Authors: Laurenne Schiller, Megan Bailey, Jennifer Jacquet, and Enric Sala
Recent international negotiations have highlighted the need to protect marine diversity on the high seas—the ocean area beyond national jurisdiction. However, restricting fishing access on the high seas raises many concerns, including how such restrictions would affect food security. We analyze high seas catches and trade data to determine the contribution of the high seas catch to global seafood production, the main species caught on the high seas, and the primary markets where these species are sold. By volume, the total catch from the high seas accounts for 4.2% of annual marine capture fisheries production and 2.4% of total seafood production, including freshwater fisheries and aquaculture. Thirty-nine fish and invertebrate species account for 99.5% of the high seas targeted catch, but only one species, Antarctic toothfish, is caught exclusively on the high seas. The remaining catch, which is caught both on the high seas and in national jurisdictions, is made up primarily of tunas, billfishes, small pelagic fishes, pelagic squids, toothfish, and krill. Most high seas species are destined for upscale food and supplement markets in developed, food-secure countries, such as Japan, the European Union, and the United States, suggesting that, in aggregate, high seas fisheries play a negligible role in ensuring global food security.
Read more here.
Commentary led by Cassandra Brooks, and also David Ainley, Peter Abrams, Paul Dayton, Robert Hofman, and Donald Siniff at Nature.
In a rapidly changing climate, fisheries in the Southern Ocean must be managed cautiously…
Read it here.
Sneddon et al. address the scientists who reject the empirical evidence on fish sentience, calling them “sceptics” and their work “denial”. This is the first article to frame the question of fish sentience in these terms, and it provides an obvious opening for social science and humanities research in the science of fish sentience. It is also worth asking what practical changes in the lives of fish might arise from the mounting evidence of their sentience. I suggest that the relationship between sentience and our sense of moral obligation is not as clear as we often assume. Read the full response here.
Continue reading “Defining denial and sentient seafood — a response to Sneddon et al.”
Article with Lisa Johns at Global Environmental Change.
While doom and gloom language was
identified in 10% of all articles, optimistic language was present in 27%.
Read it here.
As part of Root sequence. Mother tongue (2017), Asad Raza’s show at the Whitney Museum of American Art, he invited series of guests to occupy the installation with choreographic, musical, and intellectual events for weekend visitors to the museum. Comprising mentors, friends, and younger creative practitioners, the group is a plurivocal portrait of the artist’s community. Asad Raza and Jennifer Jacquet discuss octopus, fish, shame, climate change, and other things.
Article at Oxford Research Encyclopedia.
Guilt has tended to align with the individualization of responsibility for climate change… Shame has been used…as a primary tactic against fossil fuel producers, peddlers of climate denial, and industry-backed politicians.
Read it here.
To go with this scholarly co-authored article explaining why Bivalves Are Better, a popular piece at The Guardian about why bivalve farming is the future of ethical aquaculture.
Jennifer Jacquet and Sunandan Chakraborty’s project at NYU was selected as one of 4 Grand Prize Winnersin the Wildlife Crime Tech Challenge, a USAID initiative that is being implemented in partnership with the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian Institution, and TRAFFIC.
Contrary to how it might feel, fondling dangerous animals only accentuates the divide between us and them. Haven’t we done enough to force that divide already? Read more at The Guardian.
Article with Dale Jamieson on the potential for shame to put downward pressure on emissions in Nature Climate Change.
It becomes more difficult not to fulfill one’s commitments if others are fulfilling theirs, and easier to avoid one’s commitments if others are avoiding theirs.
Read it here.
Response to Naidoo et al.’s article on “Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia” in Conservation Biology.
Conservation decisions are not and should not be driven by economic benefits alone.
Read it here.
Psychologist David Pizarro and philosopher Tamler Sommers talk shame with Jennifer Jacquet, including the pros and cons and the difference between shame and guilt. Is shaming effective for generating social progress or getting tax cheats to pay up? Is twitter shaming on the rise or on its way out? And what does David do when he’s alone in the dark? Listen here.
Rather than simply ruining the life of one dentist, some arguably good things have come from this case.
Read more at The Conversation.
The discussion about 21st-century shaming usually turns to cases in which an otherwise well-behaved person posts a tweet or photograph that results in excessive punishment by an anonymous and bloodthirsty online crowd which ruins that person’s life for a while. Many people, myself included, object to this form of vigilantism. But other examples of shaming — singling out big banks for environmental destruction, exposing countries for refusing to end forced labour or calling out denialists who undermine action on climate change — challenge the mistreated tweeter as shaming’s stereotype. What shaming largely is, after all, is not necessarily what shaming might be. Read more at WIRED.CO.UK.
Response to Kline’s article How to learn about teaching: An evolutionary framework for the study of teaching behavior in humans and other animals in Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
One of the challenges to an evolutionary framework for the study of teaching behavior will be to distinguish, if possible, between teaching… and punishment.
Read more here.
The Deep, Dark, Ugly Thing — Can shame shape society? by Laura Kipnis.
“Guilt only needs to be addressed by the self, whereas shame can force change in others’ behavior. Shame can scale and its target need not be human. A company or an industry can be shamed, but they cannot feel guilty as these entities lack consciences. This important distinction is central to Jacquet’s thesis: abandon guilt and turn to shame as the tool for resolving collective action problems.” Read more in The Brooklyn Rail.
The anthropocebo effect: a psychological condition that exacerbates human-induced damage — a certain pessimism about humanity that leads us to accept humans as a geologic force and destruction as inevitable.
Work on intergenerational discounting and climate change featured on Fareed Zakaria’s Global Public Square on CNN.
A talk with dctp.tv about scham online.
“Here, [Brian] Eno and Jacquet share an emailed conversation about their collaboration.”