Crustacean Decimation Due To Climate-Change-Driven Cannibalization (time.com) 161
Last week, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game canceled the winter snow crab season in the Bering Sea due to their falling numbers. "Officials suggested that a combination of climate change and some kind of crustacean health crisis might be to blame," reports TIME Magazine. "But that's only part of the story, says Wes Jones, the Fisheries, Research, and Development Director for the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation." The most immediate cause of their death: "a mass cannibalism frenzy." An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from the report: To understand what really happened in the icy depths of Alaska's Bering Sea this year means going back to 2017, when fishermen started reporting an unprecedented population explosion of juvenile snow crabs -- what is called, in crabber speak, a "recruit." The population boom continued into 2018 and 2019, creating what Jones says was the largest recruitment event on record. Jones is something of a local piscine historian. He can quote fishery statistics going back 30 years in the same way a Red Sox fan might quote batting averages. At the time the young crabs were too small for a legal harvest -- juvenile snow crabs take four to five years to mature -- but there were enough of them for seasoned crabbers to start the count-down to huge hauls starting in 2022.
In the meantime, Bering Sea temperatures, which usually hover around freezing, were on the rise, spiking several degrees between 2017-2019. Unlike mammals, who use less energy when temperatures rise, cold-water fish and crustaceans speed up their metabolism. The faster the crabs grow and expend energy, the faster they have to replace it, says Jones. Some of the crabs may have headed north into cooler Russian waters, but most seem to have stayed put. "All of a sudden you had this huge number of little crabs coming up, eating themselves out of house and home," says Jones. "Then the water warmed, which meant they had to eat more." It was a double whammy, he says, and the results were inevitable for a hungry, omnivorous species that has run out of its usual food source: "They basically cannibalized each other."
In the meantime, Bering Sea temperatures, which usually hover around freezing, were on the rise, spiking several degrees between 2017-2019. Unlike mammals, who use less energy when temperatures rise, cold-water fish and crustaceans speed up their metabolism. The faster the crabs grow and expend energy, the faster they have to replace it, says Jones. Some of the crabs may have headed north into cooler Russian waters, but most seem to have stayed put. "All of a sudden you had this huge number of little crabs coming up, eating themselves out of house and home," says Jones. "Then the water warmed, which meant they had to eat more." It was a double whammy, he says, and the results were inevitable for a hungry, omnivorous species that has run out of its usual food source: "They basically cannibalized each other."
spoken in little crab voice (Score:4, Funny)
The last one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There can be only One!
Mass extinction is here and we are fucked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The miracle of climate change and crabs (Score:3, Interesting)
seems like it varies a lot
https://www.beringclimate.noaa... [noaa.gov]
Scientists as opposed to journalists are pointing at overfishing.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't even know yet if they have just fucked off to somewhere else as they have done in the past
Re:The miracle of climate change and crabs (Score:5, Insightful)
seems like it varies a lot
https://www.beringclimate.noaa... [noaa.gov]
Scientists as opposed to journalists are pointing at overfishing.
And you based all that on a graph that finishes nearly 2 decades before the time the story is about?
I heard there was an iceage a million years ago, so global warming disproven! Hurrah. I'm off to turn on the AC with the window open now that I have averted the crisis. Woooo!
Re: (Score:2)
Source please. I've searched around for this specific connection, specifically targeting China.
I researched this based on what China is doing around the Galpagos Islands:
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
I couldn't find anyone citing a connection between Bering crag populations and overfishing. Tracking such as in that article would be similar for crabs I would expect.
All I've found has the "scientists" saying warmer waters and disease are possible culprits. Fishing is mentioned but dismissed.
A better headline (Score:2)
Missed opportunity! (Score:5, Funny)
What a missed opportunity for a fully alliterated headline!
Climate-Change Cannibalization Causes Crustacean Collapse Crisis
--- or ---
Crabby Crabs Consume Compatriots in Climate-Change Catastrophe
--- or ---
Crab Cohort Cross in Climate-Change Claw-on-Claw Crush
--- or ....
Um, hello? Anyone?
Ok, ok, I'll see myself out now.
Re: (Score:2)
What a missed opportunity for a fully alliterated headline!
