Maybe God really does hate shrimp (or shrimp farmers)

[Toto]

The shrimp factor (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/07/news-lewis.php) . . .There is no question that one human activity on the region’s developed coastlines contributed to the death toll: the cultivation of cheap shrimp, for which vast swaths of protective mangrove forests have been claimed and cleared.

According to a December 30 report by the Science and Development Network in India, the tsunami did less damage and swept away fewer lives in the Pichavaram and Muthupet regions in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu than it did in the Nagapattinam District. The difference: Pichavaram and Muthupet’s forests have been kept intact, while Nagapattinam’s had been replaced by more than 200 shrimp farms. (Most of them were illegal: India bars shrimp farming within 1,500 feet of the coastline, but the law is often ignored.) Similar reports resonated in the days following the disaster from around the Indian Ocean rim: On Penang Island in Malaysia, according to the international environmental organization Friends of the Earth, the Penang Inshore Fishermen Welfare Association acknowledged that mangrove forests reduced the impact of the tsunami; environmental activist Hemantha Withanage of the Sri Lankan Centre of Environmental Justice noted that forested areas suffered little damage compared to their clear-cut surroundings.

. . .

Quarto calls mangroves "the rainforests of the sea," but unlike rainforests, mangroves are disappearing without much public attention — as Quarto points out, governments have until recently considered them wastelands. And while tsunamis are infrequent enough that no one could have predicted the effects of the December 26 disaster, scientists in the recent past have noted the consequences of other natural disasters on coastlines stripped of their mangroves. In 1991, tropical Cyclone Marian struck Chittagong, Bangladesh, sending up a massive "tidal bore" that claimed 138,000 lives; eight years later, a "super-cyclone" in Orissa on India’s east coast killed 10,000 people. In both instances, scientists around the world blamed the human toll on regional deforestation.

It sounds like it's time to stop eating shrimp.

[Stella]

But it's so revolting! I guess I'll have a head start =(

[Boro Nut]

But it's so revolting! I guess I'll have a head start =(

Then start eating mangrove. That way they'll plant the stuff.

Boro Nut

[premjan]

http://www.goredsea.com/media/images/Large/Mangrove%20Fruit,%20Nabq,%20Sinai.jpg

Uses as food: Leaves may be eaten raw or cooked. The ripe fruit are eaten by people from Africa to the Malays and Javanese, and are said to taste like cheese. In Eastern Africa the leaves are used a camel fodder. The mangrove fruit is a conical reddish-brown berry. Its single seed germinates inside the fruit while it is still on the tree, forming a large, pointed primary root that quickly anchors the seedling in the mud when the fruit is dropped. Mangroves have been harvested destructively on a large scale; the bark is a rich source of tannins, and the wood is used for wharf pilings and other purposes.

[jayh]

ah yes everybody wants to use this event as evidence that their particular position was correct. Even the religious nuts are involved... god was punishing X because of Y.

If no one lived near the shore there wouldn't have been so much damage from this once in a millenium event..... and a major food source would be missing as well. BTW shrimp farming does much less damage to sea turtle and dolphin populations than open sea shrimping.

In both instances, scientists around the world blamed the human toll on regional deforestation.

Every activity changes things, sometimes under particular unpredictable circumstances, changes which would have been neutral, or not that harmful can work against you. It is foolish to use that as the measuring rod.

[premjan]

You may be right about shrimp farming vs shrimp fishing, but it does have some bad effects on soil as well (mainly salination). And destruction of mangroves is a pretty good divider between districts that got hit badly and those that did not. Somalia on the African coast is another deforested region. And shrimp farming is possible without destruction of mangroves (though perhaps not quite as convenient to do off the coast).

[Epictetus]

So, since God didn't have anything to do with the disaster (Whew!) we know that it was natural in origin, right? But the shrimp farmers deforested the land and this is what led to thousands dying, right? So, the people who died did so because of their own evil, rape-the-environment mentality.

I believe that what I am hearing is: Don't alter the environment! Oh my God, an enormous tsunami may sweep across our shrimp farms and kill more people than if we simply left it a natural mangrove swamp. But, uh, what if a big forest fire came and it was all mangrove trees? Then thousands would die in the fire and from smoke inhalation and scientists worldwide would decry the evil mangrove forests as contributing to the deaths of thousands of people. The mantra would then be: Cut down the evil mangrove trees for they will kill you!

Or how about this: Don't build overpasses and concrete freeways because an earthquake could crush you if you were in your car. Then, our transportation system would devolve back into pack mules, right?

Sometimes I think that politicians and scientists are knee-jerk baffoons.

