Gray whale that swam 20 miles up Washington state river found dead

> "I did a thousand wrongs and one right, who will give the credit I deserve" This is not even remotely what I'm arguing, and you know it. Humans have done a lot of bad things in our existence, but that doesn't make us bad. We're without a doubt the species on this planet with the most potential to make things right, no matter how much we f*** things up. In the modern age, judging the whole of humanity, most of whom haven't done much of, if anything, wrong in the grand scheme of things, based on the actions of a small minority of humanity is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. We've done some bad things during our time on this planet, but we have the greatest potential to make things better. Sitting around going "humans suck and are bad >:(((," or even going as extreme as some do by saying that our species needs to die out completely, does absolutely f*** all for the future of our planet.

This is going to be a long one. These sorts of topics are rarely simple. Capitalism, at its core, drives people to do whatever they can to obtain capital, and through it wealth. This drive towards wealth leads people to find ways to increase their own wealth at any cost, though a cost that is out performed by the gain of wealth is always desired. In the case of overfishing, it goes like this: People want wealth. People fish. People sell fish. Fish sold makes money. More money equals more wealth. More fish equals more money. More fish equals more wealth. So, people fish more. People devise new and inventive ways to fish even more, because the more fish you get, the more fish you can sell, and the more fish you can sell, meaning more money in your pocket. In the case of one person fishing on a single boat, there is a reasonable limit. One person can only collect so much fish in a day. That's why they hire more fishermen. More fishermen on a boat equals more fish hauled per day, meaning more money. This too has a limit, though. So, a person buys a second boat. That's a lot of fish coming in, now, meaning more money, meaning more wealth. A person can now buy a lot of boats and pay a lot of people to harvest a lot of fish. This is usually where the problem occurs. At a certain point, there are so many people out fishing in a particular region, let's say a lake, that the population can't keep up. Overfishing is causing the fish to disappear, all in the name of increased wealth. There are two kinds of people at this point: those who say "enough is enough. Scale back operations. I'm *content* with what I have. There is a reasonable limit to what I have," and those who say "f*** it, bring me the rest of the fish. I can always go to another lake. Hell, I can go to the ocean. There are a lot of fish there. That's a lot of money just waiting to be made." In ideal, theoretical, fairy tale land capitalism, the former is what everyone would do. Every capitalist would not just be focused on gainig capital and moving up, they would also be conscious of the world around them and how their pursuit of money impacts the world. This isn't how things work in practice, though. Instead, capitalist systems tend to promote practices like the latter, where people really don't care about their effect on the world, so long as they're still making money. Moving back into the real world with overfishing, it's a result of rampant capitalism. Corporations want to keep making money. They know that people really like seafood, so they fish, and they fish non-stop with little forethought beyond profit projections for decades (these aren't overnight things). The demand for seafood continues to increase, and instead of saying "hey, maybe we should stop here," the people running these companies and corporations go "nah, people want fish, so let's keep fishing." In a perfect world, you'd think that when the fish start drying up, the people at the top would then become victims of the system they played. In idea theoretical capitalism, someone who does this sort of thing would be doomed to fall back down to the bottom, since they've destroyed what made them wealth. Unfortunately, the only people who suffer in this case are those at the bottom, everyone from the consumers, to the lower level workers who are now out of a job, to the lower level, sort of middle men contract companies who made all their money by going and getting fish for parent companies. Meanwhile, the people who actually run these companies are smart enough to diversify their interests, so to speak. John Fishman isn't just investing in fishing companies. He's also investing in cattle companies, car manufacturers, the lumber industry, and hey, maybe even a little bit of weapons manufacturing (you'd be surprised how many CEOs have their fingers in various weapons companies). So what if the fish are gone? John Fishman made his billions, and there are other billions to make elsewhere. That's the issue with capitalism in practice. Or rather, that's the issue with *unregulated* capitalism in practice. Sure, we have some regulations here in the west, but many of them focus on making sure workers aren't dying left and right and actually get days off, plus some poorly enforced environmental regulations. Other than that, you can just bribe your way out of them. The problem is that the system itself encourages people who are at the top to milk industries, ecosystems, regions, etc. dry in the name of profit. There're no repercussions when you're at the top. Who cares if an ecosystem falls apart? I have all the money, and I'll be dead before the world starts burning anyway, so why should I give a shit? What is the solution to overfishing specifically? People can live without eating fish. It's not that difficult. Give it, idk, half a decade and a few decent minds, and the fishing industry could really be reduced. Places where fishing is very important for keeping people fed can still fish, but industrial-levels of fishing? Unnecessary. Oh no, Dave in Phoenix, Arizona wants salmon but can't get it anymore because industrial fishing isn't a thing? Boo hoo. What's more important: people satisfying a craving, or preventing ecosystem collapse?

It’s a simple question

The evidence collection has already been done and documented in previous cases. Thats the beauty of the scientific method. It is standard practice to use the results of someone elses research to support ones own hypothesis To claim that you have to collect the evidence yourself for it to be useful is nonsense, and would lay waste to every scientific norm we rely on for modern day scientific practice. Also, being skeptical of your hypothesis only means you have to view it as a possibility, not a certainty. And i believe its plauible without being certain. Without more to go on, theres no way to confirm it, but it shouldnt be discounted simply because there are more likely explanations

I mean, thats still plenty plausible.

This isnt creating a potential health issue for whales, its an already existing and documented health issue for whales. But okay, sure guy