Climate-Change Cannibalization Causes Crustacean Collapse Crisis
--- or ---
Crabby Crabs Consume Compatriots in Climate-Change Catastrophe
--- or ---
Crab Cohort Cross in Climate-Change Claw-on-Claw Crush
--- or ....
Um, hello? Anyone?
Ok, ok, I'll see myself out now.
I too, miss the Weekly World News.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like you overvalue alliteration or undervalue rhymes. I am quite content with a headline combining Crustacean, Decimation, and Cannibalization! And "Crabby Crabs?" That's pretty mid.
And climate of the ocean is changed... (Score:2)
...by La Nina.
ENSO is a thing, and ENSO deniers are going to downmod this comment ruthlessly.
Our bad... (Score:3)
An interesting side note: Did you know an optical mouse uses ~ 5 times the power of a ball mouse?
Structural issues or violent tendencies (Score:2)
People always want to talk about the structural issues that lead to poverty and poor outcomes, but I think the focus should be on the crab-on-crab violence. These things are acting like animals, killing each other over a meal.
Borrow their technology (Score:2)
How can we get politicians and lawyers to do this?
Re: (Score:3)
Rep(ugs) are severely mentally ill. (Score:2)
Always with the politics (Score:2)
What we're actually witnessing is something that has been suspected for quite awhile, that "sustainable" levels of harvesting wild seafood can still have unintended consequences on the species.
The sad reality is, if it's an animal us humans want to chow down on, we've either got to figure out how to farm it or switch to a species which is more easily domesticated. Of course, there's also those who advocate for plant-based substitutes, since plants are comparatively less resource intensive to farm. Impossi
Re: (Score:3)
Forget plant-based, I want full synthetic. Synthesize all the nutrients we need, enzymatically, chemically, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Forget plant-based, I want full synthetic. Synthesize all the nutrients we need, enzymatically, chemically, whatever.
Snot. What you're describing is snot [youtube.com].
anything else is derivative (Score:2)
Or I guess direct nuclear transubstantiation if you want to be fancy. But we all know photosynthesis is possible, we've all seen it done.
Re: (Score:2)
Forget plant-based, I want full synthetic. Synthesize all the nutrients we need, enzymatically, chemically, whatever.
Yeah, no. YOU eat the Matrix Snot. I'll take real food, gracias.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people are developing industrial protein synthesis (mostly using genetically modified yeast) to manufacture ingredients to go into your latest fast food creation.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, what? I am supposed to believe that you, who expects fulfillment from the of killing animals and plants for food, has a "lust for life?" On second thought, maybe you do. That's sick.
The lion only lays down with the lamb for a snack.
Do you want to be a lion or a lamb?
Re: (Score:2)
Option 3: Neither. If forced to choose, probably lamb. Would have to be at actual decision point, but given my personality I would choose lamb because my conscience might keep yapping .. "dude, you selfishly ate a lamb for no reason .. poor lamb" that'd be annoying to live with I would reckon. I could also see myself afraid of dying or suffering to turn coward and choose lion.
Re: (Score:3)
That's some classic stupid shit right there.
Plants and animals don't want to be eaten...certainly by humans? You sure? Maybe by something but not by humans? Plants "don't want" that? You mean "we" don't even contribute anything back to them anymore"? So they're pissed that the arrangement no longer works in their favor? Perhaps if we threw them a bone they'd be happier being eaten? You don't believe we're "mandated by nature to eat animals and plants"? So you're a science denier? Isn't farming lite
Re: (Score:3)
As my good friend commonly says, "we're not losing our spot on the top of the food chain on my watch."
Eat meat. Feel better.
Re: (Score:3)
As my good friend commonly says, "we're not losing our spot on the top of the food chain on my watch."
Eat meat. Feel better.
Certainly, as creatures who are designed to be omnivorous, our metabolism is designed for the consumption of animal protein.
You have a point about the food chain. In general, the vegan diet is a prey. Humans can be prey, but we are also predators.
And humans eating what they are metabolically designed to eat is not evil. The Cheetah is not evil, nor the lion, nor the whale eating huge amounts of krill.
