Last month at the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s World Parks Congress in Sydney, Australia, Google unveiled a project it bills as a groundbreaking leap in the use of cloud computing, big data, and satellite networks—all to stamp out overfishing. The program, Global Fishing Watch, launched in beta with the help of environmental outfits Oceana and SkyTruth, uses the signals from Automatic Identification Systems (emergency devices installed in all major ships) to plot the trajectory of every commercial fishing vessel on the ocean. If they can raise $3 to $5 million to launch a public program, Google hopes that this visualized, real-time data will empower citizens to monitor and track ships, reporting those working in protected waters or outside of their supposed zones of operation to authorities.


A prime example of an elegant technological silver bullet in the minds of many, GFW has received tons of great coverage. The only problem being it’s inherently flawed. The anemic system will, critics argue, only locate the most inept or accidental fishery abusers, and in its self-congratulation may distract from more dire threats to marine health. That’s not to say the program is worthless. It’s a step in the right direction, towards uniting big data and environmentalism, the latter of which has been left out of some major technological shifts spurred by the former. But GFW’s failings, disappointing as they might initially seem, can actually teach us the right way to form the connective tissue between high-tech computing solutions and on-the-ground tree huggery.

That said, even a flawed innovation is a worthy ally in the dire fight against overfishing. According to a 2014 UN report, at least 90 percent of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited or overfished, and the same percentage of the world’s largest marine predators, like marlin, sharks, and tuna, have been vanishing. The current global fishing fleet catches two to three times what the world can support, and in the past has this led to the collapse of whole ecosystems, destroying not just the local fauna but the human communities who depended upon them. Given that fishing hauls seem to have peaked in 1989 and been on the decline for the past two-and-a-half decades, some grim scientists predict that the oceans could experience total ecological collapse by 2048. Just this month, reports emerged that Bluefin tuna populations have dropped to 96 percent below their historic baseline—basically a sign of imminent extinction given the global Bluefin sushi market.

However, the Google system can only track the worlds 3,000-plus commercial fishing vessels, not the countless illegal, undocumented small vessels that make up a huge part of the 11 to 26 million tons of fish on the black market every year. Beyond that, according to vessel tracking firm Windward, most larger vessels participating in illegal fishing (or human trafficking or smuggling) have been manipulating their AIS signal since 2012 when tracking sites became commonplace. Most ships report their final destinations only 41 percent of the time, at least 25 percent of ships have their AIS turned off for a 10th of their voyages, and 1 percent of ships simply use a fake AIS identification. Able to travel almost anywhere by custom, no one locally bats an eye at strange ships passing through their waters or ports. This means that Google’s system can do very little to track or combat perhaps the bulk of and certainly the worst offenders.

At the very least, GFW makes an invisible problem, occurring far offshore, into a clear message for the public—and Oceana notes they have used the technology to implicate at least one large vessel in illegal activities. And with the rise of massive new fishing prohibitions in the Pacific Ocean, like the protection of territorial waters around Kiribati and Palau announced this year, the system can hopefully at the very least, allow greater monitoring of the world’s few yet vast totally prohibited fishing-free zones.

The problems with this kind of system extend far beyond this one project, though. IBM promised that by 2020 big data would put 300 times as much information onto the internet as existed cumulatively in 2005, but despite recent hopes about what this could mean for environmentalism, little of that data will be relevant to the hidden, low-tech crimes decimating the earth’s ecosphere. As of 2013, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy researcher Angel Hsu has made a compelling case for how big data is, to environmentalists, more a series of fundamental gaps, great at monitoring pollution in cities but subpar in, say, watching remote oceans where no one collects much data of any kind. At best, satellite data is good for watching at risk patches of forest in near-real time or estimating how many fish fixed-in-place unreported weirs are pulling in—static sites that hardly require much data, just vigilance and a good vantage point.

