18 ms·
Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years
- RyanMcGreal 16y ago>THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless fishing fleets are slashed and stocks allowed to recover, UN experts warned. An important lesson from the Canadian cod collapse is that when populations drop below a critical threshold, the stocks never recover.
- hga 16y agoThat may be due to the cod being an apex predator. I.e. has the total biomass of the region collapsed? However this is a classic Tragedy of the Commons example and the fact that Canada dithered long enough for it to reach what looks like a point of no return is sobering (I was living in the Boston area in the dozen years leading up to Canada's closing of fishery and remember reading articles about this). Some governments are simply not going to handle this well for the regions of the ocean they economically control, and plenty of the ocean (although I don't know how much of it is how productive) is beyond those areas. All that said, we're likely to see a continuation of farm raised fish replacing wild catched. Something akin to this happened thousands of years ago as we converted to agriculture.
- yesbabyyes 16y agoAre you suggesting that we converted to agriculture after killing almost all wild animals?
- scott_s 16y agoNo, he's suggesting that we switched from eating mostly hunted-meat to eating mostly domesticated meat.
- hga 16y agoMostly that, but as a member of a family that hunts growing up in an agricultural region (SW Missouri) I also know that the process of converting to agriculture radically changed the environment, especially the fauna. By and large a lot of wild flora continued to exist on unfarmed land, but that provided a lot less cover etc. for animal species who's various requirements got zapped. Nowadays hunters work with farmers to e.g. leave enough quail habitat at the edges of fields. Another thing that happened was that apex predators of domestic animals were suppressed and/or replaced by other predator domestic animals like the dog and cat. In general for lots of reasons the populations of humans grew substantially beyond what wild game could support. Although deer in the US are something of a special case. They're really thriving, we could harvest quite a few more (and in a number of places desperately need to), heck, they're the most deadly animal in the US (through car crashes). This of course wouldn't happen in countries where meat was at more of a premium and/or where the population density was a lot higher.
- DaniFong 16y agoFYI, we did kill a huge fraction of the world's megafauna before agriculture.
- ilovecomputers 16y agoIf we're gonna farm fish, we best do it right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EUAMe2ixCI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EUAMe2ixCI
- warfangle 16y agoCouldn't watch the talk at the moment (bookmarking for later), but additionally (saw this on HN a few months back): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/garden/18aqua.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/garden/18aqua.html
- hga 16y agoVery cool; I've mused about raising catfish in the basement before, but obviously you can go a lot further, more diversified and more full cycle. Thanks!
- poppysan 16y agoThanks for the link...So very inspiring.
- sliverstorm 16y ago> However this is a classic Tragedy of the Commons example Not on that, but ppossibly the most tragic example I've ever witnessed.
- robryan 16y agoI'd assume this is slightly sensationalist? As in not all species of fish and areas are fished simply because of depth, remoteness and species unsuitable for eating.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- pyre 16y ago> "we're destroying the planet" I've always taken that definition of 'planet' to mean, "the way it is now," or, "the parts that we like about it." No one truly believes that humans will cause the planet to cease to exist (at least in the non-SciFi near-future). > The Earth, life, will go on with or without us. That doesn't necessarily excuse the destruction that we leave in our path...
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- robryan 16y agoI think if we did cause our own extinction we would take most species with us beforehand.
- strait 16y agoThe last animals left will be the cockroaches, Eric Burdon, and of course, Keith Richards.
- pchristensen 16y agoLong lines and bottom trawling make the ocean small and accessible while causing massive amounts of "bycatch" - species unsuitable for eating.
- commieneko 16y agoIf the "low fruit" species are fished out, then the more remote, less desirable species are likely to be targeted. There is also the danger of damaging the eco system, or at least destabilizing it in unpredictable ways.
- intellectronica 16y agoSo now it's a race with those Himalayan glaciers. Which will disappear first? ;)
- intellectronica 16y agoAmazing - even just joking about green scaremongering gets you downvoted.
- jbooth 16y agoYou made it abundantly clear that not only didn't you read the article, you're not the least bit interested in learning new facts, just in labeling any concern about the environment as "green scaremongering".