And the horse is not good because it eats grass and other plants. We all just are. What we can and sho
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that a cheetah is just following its design, but ultimately it is causing suffering upon another creature .. and furthermore it innately doesn't care. What would you call that? Just because something follows its own nature, doesn't mean it isn't "evil." I mean, a serial killer is following his own nature too. You would call a serial killer evil, right? Yet he is, obviously, acting according to what his own flawed instinct is driving him to do. Why would you classify one thing driven to inflict pa
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that a cheetah is just following its design, but ultimately it is causing suffering upon another creature .. and furthermore it innately doesn't care. What would you call that?
Nature. Predators have a very strong place in Nature.
Just because something follows its own nature, doesn't mean it isn't "evil." I mean, a serial killer is following his own nature too. You would call a serial killer evil, right? Yet he is, obviously, acting according to what his own flawed instinct is driving him to do.
That's a seriously bad analogy. A serial killer is an outlier among humans, who if allowed to pursue their faulty mentality, is bad for the species. They kill not to eat (cue Jeffrey Dahmer Jokes) but because they enjoy killing other humans. They get something out of the act of killing that is pathological, not Nature.
Why would you classify one thing driven to inflict pain on another sentient species without regard to its state as "not-evil" and not another? Anyway, for the record, I am not vegan or even vegetarian. However, I think synthetic food is the right thing eventually.
I accept nature as it is. Predators and prey have evolved, and as for evil or not evil, the predator is often doing a service to it's pr
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of animals kill for fun/play and not nature. They also do some cruel things like leave animals half-eaten/alive. Lions killing cubs of rivals. Etc. Watch enough nature documentaries, you'll see.
the predator is often doing a service to it's prey.
Uh, yeah I am sure the Wildebeast contemplates that over the hour that an hyena is eating it alive.
Do you really think nature gives a shit about anything? If it doesn't care about one thing suffering it doesn't care about anything. Why should you cater to nature's long term plan? It might not be what YOU think i
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of animals kill for fun/play and not nature. They also do some cruel things like leave animals half-eaten/alive. Lions killing cubs of rivals. Etc. Watch enough nature documentaries, you'll see.
Nature, red in tooth and claw. The male lion kills the cubs of the lionesses if he becomes the new king of the pride. I don't make the rules. I observe.
the predator is often doing a service to it's prey.
Uh, yeah I am sure the Wildebeast contemplates that over the hour that an hyena is eating it alive.
Do you really think nature gives a shit about anything? If it doesn't care about one thing suffering it doesn't care about anything. Why should you cater to nature's long term plan? It might not be what YOU think it is. If it even has a plan.
There is no plan. Nature is not a conscious entity, despite the "Mother Nature" meme. The metric of nature is surviving to reproduce, then leaving a new generation to perhaps survive to reproduce.
I don't like the way it plays out if truth be told. It's a bit creepy, as your examples show. But it is what it is. The only way to enforce what seems to be
Re: (Score:2)
What? I am not a science denier, dumbass. Science doesn't declare it necessary to kill and eat animals. Science only mandates that we get certain proteins, carbohydrates, fat and shit like that -- ultimately just molecules, it doesn't give a shit how we get those nutrients or where it comes from. Do you really think your body knows the origin of the molecules it metabolizes? Also, just because something is hardwired into your brain, it doesn't mean it is correct. I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer was hardwired to be a
Re:Always with the politics (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, I want synthetic because I like and respect life.
in a very narrow sense, sure. i bet you dont value the lives of organisms below, say, 1mg in mass. they clearly dont matter i think we can all agree. whos saving endangered bedbugs? any argument you could make for saving a species could be made for a bedbug, yet nobody does? i want to see fundamentalist vegans with gotdang principles
All life is precious, from the simplest to the most complex. Be it a single cell organism, or humans, or Elephants or whales.
But the catch is, aside from chemoautotrophs, none of us lives unless we deprive something else of it's life. That is pure and simple.
While backslashdot has a noble thought, it is not likley to ever work.
In the meantime, the problem I see, especially in the vegans that I know, is that they are constantly measuring everything in life as good and evil. Not the sort of golden rule version, of I don't want to be tossed off a cliff so I won't toss someone else off a cliff, but a (to me) excruciating measurement of every single aspect of their life, 24/7.
