Fish in the Wrong Place(lrb.co.uk)
lrb.co.uk
Fish in the Wrong Place
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n19/oliver-cussen/fish-in-the-wrong-place
20 comments
> They're really, really big
I remember an interview with a basketball player while he was in Chicago for a game in which he said something like, "Chicago is so beautiful right here on the ocean"
I remember an interview with a basketball player while he was in Chicago for a game in which he said something like, "Chicago is so beautiful right here on the ocean"
"It’s the spookiest thing I’ve ever seen. Hey, when you build a building on the ocean, what do you expect? You expect fog. They should blame themselves for building it on the ocean."
- Oil Can Boyd on May 27 1986, after a game at Cleveland Stadium, located on the shore of Lake Erie, is postponed due to fog in the 6th inning.
- Oil Can Boyd on May 27 1986, after a game at Cleveland Stadium, located on the shore of Lake Erie, is postponed due to fog in the 6th inning.
The New York Court of Appeals agrees, at least for purposes of the Deed of Gift governing the Americas cup.
* The sights and sounds are indistinguishable from an ocean.*
Not to someone who has been swimming in the ocean their whole life. The great lakes are indeed huge, but the waves are nothing like the ocean.
Not to someone who has been swimming in the ocean their whole life. The great lakes are indeed huge, but the waves are nothing like the ocean.
Depends on the weather... https://www.newsflare.com/video/246840/weather-nature/incred...
wonder if there could be a tsunami?
>But whatever the intention, the results were almost always the same: aquatic colonisers destroyed indigenous environments.
Why was everything always good, peaceful and stable in "indigenous environments" until "the colonizers " show up? I find it hard to believe.
Why was everything always good, peaceful and stable in "indigenous environments" until "the colonizers " show up? I find it hard to believe.
"Why was everything always good, peaceful and stable in "indigenous environments" until "the colonizers " show up?"
One thing that may help resolve this in your head is that invasive species taking over is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of the time, when a species is taken out of its native environment and dropped somewhere else, for whatever reason, it dies. Maybe immediately, maybe a few generations get off before the population drops to zero, maybe they do great until they're slugged by winter or the rainy season, most of the time the "home team" will kill the visitor without so much as metaphorically noticing.
However every once in a while the stars align and the new species fits into a slot the home team didn't "realize" existed, or they hammer a weakness that the rest of the ecosystem had just been coevolving around for a long time, and you get the invasive species. It would feel like winning the lottery, except that the invasive species then get to grow exponentially and loom very large in our minds and our experiences. They are, despite that, the rare exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that a species dropped into another full ecosystem with no coevolved slot for them just dies.
One thing that may help resolve this in your head is that invasive species taking over is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of the time, when a species is taken out of its native environment and dropped somewhere else, for whatever reason, it dies. Maybe immediately, maybe a few generations get off before the population drops to zero, maybe they do great until they're slugged by winter or the rainy season, most of the time the "home team" will kill the visitor without so much as metaphorically noticing.
However every once in a while the stars align and the new species fits into a slot the home team didn't "realize" existed, or they hammer a weakness that the rest of the ecosystem had just been coevolving around for a long time, and you get the invasive species. It would feel like winning the lottery, except that the invasive species then get to grow exponentially and loom very large in our minds and our experiences. They are, despite that, the rare exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that a species dropped into another full ecosystem with no coevolved slot for them just dies.
> However every once in a while the stars align and the new species fits into a slot the home team didn't "realize" existed, or they hammer a weakness that the rest of the ecosystem had just been coevolving around for a long time, and you get the invasive species.
"One thing that may help resolve this in your head is that" the echosystem might be destroyed, so an invasive species just takes the place of other species. Like, you know, we kill all the volves and then we are invaded by deers.
"One thing that may help resolve this in your head is that" the echosystem might be destroyed, so an invasive species just takes the place of other species. Like, you know, we kill all the volves and then we are invaded by deers.
Unstable things tend to wobble around until they find a stable configuration, and then remain there (by definition). This goes for pretty much everything.
Introducing some external perturbation can destabilize the thing until it eventually settles into a new stable configuration. But if you've built up lots of systems around the old stable configuration this kind of sucks.
(Also, stable configurations can be hard to reach, and "eventually" might be a rather long time.)
Introducing some external perturbation can destabilize the thing until it eventually settles into a new stable configuration. But if you've built up lots of systems around the old stable configuration this kind of sucks.
(Also, stable configurations can be hard to reach, and "eventually" might be a rather long time.)
Take a look at "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" by Charles C. Mann: https://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Colu...
Mann attempts to reconstruct what the Americas were like before European contact. More importantly, he makes a case that some American Indians had a higher standard of living than Europeans.
More importantly, everything really was mostly "good, peaceful and stable ... until the colonizers" showed up. The disrupting factor were the pandemics that happened; not that one culture was superior than the other.
Mann attempts to reconstruct what the Americas were like before European contact. More importantly, he makes a case that some American Indians had a higher standard of living than Europeans.
More importantly, everything really was mostly "good, peaceful and stable ... until the colonizers" showed up. The disrupting factor were the pandemics that happened; not that one culture was superior than the other.
> More importantly, everything really was mostly "good, peaceful and stable ... until the colonizers" showed up. The disrupting factor were the pandemics that happened; not that one culture was superior than the other.
The peaceful, noble savage myth.
Native Americans engaged in wars, enslavement, and horrific torture - as did the Europeans.
The League of Five Nations was noted for a stable (and therefore largely peaceful) inter-tribe arrangement, but it was a new and exceptional development, just prior to the coincidental arrival of Europeans.
The peaceful, noble savage myth.
Native Americans engaged in wars, enslavement, and horrific torture - as did the Europeans.
The League of Five Nations was noted for a stable (and therefore largely peaceful) inter-tribe arrangement, but it was a new and exceptional development, just prior to the coincidental arrival of Europeans.
Are you quoting me out of context to prove a point?
I'm pointing out that this statement is straight up racist, and disproven by historical record:
> Why was everything always good, peaceful and stable in "indigenous environments" until "the colonizers " show up? I find it hard to believe.
I'm pointing out that this statement is straight up racist, and disproven by historical record:
> Why was everything always good, peaceful and stable in "indigenous environments" until "the colonizers " show up? I find it hard to believe.
Probably because after turmoil from climate change due to melting glaciers after the last ice age things more or less stabilized after thousands of years. The current state will also stabilize but will take some time. I guess people like the status quo -whatever that is.
The ecosystem adapts into a semi-stable equilibrium that’s disrupted by the introduction of foreigners having different characteristics.
I was imagining to click a link to an indie hacker’s blog about a story outlining how it’s beneficial to “fish in the wrong place” to solve a problem or something
I thought it was going to be about the shell
The article's title is somewhat misleading: the bulk of the text is about various human attempts at water-based geo-engineering and environmental control through recent history.
Here's the simplest one: They're really, really big. The sights and sounds are indistinguishable from an ocean. The only obvious distinction is that it doesn't smell salty.
And, yeah, the damn carp. Electro fishing is the best way we have to handle them, and it supposedly works very well. Carp like to hang around the surface, while many native species swim much deeper in the water, so the electric fences actually filter for the carp pretty well.
Recreational fishing gets rid of some of them too, but there are several different species that we collectively call "asian carp," and only some of them bite on fishing lures. Eat more carp, I suppose.