
Big fish are found deep not because of age, climate, or prey, but because of us - curtis
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/ecological-law-turns-out-to-just-be-the-result-of-us-fishing/
======
southern_cross
I read a story once where ongoing changes in the timing of salmon runs were
(of course) being blamed on climate change by scientists. But then someone who
is actually in the fishing industry pointed out that for ages now we've been
artificially selecting out those salmon which run during the "standard
window", leaving in their wake mostly survivors who show up a little bit
sooner or a little bit later, outside of that window. This person was of
course then treated with absolute disdain by the online community which was
discussing the issue; he might have even been banned outright for saying that.

~~~
peterashford
With respect, people have been coming up with their "common sense" objections
to what those high-falutin' scientists have been saying every time one of them
says absolutely anything at all. It's "common sense" that Climate Change isn't
occurring - or man made. It's "common sense" that we can't effect the health
of the oceans - they're just so big. It's also "common sense" that the earth
is flat - just look around! It's worthwhile raising and examining alternative
hypothesis to explain phenomena but rejecting science out of hand on the basis
of folk-knowledge is getting pretty old. Rejecting the science needs a higher
bar than anecdotes.

~~~
wtvanhest
I'm an environmentalist who believes that we should stop carbon polution and
that we should dramatically reduce other forms of pollution as quickly as
possible.

But...

I have yet to read a research report that is convincing that climate change is
abnormal due to humans.

The report most often cited is a meta report, but I'd rather have something
with hard numbers that I can show people. Meta analysis is fine, but not
convincing.

I'm curious what convinced people here that climate change is likely caused by
humans rather than just earths cyclical temp changes that have happened for a
long time.

I say this as someone who wants to understand it.

~~~
dpark
Why do you believe we should stop carbon pollution if you don’t think it’s
relevant to global warming? If it’s unrelated to climate change then carbon
dioxide release is pretty benign. It actually helps trees and other plants.

> _I 'm curious what convinced people here that climate change is likely
> caused by humans rather than just earths cyclical temp changes that have
> happened for a long time._

What part do you have trouble believing? We’ve raised the carbon dioxide level
by something like 40% since the industrial revolution. Unless carbon dioxide
levels are somehow divorced from the amount of heat the atmosphere captures,
we have clearly caused at least a portion of the increase.

Scroll down to the long term historical chart to see what we’ve done relative
to historical concentrations.

[https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-
dioxide/](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/)

~~~
lopmotr
That's the kind of argument that sounds OK only if you already accept the
conclusion. Here's another one - The amount of radioactive material in the
atmosphere is higher since nuclear testing than ever before in human history.
Radioactive material causes cancer so we've clearly caused at least a portion
of higher rates of cancer. Call to action - We must all do our part to help
clean the radioactive material from the air so we don't die of cancer!

~~~
dpark
> _Radioactive material causes cancer so we 've clearly caused at least a
> portion of higher rates of cancer._

I don't think anyone argues that radioactive testing has significantly (or
even measurably) increased the background radiation level on Earth. Contrast
with carbon dioxide, where we have increased by ~40%.

If we had evidence that nuclear testing _had_ significantly increased
background radiation levels, then the assertions that it's increased cancer
rates and that we should try to clean it up would both be true.

~~~
smueller1234
Err, wait a minute. Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests HAVE measurably
increased background radiation.

Source: See for example both the table and the C14 graph at
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation)

Source 2: Grad degree in physics. Worked at nuclear physics lab.

~~~
dpark
Well then. I was not aware that we had done that much with our nuclear
testing. Obviously then we did probably cause an increase in cancer.

On the bright side it looks like we’re almost back to baseline.

