG Get over yourself.. You are like my daughter the psych. always perceiving (wrongly) a lot of times but always perceiving SOMETHING.
    How about we do this your way. I will no longer eat my 40 shrimp a year. There you personally saved the Atlantic. Ridiculous. You just have 7 bil more (ps we are growing at about a million a day) so you better get busy on the next one.
    Of course one blames the seller more. Are you just not thinking? We added a million since yesterday you going to blame them? You must have misinterpreted again instead of reading. The gov that allows it, the men who catch it and to a lesser extent the people that sell it, all are more at fault than the consumer whom must rely on what they are told or taught from their gov and the pretty packing telling them no dolphins were harmed You really think those in gov and the commercial fisheries are as ignorant as the (average consumer)think Asia not America. Once again "shirking" where do you come up with this (fascinating) You make no sense to me.Are you positive you READ my comment. REALLY? Rise above their anger. Wow .You r wasting time. If you want to save the ocean get busy!!!! Quit trying to perceive stuff that is not there. A red sign is just that A RED SIGN.OMG Nothing personal but you r going to need help.
    "rise above their anger" What anger? The less than 1% who are aware of the problem? The anger needs to show up first.
    Like I said the ocean is doomed. You will have to ;live long enough to see it.It will rebound, after we have been culled to a reasonable size again. You seem to conveniently leave out plastics heavy metals hormones human waste water temperature all factors. Quit playing with I am so smart and DO SOMTHING
  • Mar 27 2013: PS Even if you perceived my beliefs correctly you would be wrong in your assumption of that belief being the cause of the ocean's problems. WRONGGGG . It is the big conglomerates that psychologically market to you constantly telling you things like "wild" Fresh, Natural (psychological keywords) "sustainable" etc... all legally knowing they are full of "waste"! Non stop 24 seven .The rest of the world meantime have lived the same way for centuries and all they know is cancer is killing them and the fish are gone. Until the world does something besides put a token article on a site visited by less than .0000001 percent of the human population it will (as I clearly predicted) simply and sadly get WORSE AND WORSE.
  • Mar 27 2013: Hey thanks for your reply I find what you say intriguing. I clearly stated that I personally rarely eat non plant life from the oceans. Just to clarify rarely is perhaps twice a year, usually gulf coast (Gulf of Mexico) shrimp. The theory of individualism is the wrong approach because dividing mankind into 7 billion individuals is absolutely ridiculous. NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN. NEVER EVER, see. SO ,I cannot stress this enough IT WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.. Knowledge and applied wisdom is the only thing that will change it (as far as human are involved). Unfortunately we are behind drastically as far as knowledge and education on an "individual" or combined scale. Of the worlds 7 plus billion people barely a fraction of them understand the danger earth is facing. In large part the danger is from what we have done to the oceans. Educating the 7 billion is hopeless for they breed faster than you could teach them not to. Sure it is a noble effort of sorts but fruitless none the less. It is and always will be humans allowing other humans to do what they want indiscriminately Always for pursuit of money not to satisfy hunger. The oceans could easily feed everyone but only certain species fetch the big bucks so we humans let others slaughter them and then we make little "individual" protest and 200 years later (6 plus generations) there are still people in small #s pleading for some miraculous change in human behavior.
    We have culled every single herd on earth except the herd that needs it the most. The one doing all the damage US. That IS the ONLY long term solution. PERIOD. Fine" As far as the "experiment" I would call that a waste of taxpayers money Again. Same experimental concept has been done for hundreds of years. Experiment on something worthwhile. Besides a kid could have made a good guess as to what would happen. Nonsense. waste of precious time. The belief you need is this. Stop overfishing: pass a law allowing sinking of the ship. They understand THAT!
  • Mar 27 2013: Thanks for the reply. No citation just a guesstimate you can correct me if you feel the need or you can just wait until the numbers match up. It will not be long. I rarely eat fish from the ocean (they are poisoned) and usually they are caught and eaten before they have even had a chance to BREED. So no I rarely eat animals from the ocean. If however one enjoys swordfish for example you might as well have a steak because they will soon be gone. It will not be because you ate the steak It will be because for one hundred years we have known (simply by watching the fish being caught ) What is referred to as a big swordfish today is actually what one's grandpa would have thrown back because it was a baby. In order for something to be sustainable the consumption must be controlled. Good luck with that. The system will break in the next 100 years as we slowly kill off all of the plankton eating animals due to consumption of polymers. as well as other man made factors.
    It is no more a belief that the oceans cannot be saved than measuring distance by type1A supernovae is a belief. Could be wrong but the calculations keep working out time after time. The chain has been broken and we show no signs of slowing down at ALL. If America puts a ban or limit on something they just slaughter more in Asia.
    If one wants to help earth the easiest way would be by not having children and adopt an unloved neglected baby. There are MILLIONS . That would help more to save us than occupying a park or some silly hippie crap like chasing whalers fruitlessly for publicity. Yeah that's working. Sink the SHIP that WOULD HELP. Saving the earth is easy STOP OVERBREEDING. Once again Good luck.Thanks again Have a great day
  • Mar 27 2013: I would and will eat fish there are many ways of sustaining your own fresh water fish. The oceans are big by our standards you can choose not to eat a fish from the ocean(recommended because we have filled them full of heavy toxic metals) but unless you figure out how to stop 5 billion other humans who survive solely off the oceans for food and WASTE DISPOSAL that fish your saving is only going to help with your conscience. I will eat one now and then because we will not save the oceans. They will be decimated (they already are). Most people do not realize just how far gone the oceans are.In thirty years we will finally feel the affects of what we have ALREADY done today NO TURNING BACK no technological savior. Enjoy the fish while you can and see if your children like it for their children grow up asking what was a tuna? It is not feeding the people that is the problem. The oceans could easily support ALL of us. It is the indiscriminate slaughter of anything that will turns dead forms of life into money for someone. the damage was done for MONEY not FOOD.
  • Mar 26 2013: I do not object to a reasonable harvest. Overfishing is another matter - Isn't that what everyone is saying here?
    • Mar 27 2013: If it isn't it should be. The problem is we have done SO MUCH damage that the oceans need a chance to heal. If man were to completely stop fishing commercially for 12 yrs the oceans could be a paradise that no human alive today has ever seen. Of course if you actually got in the water you would come out with tiny pieces of polymers on you. Humans are simply a cancer and earth is working hard to protect itself. Rest assured in the end Earth will win. Man this rock must have REALLY been spectacular before we were becoming "civilized" much less before we were here. A planet with no humans. Must have been oh I don't know a "MASTERPIECE"..
  • Mar 25 2013: Too many folks depend on fish as their only meal and it would be very hard to take that away from them, but in other countries, where there is plenty of other food choices, then stop the fishing all together.
  • Mar 25 2013: There are a lot of seemingly everyday inconsequential activities that raise moral flags once you dig a little deeper into what said activity means.

