Mass Extinction

ALL Packed lIKe SarDeins In A TIN CAN
I often get strange looks when people find i dont eat fish....hmm......where could i have gone so wrong... Mass extinction, just pass the next FamilyMart and around the corner.... i always love the calls for action, "We must take action now. If we leave this for 10 or 20 years we will reach the point of no recovery"....hmm.....im glad someone has a sense of urgency (20 years or so).. I cant help but wonder how ecological ramifications will alter everything around us in subtle ways, but exsisting in a state of side blnders, most people wont notice until 2 feet in front of them, its all hypothetical until then... nothing matters, its irrelivent, yet everything overdetermines everything else, the rising murcury leveles in their diets, the constant nausea, increased sickness, who could have seen it coming after all? all causality is non-deterministic, non linear, yet to suggest that it destroys any sense of causality is to revert to some sort of religiosity.. or something even more bizare..... (i guess it cant be god since that would be the singular essence/cause. that is essential). but rather to find that causality is co-dependant, pratityasamutpada as it was once writen some 2400 odd years ago, or rather, as it was interprited by me as i looked it up on the web 2.5 minutes ago to remember the spelling.... i guess 'im the author now, dog' (as the infamous line from 'finding forester' gets a new life, cha-ching!...what the hell does 'cha-ching!' mean...i have not heard a cash register sound that way... but i am to assume that they do, i guess its more prototypical that they do rather than any one hold that specific feature....heh.....kind of funny when you think about concepts, and one defining feature is something that is lacking from most 'examples' so to speak.... or at least that most people might precieve.), well anyways......."without it the planet's poorest will suffer." ahh.. yes.... but why is it they are in that situation? Why is it that its only a trajedy because (some) humans will not have the protein the are suggested to require (by whom?), otherwise would it be fine? But on a different side, the poorest will be the net loosers of humanity from the mass genocide of a entire phylum. What structural (or rather structur(ES)) compount and reverb to create such a conjecture? why do they need to rely on the conjectures that might lead to this collapse rather than something else, some other paradigm? lets rather not ask....lets just stick to the main question... dont question the paradigm, the track, just the rock that you can see in front of you (not to the side of course, your wearing side blinders remember). Thus the scientists seems to lack any sort of solution.... "large commercial fishing companies should take responsibility to protect stocks. " Why can i hear CEO's laughing... if it was profitable to anhialate them, im sure they will find a profitable way to try and live off the scraps, through new investment outlets (i.e. trying to work with this, or something else, since the price of fish will probably skyrocket, and wouldnt it be better for someone else to deal with the cleanup.....lets just try and gain some surplus). Though this is one hypothetical response....therere are others which include alturism... but i would say the probability (which means jack shit) is somewhere down the line....short term profits.. isnt that what neoclassical economics is based on for 'efficiency' who can look at long term effects, or even what one deems 'efficiency' is aimed at....or what it omits from its analysis, something is only efficient towards a specific goal/episteme, and due to the chaotic interactions of everything, must omit somethings from analysis and essentialize others (well, not must, but rather for most, they do). WHo has time to worry about exploitation, class, environment, gender, race, animals, health, ect...ect.....we need to be 'efficient'.............DAMNIT.... Oh wait "Consumers also have the power to make a difference by buying less fish from commercial enterprises that fail to face up to this issue." indeed they do.... but tell me sir, when will individuals stop to listen in mass numbers, if the disinfranchised are the ones whoo you deem rely on this source, then wouldnt it be not to far to hypothesize that they might be disinfranchised from any information (i guess he assumes that most people/ corporations are transparent with what they want others to know) not to mention just everyone...but im essentializing some points, falling into a trap, fuck...how do the structures of society reproduce themselves? what ideologies help? what beleifs, information, lack there of co-determine any conjecture, any process? how is it maintained? is that not as much of a part of any system(s) as whatever might be deemed to be internal to it? (as if there was some great dichotomoy between internal/external)....wait, i lost my train of thought... wait rather it was a Train, so it never had a static locality and was always discursive....moving.... i guess what i ment to say is that i lost my track of thought....but tracks are problematic... for they always reach to the horizion and beyond, to the unknown, infinite potentiality... but i guess i mean to imply their directionality and fixed line. but then again tere are always switches and other routes, damn... that didnt go well....hmmm... {m(0)V(0)m---------TRANSMISSION...OUT}