Example - we had a vegan who worked in our group once who the times she went with us to lunch, half of the lunch hour was spent grilling the waitstaff and manager. She was at the point where she did not want anything that ever touched "animal corpses" to touch her food. Even the cookware. It was kinda sad, she single handedly broke up our weekly lunches as people didn't want the embarrassment of one of us spending a half hour with the interrogation of the staff, and then the sighs and "How can you eat that?" lectures while we tried to eat.
Yes - vegans are killers, they deprive life from it's life just like us corpse eaters. They have just made a personal decision that plant's are not eligible for their list of things to keep alive. Not worthy, so killing and eating is perfectly okay.
note - if a person simply does not like animal products, I have no issue with them. It's the vegans who wear their superior status like a rank on their sleeve who are annoying AF.
Me? I believe that since it is our nature to be omnivorous, we eat what we are designed to eat. If it is an animal, we harvest it as humanely, quickly and painlessly as possible, and give thanks that it gave up it's life that we sustain ours. Same with the plants we kill.
Re: (Score:3)
There is absolutely no reason why we have to continue to destroy the planet we depend on. We're doing it because we've created an economic system that depends entirely on endless and limitless growth but that exists on a finite planet with finite resources. There's absolutely no reason to do that except it was the only way Eisenhower could figure out how to have a middle class while keeping the ultra wealthy fed to their liking.
Yes, I have seen your morally superior Marxist system in action. Because its store shelves were empty and its people went hungry, they consumed less. In fact, a lot of useless eaters starved outright and were no longer a burden on the Earth at all. That is why you people would love to bring this system back if you could.
Re: (Score:2)
I draw the line at insects. Anything insect or smaller is fair game. (Not that I would ever like to eat insects but I really don't worry about them from an ethical point of view. You can do anything you want to an insect. I mostly concentrate on killing the most irritating ones.)
Did you even read the summary? (Score:2)
It's one of many effects climate change has that are going to bite Us in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
"We don't even throw our bodies into the ocean to make some type of cycle of life. We just take. All we give back is our piss, shit, mountains of fertilizer and other runoff, chemicals of all sorts, and, via the Italian mafia and others, the random radioactive waste."
At the end of your life, what is more consequential, the mass of your dead body or all the "piss and shit" you've produced over your lifetime? You seem to have a moronic grasp of the "cycle of life".
Re: (Score:2)
Healthy populations don't have only individuals over a certain size killed. Size limits on catch for seafood sound good, and are a simple enforcement tool, but the reality of their impact is selection pressure towards smaller creatures and a distortion in resource management and life cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard about crab-farming in the 1980s because they had the same problem. This consequence was very foreseeable.
Re: Always with the politics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to warming waters, it appears that industrial strip mining of the ocean (fishing trawlers) also contributed to the decline. This is sad because the trawlers aren't interested in the crab, they just throw them away.
Re: (Score:3)
"Meanwhile the entire eco system is on the verge of collapse and the boomers shrug..."
Boomers != Republicans
"...content in the knowledge that It's Morning In America and they'll be dead before the worst of it."
True of many rich people, and plenty of others.
"...so that some of these folks selling us down the river would get punishment."
Us?
"I wish the folks who sold us out for Hummers and suburbs felt similar."
Us? Suburbs? Hummers?
Surely you can imagine your enemy well enough that you can put them in front o
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"Meanwhile the entire eco system is on the verge of collapse and the boomers shrug..." Boomers != Republicans
"...content in the knowledge that It's Morning In America and they'll be dead before the worst of it." True of many rich people, and plenty of others.
"...so that some of these folks selling us down the river would get punishment." Us?
"I wish the folks who sold us out for Hummers and suburbs felt similar." Us? Suburbs? Hummers?
Surely you can imagine your enemy well enough that you can put them in front of a firing squad. First class demonizing there.
This.
The amount of victimhood the present crop of young'uns can ascribe to their elders is pretty impressive, is it not?
Our greatest gift to the young folk of today was to instill a total lack of accountability, an excuse for their failure, always the poor victim. Us evul boomers will be long gone, and they will still be victims. Actually, that's no gift - it is a huge mistake the boomers made. Doesn't mean the kiddies shouldn't be able to think and change their outlook though.