~~~
southern_cross
Be careful about making too much cancer attribution here, though. For one,
naturally occurring background radiation levels can be (and often are) far
higher than most people realize, and our bodies have long ago adapted to that
as best they can. Two, in addition to other pollutants, burning coal also
releases quite a bit of radiation, far more than you average nuclear plant or
whatever. Third, for the longest time a dose of radiation received all at once
vs. that same dose of radiation received over time were treated as if they
were exactly the same biologically. But now that we have actual long-term
results to go by, it turns out that radiation received over time is generally
somewhere between 10x and 100x less dangerous biologically than if that same
radiation were received all at once. Also, it matters a lot what the type of
radiation received is and where you receive it. For example, radiation
received by the skin (dead tissue) may be all but inconsequential, while that
same radiation received in the lungs or gut or bloodstream (live tissue) may
potentially be disastrous.

~~~
smueller1234
Those are all good points and for anyone reading along with curiosity, I'd
actually recommend the Wikipedia link two posts up as a nice starting point
for learning more. Wikipedia on this general subject area isn't too shabby, I
thought when I last went down the rabbit hole.

------
jboggan
This isn't surprising to anyone who dives or spearfishes. You start to notice
the body language of the larger fishes as being completely different than
their younger counterparts. Only the wary get to be that old. I would also say
that applies not just to human predation but also to predation from other
fishes and mammals, you can see their movements and behaviors change immensely
when something larger and hungrier is about.

~~~
bonesss
There are brave cod, and there are old cod, but there are no brave, old,
cod...

------
mlboss
I currently reading "Sapiens: A brief history of Humankind". Through out human
history we have destroyed ecosystems. We are responsible for extinction of
1000s of species. Oceans was left out because we didn't have the technology,
but not for long.

~~~
corporateslaver
That’s what happens when you have this many people. For the kind of population
growth, it’s either we stop having so many people, or the animals die. It’s us
or them. Why is this so hard to understand? No amount of talking points and
musing on environmentalism will take away those facts of human existence.

How could the industrial boom in China or the USA in the late 1800s and early
1900s have happened without emvironmental destruction? How can growth happen
in China now without it? Get real about human development and the necessities
of human development.

~~~
windows_tips
>How could the industrial boom in China or the USA in the late 1800s and early
1900s have happened without emvironmental destruction? How can growth happen
in China now without it?

Possibly if they had used solar-thermal power generation and focused on
battery tech instead of exploiting petroleum so heavily.

~~~
corporateslaver
Sarcasm?

~~~
windows_tips
There was already heavy investment in steam technology. Using the sun the boil
water instead of coal or wood is much less resource intensive and completely
eliminates external supply chains.

~~~
codeisawesome
Did they have enough tech by that point to even begin to figure out mass
manufacturing of solar cells to focus enough energy into water to make steam?
Burning something that burns well is a much more intuitive and scalable
process...

Also, mining the easy stocks (at that point) is a low tech affair too. Which
was powered by... combustion of fuel and human labor.

We still can’t make solar panels with 100% efficiency, what hope did they
have?

~~~
windows_tips
You don't need solar cells to heat water to boiling, just glass or a metal
like aluminum or silver.

With glass you can build a lens to concentrate light. With a metal you can
build a concentrating mirror.

~~~
codeisawesome
Good points. But lens building is a complex endeavour that requires tooling at
the manufacturing level (especially computing power!) - no matter the choice
of available material, yes? Doing it with high precision at a civilisation-
powering scale seems like an impossible ask of a species that was still
considering much of their Home planet to be “new” (Americas).

~~~
windows_tips
Galileo was making lenses hundreds of years before the time we are talking
about. Also, eye and magnifying glasses existed then.

------
pvaldes
I'm sceptic about that, specially after reading this.

> All the species in which older, bigger fish are found in deeper water have
> something else in common: we eat them

Hemm, not. Poisonous fishes show the same pattern. There are poisonous fishes
also in the deep sea. If we do not eat then, why do not live in the surface?

Mola mola is the biggest extant bony fish. Is neither fished nor eaten
normally. Adults still pass most of its time at deep waters.

To extrapolate the behaviour of 30.000 species of animals after one single
species and one single variable leads often to wrong conclusions. Fishes are
complex creatures.

~~~
biofunsf
Are you just saying that there are poisonous deep sea fish?

To be a counterexample it needs to be a poisonous fish that exists in shallow
waters but whose older members only occupy deep waters. Entirely deep-sea
species aren't what this article is referring to. I'm not aware of any
poisonous fish that aren't hunted by humans that follow this pattern.

Just saw your edit. I don't think that sunfish fish of different ages spend
their time at different ocean depths? Wasn't mentioned on wikipedia.

~~~
pvaldes
Many deep-sea fishes have buoyant eggs and larvae that can reach the photic
zone. Even the species that do not reach the photic zone live in shallower
areas when younger.

A lot of pelagic fishes start their life at 1cm under the ocean surface also.

------
olliej
Well yes, there a fairly simple bit of selective pressure:fish nearer to the
surface are more likely to be caught. As industrial fishing is aggressive to
mass collection that increases pressure to move deeper. It seems reasonable
then that fish that are generally remaining (in average) deeper than there
counterparts will (again on average) live longer, and so get bigger.

This is basic evolution. It’s no different than commercial fishing farms
having to deal with their fish growing more slowly or simply staying small
(the selection criteria being “stay less than X cm”)

------
vfc1
It's surprising that fishes adopt that behavior, but then again industrial
fishing activity now covers at least 55 percent of the world's oceans -
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180222162124.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180222162124.htm)

------
dalbasal
Tangental:

" _the researchers added a simulation in which the depth and mass of fish were
tied to the rate of mortality by fishing_ "

Is this really a process where simulation->result->theory. IE died the model
or simulation played a key role indeveloping or validating a theory. Or, is
this a process where they started from a theory (that works, explaining
observed results) and then built a simulation that demonstrates the theory?

I feel like I'm seeing this kind of language in the pop science press, maybe
starting from the climate/weather world.

Have models of ecosystems (eg) been getting more use as "theory generators,"
are researchers creating more models ex post as an supporting evidence, or is
this just a shift in journalistic language?

...and... if the answer is "models are really playing more of a role"...
please elaborate if you know anything interesting. What software is being
used? Are biologists building these models/simulations themselves, or are
there specialists available to them?

^ I'm not hating on language choices or ex post evidence gathering. Darwin
used what we might call a "simulation" (or statistical analysis, depending on
the journalist) to predict and then validate a theory about bird mortality in
storms. That was great science, and foundational. Not hating. Just curious
about changes in the role of simulation/modeling.

~~~
marcus_holmes
yeah, every time I see "we proved this theory using a simulation..." I get a
little voice in my head that says "then you didn't prove anything except your
ability to create a simulation that agrees with your pet theory"

I understand that conducting experiments with ecosystems to prove why they
behave in particular ways might be a tad tricky. But that just means that
theories about ecosystems are hard to prove, not that they get a free ride to
"proven".

~~~
dalbasal
A more charitable way if putting it might be, is the simulation part of the
theory or part of the evidence for it. Both are acceptable, but not at once.
Simulation as theory is "safer" in a poperian sense.

~~~
marcus_holmes
good point. The way the article presented it, the simulation clearly appears
to be part of the proof. But that could be a product of the journalistic
filter applied.

------
yitchelle
This reminds of the "empty box problem solved by a $20 fan" story. Sometimes,
the most obvious reason is probably the actual reason.

[0] -
[http://cs.txstate.edu/~br02/cs1428/ShortStoryForEngineers.ht...](http://cs.txstate.edu/~br02/cs1428/ShortStoryForEngineers.htm)

------
AdamM12
Wasn't there a post earlier that more mammals are becoming nocturnal because
of humans?

~~~
tylersmith
I didn't see that and can't find it so if anybody has a link that'd be great.
I'm no biologist but have always been taught that this is the case.
Specifically, while growing up on ranch I was told that coyotes near the house
hunted at night while the coyotes that lived further out in the fields hunted
during the day.

~~~
AdamM12
I guess I could of not been so lazy and used the search for "nocturnal" and
found it. God forbid it be the first result.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17329264](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17329264)

------
smaddox
Reminds me of this NPR article from 2014 with pictures showing how small "the
biggest catch" is today compared to 60 years ago:
[https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/b...](https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-
fish-stories-getting-littler)

~~~
SteveGerencser
Part of this is because of the changes in catch laws. For example. Many of the
fish in the oldest photos are Goliath Grouper. Nearly 30 years ago harvesting
Goliath Grouper was banned. So it makes sense that you would see far fewer
pictures of a fish you are no longer allowed to catch and keep.

~~~
codeisawesome
1965 (mentioned in the article as being the start of a period in which
pictures show smaller fish) is 50+ years ago however

~~~
taeric
I'm not sure that disagrees with the point. There was a species of fish that
was particularly large that was caught. It was identified that we were
damaging that species, so we banned catching it. It makes sense that part of
the evidence for banning, was that we were finding less of them, especially at
size.

That is, the point is that this metric was largely driven by that fish
species.

------
cerealbad
climate change has become an apocalyptic orthodox religion for secular
pessimists, just like technology is an idealized utopia for materialistic
optimists. this tends to happen when you build a world view on a single pillar
and it starts sinking and tipping over, prophecies and pronouncements of
certain doom or visions of heaven naturally follow.

the real issue is that modern education is not cross disciplinary so you have
highly specialized people creeping into fields they don't understand and
making basic errors of judgement based on pre-conceived ideas of what ought to
be. you see this for example in the interplay between physics, mathematics,
computer science and engineering. the physicist wants statistics over big data
sets, the mathematician wants abstract tools and automatic proof theorems, the
engineer wants practical numerical solutions and modelling and the computer
scientist is fixated on throughput and efficiency of generative algorithms. is
this even true? has anyone stopped and said, what are we actually doing? is
there a bigger plan here, are we trying to work towards a common goal, or has
the ladder we climbed been pulled away?

the relativistic revolution and subsequent collapse of the western world, the
church, the state and the individual all dissolving into a jumbled mess of
professional agitators applying some bayesian strategy of influence
maximization is an unfortunate consequence of a change in world order, from
west to east. being on the wrong side of the cyber curtain is a slow bleak
dawn, with the intellectual and political elite always the last to realize the
surrounding darkness.

globalization is an example of a desperate last gasp of a former dominant
culture trying to exert control and influence over a world increasingly more
alien and separate from it. the irony of course is in the conceit of the name
itself. project the growth of asia and africa forwards for another half-
century, then work backwards and try to understand the hysteria behind fossil
fuel usage and the impact this will have on the balance of world power if 3+
billion new people become electrified and industrialized.

~~~
marcus_holmes
I'm in SE Asia at the moment, and the view is different here.

Globalisation doesn't look like the last gasp of a former dominant culture
here, it looks like the way out of crushing poverty. People WANT to work in
globalcorp garment factories. They get really annoyed if the factories shut
down. For all our western idealism about a pastoral lifestyle, everyone who
has the choice between growing food for a living and working 90 hours a week
in a factory chooses the factory every time. And yes, it is their choice. They
can leave whenever they want, there are 4375979 other applicants waiting at
the gates.

The interesting thing is that they're skipping steps in the process. Cambodia
skipped desktop/wired computing/telecoms and went straight from nothing to
mobile (in about 5 years). Mobile access is hugely cheaper and generally
faster than it is in either the UK or Australia.

I can see solar power doing the same in the next 5 years. Rather than waiting
for the electricity authority to get round to wiring up the rural areas,
they're already getting on with rigging up their own solar. In 20 years
they'll be self-sufficient and the megaprojects to dam the rivers will be
bankrupt.

~~~
cerealbad
in your observations, are consumption habits changing the same way with
respect to diet? eg. will they (mostly) skip unhealthy processed snack foods
and move towards something new, and if that happens how will preventable
diseases that plague western countries manifest if at all, the health and drug
industries, aged care (family vs business). some things are skipped others
might be accelerated. globalization works as long as there is another country
down the road you can kick it to, but the axis of power will eventually shift
towards emergent markets and those governments will cut out western monopolies
out of self-interest, or at least be very resistant to a foreign controlled
corporation taking its local profits offshore. japan and south korea have a
resistant corp-gov structure due to monopoly, high technology and mass
employment creating huge economic leverage over the political system. are
chaebols nepotistic fascism, a valid competing business structure, benevolent
dictatorships?

were not having this conversation in the 1980s and most of the worlds airports
and shopping malls look eerily similar today, yet older systems are more
brittle and prone to fracturing and new infrastructures tend to be cheaper,
deploy faster and require less maintenance. giant malls in america remind me
of communist apartment blocks dotted all over eastern european capitals,
permanent monuments to a big idea that proved temporary. at least the soviet
model serves some present social utility. the hidden cost of solar is of
course in the manufacturing and re-use process which is fossil fuel dependent,
but se asia has oil and gas fit to purpose. globalization for the western
leaders means controlling the development of poorer countries by creating
avenues for the corporations they front to come in and build, for the poorer
countries i think they correctly see it as a way to accelerate society but not
necessarily at the cost of autonomy like some corporate colony of an american
or german or chinese conglomerate. people may reduce consumption individually,
but over the scale of the planet the food industry alone must be undergoing
some giant mutation. it's really hard for me to imagine a future in asia and
africa without massive increase in petroleum and it's assorted bi-products.

------
aaronmu
Do older and bigger fish evolve to live deeper or do fish that live deeper get
older and bigger?

Humans think that we can tell cause from effect but this is rarely the case.

------
codeisawesome
I love this, it’s a fun story, and especially funny to read all the long-
winded science-y sounding explanations that humans came up with rather than
consider the self deprecating simple fact that we’re just eating them all.

BUT I am definitely not happy that this is going to be one of those weaponised
stories that the anti-science brigade will start telling and re-telling
everywhere, lending credibility to other lies they believe in.

------
ako
The fact that fish are getting shorter is illustrated nicely in the article:
[https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/b...](https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-
fish-stories-getting-littler?t=1529558188716)

Pretty disturbing.

------
Theodores
Once upon a time rivers were clear and full of fish. There was no need for
anyone to get in a boat and head out to sea to catch fish. Essentially the
fish 'came to us' (not that they saw it that way).

With the advent of farming the rivers became full of the soil washed off the
land and were no longer clear. Fishing now needed a boat.

At first this fishing was easy, however we ate the big fish and made various
fisheries a thing of the past, case in point being the Newfoundland Grand
Banks, once famous for cod but no longer.

So what do people eat now instead of 'cod and chips'? This amuses me as there
is no problem for them. They get some other fish shaped object - 'battered' \-
and make judgements of how tasty or otherwise it is. Maybe this fish comes
from another hemisphere, perhaps it has some unusual name, maybe it tastes
'different'. Marketing conquers all though, this mystery fish caught somewhere
off Antarctica will have a fancy name as if it is some deluxe, exotic variety.
It is as if the 'chef' went out of his way to offer something more exciting
than 'humdrum cod' specifically for them, charging them more for this
'nouvelle cousine' in the process. No discussion of what happened to the cod
will be mentioned although the despicable newspaper that will be read with the
'faux cod and chips' will talk about the evils of the E.U. and the Spanish
fishermen invading 'our' shores.

Soon these fools will be eating the scummiest bottom-feeding detritus that can
be scooped from the ocean's depths. They will do it if not every day but as
the mood takes them until the day they die. Discussion will be made on how
well the faux-cod is cooked and how lovely it was. The thinking won't go much
further than their bellies and bowels.

Meanwhile, driving in their cars and going on their cheap holidays, these
consumers, whom the world's economy depends on, will be pumping untold tonnes
of carbon dioxide into the oceans, acidifying them to make life in the seas
quite intolerable for our friends with gills. The cruise boats they holiday on
and the container ships that bring them their cheap junk from China will also
make so much noise in the oceans that any fish with ears will not be able to
hear anything but the sound of diesel internal combustion engines.

There is no penalty for complicity in this madness. However, the cost of
stepping outside of it is quite high. If you don't eat your fish or your beef
or your mechanically removed horsemeat then there is not a place at the table
for you. Unless you have got a good excuse. But nobody says they are 'allergic
to beef' or 'allergic to fish'. You can only be allergic to peanuts. Much like
how folks in the mafia have to have slaughtered someone to get a space at the
table, so it is with meat and fish, to be accepted by your peers you have to
partake in the ecocide.

There are those that are vegetarian and wanting to live life differently. But
these people are somewhat drowned out by the vegan crowd, many of whom have
entirely different motivations. This new vegan crowd are more likely to have
an eating disorder that has nothing to do with saving the planet. Plus they
can't get five minutes into a conversation without wanting to tell all that
they are vegan. Their fanaticism plus the cost of their fake-meat products,
e.g. that organic almond milk flown in from California, is no example for
others to follow.