    Ignorance is bliss I suppose. j/k
    • Comment deleted

      • Mar 25 2013: I was saying that most people aren't aware of the marine species collapsing and wouldn't think twice about eating fish. It's just whats for dinner.

        It is just another example of how overconsumption is devastating the life on earth. There are many more examples. Should we change our behaviour? YES.
      • Mar 27 2013: If you care about other life forms on earth and future human generations.. then yes. Also means you can't eat chicken or pigs and that's because a third of the fish we pull out of the ocean goes to feed our livestock.

        Seems to me you can't buy much of anything that doesn't have an ecological footprint.
  • Mar 25 2013: AS a lay person, who keeps up with several biology issues including marine bio., I'll add this:
    You have to take into account the whole food chain of the worlds oceans which starts at the bottom.
    Stop the pollution of the oceans, stop fishing for at least 2-3 yrs. & the fish just might make a comeback.
    The fish that are not used for food are used for fertilizer etc. and that is big business too.
    It's a no win for the sea life.
  • Mar 25 2013: Yes, but be selective.
    • Mar 26 2013: Mankind has been fishing since who knows when. The real problem has started since mechanised/commercial fishing on large scale has started. Where people really really need fish small amount of fishing can sustain these people.

      A hundred years ago how people inland really got to eat sea fish ? Now with commercial fishing everything has changed. One thing that comes to mind(due its graphic nature) is the salmon fishing in the rivers in US/canada look like massacre.