Hint for ya, kiddies. T
Re:A predetermined conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, who did you expect to cover the story? The sports department?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, who did you expect to cover the story? The sports department?
That would be an interesting story, you gotta admit!
Re: (Score:2)
It's like football, only that the linebacker gets to eat the quarterback after the sack.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like football, only that the linebacker gets to eat the quarterback after the sack.
A completely random thought entered my noggin when I read that. In the old "Dinosaurs" TV show, they had a Mister Science type show within the show. Every time the teacher killed the kid on the show, he'd yell "We need a new Timmy!" So random, I know.
Re:A predetermined conclusion (Score:5, Informative)
An unbiased news outlet would assign the story to a science journalist or perhaps a journalist who reports on oceanography.
They would not make an apriori decision that it was a "climate problem" and assign the story to someone incentivized to reinforce that presumption.
The article is based on the conclusions of the people cited, it is not presenting the journalists conclusions.
You are building a strawman to keep the tale of biased reporting on climate change alive and your next posting may contain the phrase “two sides“
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like how you post on /.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The journalist focused on only one source and did not cite any alternative viewpoints.
And why exactly would a journalist in a newspaper look for alternative viewpoints? You make no sense.
That's how biased journalism works. You pick the stories that favor your viewpoint and then quote only the sources that support the conclusions you want.
That is just nonsense, sorry.
Re:A predetermined conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
This is also how so-called "climate science" works - run 10,000 studies, or 10,000 model runs, and just ignore the ones with results that don't fit your premises.
I'm so sorry that you were brought up in a way that you think this is how science works. The education system has truly failed you in spectacular fashion and your country should be ashamed for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Whatever. Run ten thousand tests, find four that disagree, allow the four to block all conclusions and all action.
I don't want to label it, but one side of a particular division in American society LOVES this technique.
Re: (Score:2)
This is classic Bayes vs. Popper.
You only need to find one black swan to prove that "all swans are white" is wrong, even if you saw a million white swans before you saw the single black one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Ben Daly, a researcher with ADF&G, is investigating where the crabs have gone. [...]" ""Environmental conditions are changing rapidly," Daly said. "We've seen warm conditions in the Bering Sea the last couple of years, and we're seeing a response in a cold adapted species, so it's pretty obvious this is connected. "" The lead investigator is making the connection to climate change.
Well, I'm a firm believer in the energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere based upon it's gaseous composition, and the warming effects on a planet it will have.
But a warming of the ocean in a particular area is not de facto the proximate cause of that. There are effects like La Niña and El Niño that could be in play here.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They would not make an apriori decision that it was a "climate problem" and assign the story to someone incentivized to reinforce that presumption.
Unfortunately, doing exactly that, assigning the story to someone with an agenda to reach a pre-determined conclusion, is how all MSM operates now.
Re:A predetermined conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
"...is how all MSM operates now."
By definition. The term "Main Stream Media" exists literally to demonize enemies in the press. Not only does your statement mean nothing, it shows you don't understand.
In a capitalist economy, why should anyone begrudge businesses that respond to a profit motive? Why should media be different?
You want media to be less biased? Then take the profit motive out of dishonesty. Citizens United. Media deregulation. Our society at one time understood what was necessary, then Republicans destroyed that, and for a reason. You know, the same people that created the term MSM? The ones whose line of BS you've bought into. Media is not the problem, corruption is.
Re: (Score:2)
"...is how all MSM operates now."
By definition. The term "Main Stream Media" exists literally to demonize enemies in the press. Not only does your statement mean nothing, it shows you don't understand.
In a capitalist economy, why should anyone begrudge businesses that respond to a profit motive? Why should media be different?
You want media to be less biased? Then take the profit motive out of dishonesty. Citizens United. Media deregulation. Our society at one time understood what was necessary, then Republicans destroyed that, and for a reason. You know, the same people that created the term MSM? The ones whose line of BS you've bought into. Media is not the problem, corruption is.
There is one problem though. There is so much news to be covered, and so little time to cover it, just the decision on what news to cover will show a bias.