Hearteningly, there are a few successful big data gathering programs in place, praised even by skeptics like Hsu, which may help to fill the gaps pointed out by GFW and similar programs. Algorithms developed to track and predict deforestation and trap-camera and image analysis programs monitoring animal numbers to track biodiversity, migration patterns, and so on, have both proven successful. In Africa, anti-poaching experts already believe that the jump can be made between migratory patterns and algorithmic prediction, using military tactics mathematics to follow remote herds across vast expanses, and by so doing predicting poacher strikes and dispatching guards accordingly. At risk animals can also be continually monitored with drones.

These same principles of big data collection via technological solutions could help us track and count small populations of fish across isolated areas, building up enough information to feed into a predictive algorithm. Such algorithms in turn would give us a better sense of where fish will be than we’ve ever had before, allowing us to target and, through drones or citizen monitors watching satellite feeds, report any ships of size entering regions inhabited by an endangered school. It’s a complex dream and far off, but it squares the circle Google has just started and fulfills the promise of bringing big data to the seas. For now we can use GFW for all it’s worth as a publicity tool and occasional crime prevention mechanism, hoping that the oceans hold out long enough for a more robust technological solution.

  • Man’s dog suddenly becomes protective of his wife, Internet clocks the reason right away
    Dogs have impressive observational powers.Photo credit: Canva

    Reddit user Girlfriendhatesmefor’s three-year-old pitbull, Otis, had recently become overprotective of his wife. So he asked the online community if they knew what might be wrong with the dog.

    “A week or two ago, my wife got some sort of stomach bug,” the Reddit user wrote under the subreddit /r/dogs. “She was really nauseous and ill for about a week. Otis is very in tune with her emotions (we once got in a fight and she was upset, I swear he was staring daggers at me lol) and during this time didn’t even want to leave her to go on walks. We thought it was adorable!”

    His wife soon felt better, butthe dog’s behavior didn’t change.

    pregnancy signs, dogs and pregnancy, pitbull behavior, pet intuition, dog overprotection, Reddit stories, viral Reddit, dog instincts, canine emotions, dog owner tips
    Otis knew before they did. Canva

    Girlfriendhatesmefor began to fear that Otis’ behavior may be an early sign of an aggression issue or an indication that the dog was hurt or sick.

    So he threw a question out to fellow Reddit users: “Has anyone else’s dog suddenly developed attachment/aggression issues? Any and all advice appreciated, even if it’s that we’re being paranoid!”

    The most popular response to his thread was by ZZBC.

    Any chance your wife is pregnant?

    ZZBC | Reddit

    The potential news hit Girlfriendhatesmefor like a ton of bricks. A few days later, Girlfriendhatesmefor posted an update and ZZBC was right!

    “The wifey is pregnant!” the father-to-be wrote. “Otis is still being overprotective but it all makes sense now! Thanks for all the advice and kind words! Sorry for the delayed reply, I didn’t check back until just now!”

    Redditors responded with similar experiences.

    Anecdotal I know but I swear my dog knew I was pregnant before I was. He was super clingy (more than normal) and was always resting his head on my belly.

    realityisworse | Reddit

    So why do dogs get overprotective when someone is pregnant?

    Jeff Werber, PhD, president and chief veterinarian of the Century Veterinary Group in Los Angeles, told Health.com that “dogs can also smell the hormonal changes going on in a woman’s body at that time.” He added the dog may “not understand that this new scent of your skin and breath is caused by a developing baby, but they will know that something is different with you—which might cause them to be more curious or attentive.”

    The big lesson here is to listen to your pets and to ask questions when their behavior abruptly changes. They may be trying to tell you something, and the news may be life-changing.

    This article originally appeared last year.

  • Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.

  • ,

    Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories

    Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.

    While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.

    When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.

    Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.


Explore More Articles Stories

Articles

Man’s dog suddenly becomes protective of his wife, Internet clocks the reason right away

Articles

14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations

Articles

Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories

Articles

11 hilarious posts describe the everyday struggles of being a woman