- intellectronica 16y agoActually, it's quite possible to entertain an idea, accept, and joke about it.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jcnnghm 16y agoAt a certain point economics would dictate that fish farms would be cheaper than commercial fishing due to scarcity. Plus you could probably charge a premium to gouge the hippies for their compassion, desire for 'clean-water' fish, saving the planet rhetoric, and whatnot.
- yesbabyyes 16y agoFarmed fish eats fish. For each kg of farmed fish, you have to catch two to five kg fish in the ocean. Some of this is fast-growing and might be ok to harvest in large quantities, but most of it, we don't know. Farmed fish also spreads disease and destroys the local ecosystem. Chiles coastline is in pretty bad shape because of extremely large scale salmon farming.
- glhaynes 16y agoCan it be done sustainably? Can a complete ecosystem be established where the feeder fish don't have to be harvested from elsewhere?
- yesbabyyes 16y agoI don't know, but usually, nature is better at creating ecosystems than we are.
- itistoday 16y ago+1 Though I'm struggling to think of even just one example of a human-created ecosystem designed to substitute for a natural one that's been at least as sustainable as those existing in nature.
- krschultz 16y agoThat doesn't mean it is better at creating food for us. Sun -> algae -> small fish -> medium fish -> fish we eat. Very doable, the problem comes in dealing with the waste.
- 16y ago
- lionhearted 16y ago> THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless fishing fleets are slashed and stocks allowed to recover, UN experts warned. I dislike the rise of sensationalism and exaggeration in the media quite a lot. I dislike the rise of sensationalism and exaggeration in the United Nations even more.
- Daishiman 16y agoIt's not sensationalistic. You know damn well they're talking about edible fish that we're accustomed to eating now. You're just being intellectually dishonest.
- lionhearted 16y ago> It's not sensationalistic. The thread title was "Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years" - the first line starts with "THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050..." That's sensationalism. > You know damn well they're talking about edible fish that we're accustomed to eating now. Actually, the thread title - "Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years" made me click on it, because I thought it was about ecosystems getting destroyed by oil spills, or pollution, or something. And then the article was just about overfishing. And it exaggerates the chances. > You're just being intellectually dishonest. C'mon now, that's totally unnecessary - nightmare scenario of fishless oceans is sensationalism. There's an important point there, but the hand-wringing is a bad trend in my opinion. Exaggerating the effects of terrorism, pollution, fishing, copyright infringing piracy, and so on - it's a bad trend in my opinion. And if you disagree, why not be civil about it? "I don't think it's too sensationalistic because x, y, and z..." would work.
- Daishiman 16y agoBut the point is that it IS a nightmare scenario, since the situation is virtually unrecoverable. Ask any marine biologist about the chances of restoring any ecosystem of such dynamics past a point of no return (I work with them, so I HAVE asked). Again, you're making a huge fuss out of something that is a technicality, because it IS a nightmare scenario, it IS coming, and for us as humen beings it's as disastrous as claimed.
- jbrun 16y agoMake sure to watch the film The End of the Line: http://endoftheline.com/ http://endoftheline.com/ - which explains the Canadian Cod collapse,the current state of affairs, and potential solutions. Also take the time to watch some of the recent TED talks from Mission Blue which offer a good outline of the state of the ocean's and potential solutions. http://www.tedprize.org/mission-blue-voyage/ http://www.tedprize.org/mission-blue-voyage/
- antidaily 16y agoA recent WWF report says tuna (bluefin) could be wiped out by 2012.
- epochwolf 16y agoNot really an issue, the world is ending by 2012 anyway.
- nostromo 16y agoI'm conflicted -- I enjoy eating fish because of its health benefits but I don't want to contribute to over-fishing. What's the ethical and healthy thing to do? Tofu all day every day?
- junklight 16y agoThere are sustainable fisheries. For example: http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/food_and_gardening/360184/case_study_local_sustainable_fishing_from_bait_to_plate.html http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/food_an... And interestingly enough - the fish in Macdonalds fillet of fish is sustainably produced as well. Again I can't recommend the book "end of the line" enough (as I notice others have on this page. Including me ;-) )
- plesn 16y agoOur ancestrors did not eat meat or fish every day, today's vegetarians do not eat tofu everyday either. The goal is to be complete in nutrients: you won't be much wrong if you associate cereals, legumes, fresh vegetables, fruits/dried fruits (to get glucids, fibers, proteins, vitamins and minerals) and possibly some dairy products/eggs for lacking nutrients. Think of the traditionnal associations (rice and beans, couscous, houmous and bread, fallafels and pitta ...) and try to be diverse and curious. Cooking is a form of hacking !
