THERE ARE TWO reasons that a mere fish should have inspired such a high-strung confrontation reminiscent of Greenpeace’s early days as a defender of whales. The first stems from fish enthusiasts who have for many years recognized the particular qualities of bluefin tuna — qualities that were they land-based creatures would establish them indisputably as “wildlife” and not just another “seafood” we eat without remorse. Not only is the bluefin’s dense, distinctly beefy musculature supremely appropriate for traversing the ocean’s breadth, but the animal also has attributes that make its evolutionary appearance seem almost deus ex machina, or rather machina ex deo — a machine from God. How else could a fish develop a sextantlike “pineal window” in the top of its head that scientists say enables it to navigate over thousands of miles? How else could a fish develop a propulsion system whereby a whip-thin crescent tail vibrates at fantastic speeds, shooting the bluefin forward at speeds that can reach 40 miles an hour? And how else would a fish appear within a mostly coldblooded phylum that can use its metabolic heat to raise its body temperature far above that of the surrounding water, allowing it to traverse the frigid seas of the subarctic?And, well, while we're on the subject of fishing ... See, "Expired Fishing License Disqualifies $1 Million Big Rock Tournament Winners."
Friday, June 25, 2010
Greenpeace Fights for Last Blue Fin Tuna
I never trust the estimates of impending fish population collapse, considering how little respect for truth environmentalists so eminently demonstrate. Still, this article's pretty interesting. At NYT, "Tuna's End":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment