3 ms·

Given we've either already destroyed or are in the process of destroying every major marine fishery on the planet and something like 40% of the total dry land a

Given we've either already destroyed or are in the process of destroying every major marine fishery on the planet and something like 40% of the total dry land area on the planet is currently used for some form of agriculture it seems pretty plain that we cannot sustainably support the current global population. You sure that massive increases in global wealth and not a reduction in global population are what are called for?

paganel 9y ago
> Given we've either already destroyed or are in the process of destroying every major marine fishery on the planet Partially related to this, but my parents live in a village on the Lower Danube (the second largest river in Europe, after the Volga). I remember that when I was a kid (in the '80s) you had no problems catching enough fish during a day in order to feed a family of 3 or 4 if you wanted, and even sell something on the side for some extra cash (not much, but it mattered). I remember my uncle telling me that back when he was a kid (the '70s) the fish resources were even more plentiful, as in whenever the river was flooding the marshland-like areas he and his friends would go in there and catch the fish using their bare hands. Nowadays you can barely catch a fish. Some former colleagues of mine spent an entire day trying to catch something in the Danube and at the end they hadn't catch anything (bare in mind, they were using more modern tools compared to what people were using back in the '70s and '80s). The struggle is real.
- _coldfire 9y ago
  Highly recommend Four Fish by Paul Greenberg, does a good job showing all sides of the fishing industry and the projected future if we keep going the same way. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7347759-four-fish https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7347759-four-fish
boubiyeah 9y ago
Thank you for bringing back some sanity. Exponential population growth is not sustainable and will only make the poor, poorer (or not as poor but at the cost of health, etc).

paganel 9y ago

> Given we've either already destroyed or are in the process of destroying every major marine fishery on the planet Partially related to this, but my parents live in a village on the Lower Danube (the second largest river in Europe, after the Volga). I remember that when I was a kid (in the '80s) you had no problems catching enough fish during a day in order to feed a family of 3 or 4 if you wanted, and even sell something on the side for some extra cash (not much, but it mattered). I remember my uncle telling me that back when he was a kid (the '70s) the fish resources were even more plentiful, as in whenever the river was flooding the marshland-like areas he and his friends would go in there and catch the fish using their bare hands. Nowadays you can barely catch a fish. Some former colleagues of mine spent an entire day trying to catch something in the Danube and at the end they hadn't catch anything (bare in mind, they were using more modern tools compared to what people were using back in the '70s and '80s). The struggle is real.

_coldfire 9y ago
Highly recommend Four Fish by Paul Greenberg, does a good job showing all sides of the fishing industry and the projected future if we keep going the same way. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7347759-four-fish https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7347759-four-fish

boubiyeah 9y ago

Thank you for bringing back some sanity. Exponential population growth is not sustainable and will only make the poor, poorer (or not as poor but at the cost of health, etc).