That is why I listen to multiple news outlets.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me you know nothing about the media in the United States without telling me you know nothing about media. The trend to an "unbiased" media star
Re: (Score:2)
You want media to be less biased? Then take the profit motive out of dishonesty. Citizens United. Media deregulation. Our society at one time understood what was necessary, then Republicans destroyed that, and for a reason. You know, the same people that created the term MSM? The ones whose line of BS you've bought into. Media is not the problem, corruption is. Tell me you know nothing about the media in the United States without telling me you know nothing about media. The trend to an "unbiased" media started back in the days of the AP selling news stories to both Democratic and Republican newspapers, it was due to a profit motive, b/c they could sell twice as much for half the work. Or are you one of those people who thinks history started in 1963? If so, look up Hearst for what bias in media really looks like. Corruption? You mean the revolving door between media and think-tanks and staff advisors for the various administrations, that corruption? Or perhaps the fact the 5 of 7 richest counties in the US now surround our nation's capitol.
Umm, you aren't replying to my post, despite replying to my post. My post said that the very act of choosing what news to cover shows bias. For that reason, it is not possible to have unbiased news, which is why I listen to multiple news outlets.
And in an ironic twist, the networks that claim no bias are often the most biased.
Your trimming everything that I wrote shows your bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and assign the story to someone incentivized to reinforce that presumption.
Why should she be "incentivized" to reinforce that presumption.
Must be pretty hard to grasp that a client scientist is researching climate. If one finds a fact regarding climate, he now can not pulbish it anymore because s/he has an "incentive" in/on it?
In what fucked up world do you/we live?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, who did you expect to cover the story?
An unbiased news outlet would assign the story to a science journalist or perhaps a journalist who reports on oceanography.
They would not make an apriori decision that it was a "climate problem" and assign the story to someone incentivized to reinforce that presumption.
"climate and environment correspondent"
Or do you not believe that the environment exists either?
Re: (Score:3)
An unbiased news outlet would assign the story to a science journalist or perhaps a journalist who reports on oceanography.
Do you often attack the source of the message rather the quality of its content? How about you look into the article and post about your specific disagreement with the facts presented rather than concerning yourself with who wrote it.
I don't see your username and conclude that everything you write is trash before reading it either. That's just a happy coincidence that it turns out to be trash after reading it.
Re: (Score:2)
An unbiased news outlet would assign the story to a science journalist or perhaps a journalist who reports on oceanography.
if one ever existed, probably. but we are stuck with what we got because we're not really that different from those crabs. wait for the hunger games ...
Re: A predetermined conclusion (Score:2)
What a naive view. Do you have evidence they made an a priori decision that it was a climate problem? Time surely has enough "science" journalists they're specialized at this point.
The real question is, if they had only reported a view that this was not linked to climate, would you be claiming the story is biased anti-climate change? That it was a predetermined conclusion?
Incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)
According to the author's bio, she's "TIME’s senior international climate and environment correspondent, covering the human impacts of climate change". Right or wrong, was there any other conclusion she would reach?
You're putting the carriage before the horse. Stories on specialized topics are assigned to specialist writer based on their specialty. This was a environment and climate change related story, so they assigned it to the writer best suited for it. Next you'll be complaining that bad weather was a predetermined conclusion when they give a story about a snow storm to a meteorologist.
Re: (Score:2)
The new narrative I've noticed coming up is: never trust an expert in the field, because they're an expert in that field. So they're biased.
Facepalm
Re: A predetermined conclusion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which begs the question, when a particular word or phrase is used in an "incorrect" fashion by more than 99% of the speakers of a language, wouldn't that make the usage actually correct?
Re: (Score:3)
Which begs the question
Was this a deliberately incorrect (but common) use of that phrase?
But to answer your question, it depends on which language. English is defined by usage, but many other languages (eg. French or Italian) have an official body that defines the language.
Re: (Score:2)
> Was this a deliberately incorrect (but common) use of that phrase?
Did he moot it or is it moot?
Re: (Score:2)
Did he moot it or is it moot?
As long as it isn't "mute"!
Re: (Score:2)
"Was this a deliberately incorrect (but common) use of that phrase?"