- dmm 16y agoWho were your ancestors? How far back are you talking about? Hunter-gatherers? I think you'll find that people ate pretty much everything edible around and that meat was a highly desirable food and eaten whenever possible.
- plesn 16y agoJust go back 50/100 years ago before the food industry. I mean in my previous comment I'm taking as example traditionnal dishes which where already quite complete even when people couldn't afford meat/fish at every meal.
- stretchwithme 16y agowhen there's every incentive to take all you can before everyone else does, this is bound to happen. as someone has already said, this is a repeat of the tragedy of the commons we need a system of property rights for the seas, rights to fish at certain places and times, that create incentives to not overfish and to protect this valuable resource. If you own the rights to a stream of income, you don't have the incentive to gut it and sell whatever you can sell now before everyone else. Agriculture is impossible without property rights also. Why would you plant and take care of plants if anyone can just take what they want?
- anigbrowl 16y agoI see your point, but the difference is that land is fixed and generally easier to enforce authority over. International waters are outside normal jurisdictions by definition, so how do you grant and enforce property rights in non-coastal fisheries? Say you want to divide up Atlantic fisheries for this purpose, trying to balance the demands of 40 or 50 countries that operate fishing fleets is going to be a nightmare. If you go just by coastal size, where do you draw the line over which countries are allowed to participate? Developed countries with better fishing and food distribution industries, like Canada or the EU, are going to claim larger chunks based on the size of their existing economy, whereas poor countries on the west coast of Africa that don't have blue-water fleets are naturally going to object that they're being cut off from future access to resources.
- moultano 16y agoThat's the great thing about marine sanctuaries. You agree upon a region in the middle of the ocean to declare off-limits for fishing. The fish population of those regions repopulates the rest of the ocean, and you have the best of both words. Unrestrained fishing, and stable fish stocks. You can even find perpetrators using satellites, which helps with enforcement. The hard part is agreeing upon regions both large enough and spanning enough biomes.
- hga 16y agoI think the really hard part is enforcement. E.g. see the Cod Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars) which were between two relatively developed and sophisticated European countries. It could get much messier, e.g. imagine the USNavy trying to enforce restrictions in the open seas on trawlers from the PRC. I'm not sure how useful satellites would be at finding perpetrators for the purposes of enforcement, at least not without sending a ship to confirm details.
- jamesshamenski 16y agostop eating fish. support no fishing zones. support desert based salt water fish farms.
- miguelpais 16y agoIn my country for long there were no such problems because the government imposed the proihibition of fisherman to go out to get some kinds of species during their mating and growing time. That way fish was allowed to reproduce and grow. Every time the fish you're eating has eggs a few dozens of new fishes could have been spared if the reproduction was allowed to take place. Also sometimes the nets used to catch the fish are too tight not allowing baby fishes to get out. The problem with the law was that it was in reality imposing a time of starvation every year to the fishermans and their families, while the same species could be bought at the markets imported from other countries. The measure was one of the first to be abandoned when the political regime changed. I don't really know what is the possibility of fishing companies to cycle between the fishing species during the year to let the other species grow, but that still seems like an alternative to me. I also think that a fish diet is much more healthy than a meat diet, so a danger like the possible extinction of fishing species shouldn't be taken lightly just because we can get the proteins somewhere else.
- ghoerz 16y agoThe issue with having individual fishing companies determining policies is that it invokes the tragedy of the commons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons This is addressed in part by the Law of the Sea Treaty, but this only addresses waters out to 200 nautical miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Sea_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Sea_Treaty Living resources past this zone are free game. If any fishing companies pull out of a region to allow the populations to grow, it only opens up opportunities for other companies to come in.
- jarin 16y agoI love sensationalist titles. Bluefin tuna are not the only fish in the ocean.