Some 'interesting' facts here...

From a fishkeeping perspective, I didn't realise people kept Nile Perch or Brown Trout.

christyg wrote:

From a fishkeeping perspective, I didn't realise people kept Nile Perch or Brown Trout.

I've kept brown trout AND nile perch... usually in my freezer, wrapped in tinfoil... nom nom nom

Yet another "top 10" from NH and PFK......we need a Top 10 of the Top 10s.

Scannned the list fish, and one thought struck me: what an irrelevant list when that publication is primarily UK aimed.

A listing of the top 10 invasive UK/Ireland would have been more useful.

On the other hand, a Top 10 of the worlds most invasive species would have also been useful.

ian

Ian I couldn't agree more

Come to think of it, as invasive species go, we must rate as the most invasive and destructive species to inhabit the Planet!

H.

Homer wrote:

Come to think of it, as invasive species go, we must rate as the most invasive and destructive species to inhabit the Planet!

H.

That is why we try to put the blame on other species.

Homer wrote:

Come to think of it, as invasive species go, we must rate as the most invasive and destructive species to inhabit the Planet!

H.

That depends on what you regard as invasive and what you regard as merely successful within its particular evolutionary niche.

Nothing has been as globally destructive as the Human being, we take everything and give back nothing. Even the nutrient we absorb during our 70+ years, excluding those of certain religions are sequestered in holes in the Ground or cached in walls of Cemeteries, never to be released back to nature. We still, despite moving forward with amazing technological advances, hide our waste in holes in the Ground, no different than the People of the great Roman Empire.

We have not advanced as a species except for the fact that we have manipulated our environment to enhance our comfort and to prolong our lives but we haveworked against nature rather than lived with it.

If we were more saprophytic than parasitic the World would remain a beautiful place.

H.

Homer wrote:

Nothing has been as globally destructive as the Human being, we take everything and give back nothing. Even the nutrient we absorb during our 70+ years, excluding those of certain religions are sequestered in holes in the Ground or cached in walls of Cemeteries, never to be released back to nature. We still, despite moving forward with amazing technological advances, hide our waste in holes in the Ground, no different than the People of the great Roman Empire.

We have not advanced as a species except for the fact that we have manipulated our environment to enhance our comfort and to prolong our lives but we haveworked against nature rather than lived with it.

If we were more saprophytic than parasitic the World would remain a beautiful place.

H.

Well if we were going to be pedantic about it then no other force on Earth has been more destructive than Earth itself.

I'm not saying we don't do alot of damage; of course we do. But I think in these discussions there a huge temptation for us to berate ourselves to a degree that borders on a contradictory kind of self-loathing. We are capable of being extremely destructive... we are also the only animal capable of being aware of that fact and doing something about it

The earth does not cognitively destroy itself, it moulds and changes its composition and topography, so, therefore the comparison has no basis, Humans, despite warnings and proof that we are devastating the environment we need to survive, continue to plunder it's riches and beauty totally for Hedonistic purposes.

We have the arrogance due to religion, to wrongfully believe that we are the reason why the Planet exists and that we can do with it what we want.

Pointing out the fact that we are irresponsible is hardly an example of pedanticism, there were no examples of nit-picking in my comments, merely a reference to how things are. We don't need to be self loathing but we definitely need more education and less arrogance! I am no Pedant.
H.

Please! Religion?

The humans are a virus or plague stuff that is getting into so much publicity worries me a little. May give the tendency for people to start thinking that maybe it is not such a bad thing if a few million people die here and there as there are too many people on the planet is any case.

Perhaps this is not the right forum for that debate, better to keep it fishy I guess.

I think we should leave our difference of opinion there to avoid going disastrously off topic

Surely that is up to the mods to decide?

H.

Of course, but some discussions can be emotive and I don't see the value in heading further on a topic that already hinting at going beyond the remit of this forum

Homer wrote:

Surely that is up to the mods to decide?

H.

Which post was this in response to? Me or LemonJelly?

LemonJelly wrote:

Homer wrote:

Come to think of it, as invasive species go, we must rate as the most invasive and destructive species to inhabit the Planet!

H.

That depends on what you regard as invasive and what you regard as merely successful within its particular evolutionary niche.

Just to put some context on my post, I arrived at the post above and somehow didn't see the rest of the thread until after the maybe not for this forum suggestion.

Rgds
Dec

@q LJ.

H.

I simply made a comment, others decided to rebut and continue the vain of the tangent of the Thread, old saying, feed the monster and it will grow.

H.

The laws of nature are more destructive than the Earth even.
Those law drive towards minimum enthalpy and maximum entropy in a non-reversible way across everything such that the rate of change of entropy will never attain anything other than zero for every entity in existence at the macroscopic level.

OR...to put it another way, Humpty Dumpty will one day fall (and all the kings horses etc etc....won't be able to put him back together again).
But where Man comes in handy here is that rather than guessing when Humpty will fall, we can give him a little push to make it sooner rather than later.

Humpty Dumpty is a perfect recital of both 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
If it then included a verse whereby as each microscopic piece of Humpty dis-engaged from his body as he hit the floor were replaced at the speed of light by the kings horses and rapdily placed where it had been originally on the space on top of the wall such that it looked as if Humpty never fell, then that would have been a perfect analogy of living things.

ian

JohnH wrote:

LemonJelly wrote:

Of course, but some discussions can be emotive and I don't see the value in heading further on a topic that already hinting at going beyond the remit of this forum

Although this is predominantly a Fishkeeping Forum this topic was intentionally put into the 'General Nature Conservation' section in the hope that it might create some worthwhile debate (which, so far, it has).

It is a subject which rather stirs the emotions (never a bad thing) so we're happy to leave the thread without interference from 'above'.

John

I agree.

The posts on this thread have not strayed off the point anymore than the original PFK article strayed off fish-keeping.

When on such a topic of this, our moral, religious, political, or scientific believes are important as this is about a world in which we live and a world from which we gain our aquaristic pleasure.

Ultimately, the Humpty Dumpty rhyme is an inevitable......but our different moral, religious, political and scientific beliefs may explain how and why it is a fact and what to do about in slighly different ways and depths.

Thus far, it is a good healthy thread.

ian

Once again, consent from our elders kills off any desire for further discussion

"Wow kids! That music of yours is really groovy!"
*deathly silence*
Cue tumbleweed
_____________________@_________________