LOL, likely no. Ironically, "decimate" was used correctly, "begs the question", as you noted, was not.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't like the phrase "begs the question" no matter which meaning is intended, and I would probably never use it outside a discussion of language pedantry.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an incorrect use of the phrase: it's a literal use of the phrase, where each word takes a standard meaning, as opposed to a technical use of the phrase which is specific to a certain academic field and derived by two bad translations (from Greek to Latin and then from Latin to English).
Also, I don't think you've answered the question so much as restated it. When a French word is used in an "incorrect" fashion by more than 99% of native speakers, is it the speakers who are wrong or the Academie? At
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an incorrect use of the phrase: it's a literal use of the phrase, where each word takes a standard meaning,
I disagree. The word "beg" in that phrase does not conform to standard usage or meaning of the word.
When a French word is used in an "incorrect" fashion by more than 99% of native speakers, is it the speakers who are wrong or the Academie?
Apparently my response was not clear enough for you. In the case of French, the language is defined by the Academy and any usage outside of what the Academy deems correct (even if 99% of francophones use a word that way) is incorrect. This may change, of course: the Academy may choose to incorporate the formerly incorrect usage, making it now correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Oxford English Dictionary sense 2a. It frequently takes "for", but not invariably.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have an OED to consult, but, usually "beg" has an object (or indirect object) that is physical (person, dog, statue, etc.). One doesn't beg things that are metaphysical, such as questions.
What's the definition in sense 2a?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's a problem with the education system where you live? 99% of the people where I live use decimate correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's a problem with the education system where you live? 99% of the people where I live use decimate correctly.
I prefer coffemate myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the dictionary lists the common uses of "decimate" as correct, and the "1 out of 10" uses as "obsolete", you're probably right that most people use it correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Which begs the question, when a particular word or phrase is used in an "incorrect" fashion by more than 99% of the speakers of a language, wouldn't that make the usage actually correct?
If 99 percent of people believe a wrong thing, it is still a wrong thing.
What a bunch of loosers, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Which begs the question, when a particular word or phrase is used in an "incorrect" fashion by more than 99% of the speakers of a language, wouldn't that make the usage actually correct?
Irregardless of correctness, that’s literally what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you play with that phrase :P
Re: (Score:2)
Decimate is used appropriately here. The origin of the word doesn't restrict its usage. Loss of "1 in 10" was a devastating loss in its original context; the word means a drastic loss, not merely 1 in 10. Besides, perhaps there was literally a loss of 1 in 10.
You may think making such pedantic comments makes you look intelligent, it does the opposite.
Re:Revolting, sad, and unfortunate. Poor crabs. (Score:5, Funny)
At least there's a silver lining for the crabs who had to resort to this: They're delicious.
Re: (Score:2)
At least there's a silver lining for the crabs who had to resort to this: They're delicious.
Cannibal Crab: *Munch Munch* "Holy Shit! We DO taste good!"
Re: Revolting, sad, and unfortunate. Poor crabs. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering we don't have a quantifiable way to measure what's on our own minds, I don't really think we can say outright that crabs don't have a lot on their mind. They may have small brains that are much simpler than ours, but we have no idea how busy those simple little brains may be.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what I've seen over the last couple decades, the crabs may be the more complicated thinkers. We seem incapable of getting past our own noses when thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
This is getting way too deep for my lame-ass attempts at a slightly philosophical joke.
Re: (Score:3)
...perhaps invite you to look up what the long-term trend for the phenomena has been in the extremely brief period of time we have been measuring it.
Like NOAA's page on the state of the Bering Sea [noaa.gov], with its charts showing temperature changes and a snow crab population crash from 1990-1994 that was apparently not sufficiently vulnerable to being blamed on climate change to be newsworthy? It's also a good example of how news sensationalism alters facts; NOAA's page states "The reduction in snow crab in the last 5 years is in part thought to be due to a combination of warmer temperatures and decreased bottom productivity." (emphasis mine), while the Times
Re: (Score:2)
Here I am complaining about the imprecision of the phrase "climate change" and the first response is to double down with the term, "climate change denier". If that's an attempt at irony, I salute you. If you're being serious, I am sad for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hear you can order kits on Amazon?