We will see if the meek inherit the earth, maybe the fatties scoffing all the
fish are going to be going extinct shortly after they have scoffed the last
plastic-infested jellyfish they can find in the oceans.

~~~
bbarn
What you've just described is less an argument for vegetarianism and more an
argument for population control. If the fish come to you, and you're incapable
of overfishing them, your whole fantasy stops.

That said, you're right in that vegetarianism is just not sustainable in this
size a population - but not just for elitist vegan snobs. If we all ate mostly
vegetables, and got our proteins from other sources, we'd be facing a scarcity
of land to grow crops as well as sources of fertilizer. The math just doesn't
work at scale, and that's why purely vegetarian nations are generally that
way: because they are poor, not enlightened. They also aren't usually
particularly healthy. Ironically the healthiest cultures (if you'll permit the
generalization) are those eating mostly fish-based diets like the Pacific and
Mediterranean.

~~~
greglindahl
Vegetarianism doesn't scale? Right now most Americans eat meat that mostly
eats food like corn and soybeans. How would it take more land if people got
their protein from tofu instead?

~~~
bonesss
Also the meat we eat eats food. That's how it grows. There's an obvious
caloric inefficiency there, if we're struggling.

Personally I think vat-grown meat is gonna be the ideal win/win: low
environmental footprint, perfect high quality kobe beef for all :)

~~~
hkyeti
Why wait? Excellent plant-based foods are available now, and the improvements
in quality, taste and cost are accelerating.

------
the-pigeon
Do we not count as prey?

~~~
rjpr
I think we're predators, not prey.

~~~
rarec
We are most certainly predators. There's no animal on this planet a human
couldn't beat with some combination of tool or tools.

~~~
bhhaskin
We are the ultimate apex predator on this planet.

------
titzer
Under essentially any accounting system, when it comes to the environment,
we're a bunch of fucking assholes.

~~~
noir_lord
We really are but I'm not sure what to do about it (other than considering
environmental policy when voting).

We don't drive (me or my partner), We recycle, I mend everything I can (which
outside of a clean room is most things, it's never been easier with youtube),
neither of use go in for excessive consumption (My current desktop is from
2011, it's finally coming up on time to replace that).

I even considered going vegetarian but with Crohn's that isn't really viable
(I have to avoid high fibre _and_ getting enough minerals/vitamins is a
struggle).

We don't eat wild caught fish (or much fish at all).

I mean I'm not a tofu eating ecowarrior or anything but it just seems sensible
not to piss in your own drinking water.

~~~
protonimitate
I don't mean this to criticize attempts at personal responsibility when it
comes to sustainability, but I think we are far past the point of no return.

Short of a massive population decrease, a complete switch in energy
consumption, or some sci-fi type of technological breakthrough, we are doomed
to run this planet into extinction.

At this point, most conservation efforts are more of a attempt to feel better
as an individual then they are actually making a difference.

That doesn't mean we should stop, or concede, with our efforts. It just means
we need to be realistic with what we do over the next 50-100 years.

Personally, I think the only way the human race will continue to thrive is to
figure out how to survive without the Earth as a host. Whether we figure that
out, or succumb to extinction, is really the ultimate test of our race. Were
we designed to be a part of nature as it exists on Earth, or will we surpass
it?

~~~
InclinedPlane
This is a defeatist and ahistorical attitude. We've brought species back from
near extinction, we've brought entire biomes back from near destruction, we've
made the air and water cleaner, we've saved the ozone layer, etc, etc, etc. We
know how to do these things, it doesn't require magic or impossibly futuristic
technology or excessive personal sacrifice. It's just work. All we have to do
is do the work.

~~~
oldcynic
We've forced species so near to extinction that they need to be "brought
back", we've had such a profound effect on the environment that there is
essentially nowhere left that does not show the impact of humankind. We've
made the air and water cleaner in highly specific ways whilst continuing to
pollute globally and watch the developing world repeat our mistakes on a
larger scale. We saved the ozone layer yet have thus far done nothing
substantive as far as carbon is concerned. We've diligently avoided any
serious discussion of population pressure on the planet.

We know how to do these things, we know how to avoid the mistakes of the past.
Yet we are not doing them. How do you propose getting the international
community to do that work?