Natural disasters occur with regularity. People are going to die. You can't stop it from happening. I am sure that if the people of Bam (Iran) weren't huddled in their brick houses a year ago, they wouldn't have been crushed to death when the earthquake struck. So, do we tell them, "Live in tents. They are safer than brick. It is because you have altered the landscape and turned harmless dirt into evil mud bricks. Your deaths were caused by de-dirtifying the desert."

This just seems silly.

[premjan]

I think you are reading too much into my post. I was suggesting quite literally, that destruction of mangroves, makes it easier for large waves to reach further inland. Yes, sometimes people (especially poor ones) are easily misled in search of a little profit. I don't grudge them the buck they made, but perhaps there was more planning and coordination needed to help these people not to lose their lives.

[Toto]

. . ..

I believe that what I am hearing is: Don't alter the environment! Oh my God, an enormous tsunami may sweep across our shrimp farms and kill more people than if we simply left it a natural mangrove swamp.

Only in your own mind do you hear this. The point is that actions have consequences, including unintended consequences, and that there are more or less intelligent ways to alter the environment.

For instance, you noticed that the shrimp farms complained of are illegal under Indian law? Someone already saw what was going to happen.

But, uh, what if a big forest fire came and it was all mangrove trees? Then thousands would die in the fire and from smoke inhalation and scientists worldwide would decry the evil mangrove forests as contributing to the deaths of thousands of people. The mantra would then be: Cut down the evil mangrove trees for they will kill you!

Um, when was the last time you heard about a forest fire in the swamp lands?

Or how about this: Don't build overpasses and concrete freeways because an earthquake could crush you if you were in your car. Then, our transportation system would devolve back into pack mules, right?

Or how about engineering overpasses to withstand foreseeable earthquakes?

Sometimes I think that politicians and scientists are knee-jerk baffoons.

They are human, as you are. But we should all resist the temptation to oversimplify an argument and mock it instead of responding to the substance.

Natural disasters occur with regularity. People are going to die. You can't stop it from happening. I am sure that if the people of Bam (Iran) weren't huddled in their brick houses a year ago, they wouldn't have been crushed to death when the earthquake struck. So, do we tell them, "Live in tents. They are safer than brick. It is because you have altered the landscape and turned harmless dirt into evil mud bricks. Your deaths were caused by de-dirtifying the desert."

This just seems silly.

I lived through a major eathquake in Los Angeles. The buildings that were designed to survive the earthquake did. Earthquakes kill many more people in third world countries without engineering standards.

[Epictetus]

Only in your own mind do you hear this. The point is that actions have consequences, including unintended consequences, and that there are more or less intelligent ways to alter the environment.

For instance, you noticed that the shrimp farms complained of are illegal under Indian law? Someone already saw what was going to happen.

I actually agree with you implicitly. I absolutely agree that people tend to simplify things, however. Such, as "Let's destroy all the shrimp farms. They are the cause of our misery." As you stated, every action has an affect. Case in point would be something like the introduction of the cane frog into Australia years ago. I believe it was done for insect control. But the frogs had no natural predators and are now everywhere and a major threat to the indiginous environment.


Um, when was the last time you heard about a forest fire in the swamp lands?

Here I was being quite serious. Prolonged drought has resulted in huge expanses of usually verdent jungle in Indonesian and Australia into scorched earth from fires.

Or how about engineering overpasses to withstand foreseeable earthquakes?

This is done, as you are pointing out. I was being sarcastic in the overreaction that some people have when disasters strike. Everything, though, comes with a dollar cost, yes? Some countries and areas of the globe may be unwilling or unable to foot the bill for earthquake proof concrete, such as Mexico.

They are human, as you are. But we should all resist the temptation to oversimplify an argument and mock it instead of responding to the substance.


I'm with you, dude.


I lived through a major eathquake in Los Angeles. The buildings that were designed to survive the earthquake did. Earthquakes kill many more people in third world countries without engineering standards.

I was right there with you. I was also there in 1971. No argument from me. I just think shrimp farms, though they may be illegal, serve a purpose and help their economy. Yes, having the trees in place probably would have saved some of those lives. But one must weigh whether possibly saving lives through outlawing all such farms in perpetuity outweighs the benefits that having the farms bring. Seeing as a tsunami like this only occurs every 150 years or so, perhaps shrimp farming doesn't really carry much of a risk...now.

[Sauron]

The shrimp factor (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/07/news-lewis.php)

It sounds like it's time to stop eating shrimp.

Funny; I was thinking about this very thing. Someone over in Political Discussions was making light of the possibility that environmental issues could be contributing to the amount of damage the tsunami caused. The first thing I thought about was the destruction of reefs (which act as breakers) and the loss of mangroves for shrimp farming.