5 ms·

Can we please have a global moratorium on all fishing for a few years? We are fishing the seas empty. I'm more than happy to pay for my share of the unsold/unca

Can we please have a global moratorium on all fishing for a few years? We are fishing the seas empty. I'm more than happy to pay for my share of the unsold/uncaught fish. This is such a disheartening example of the tragedy of the commons.

wolco 8y ago
No, that would be an over reaction that will harm more than it helps. Controls are important but stop all legal fishing is not the answer.
- ajmurmann 8y ago
  For years I tried to only buy "sustainable" fish. It's almost impossible. Different lists give you different criteria. So much fish is endangered. So much fishing happens in ways that fish that's not even desired gets caught and thrown back in dead. Worth, some fishing techniques even damage the sea bed itself. On top of that most fish in stores is mislabeled making it downright impossible to enjoy fish without ruining the planet.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    Ultimately we are removing too much biomass from the sea, fish isn't a sustainable food source at the scale we remove it.
  - dawnerd 8y ago
    That’s why I don’t eat fish or any product containing fish. Simply can’t trust it.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Do you consider the Seafood Watch program inadequate? http://www.seafoodwatch.org/ http://www.seafoodwatch.org/
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  I completely disagree. We are reaching a point where it would be incredibly difficult to do more harm than inaction. If we continue the way we're going now, there is going to be a moment in the future where a thermonuclear war would have been less harmful in the long run because it would have put a damper on our industry. It'll eventually get that bad, as horrible and unthinkable as that is. Wouldn't that just be unbearably ironic? If we end up regretting that the cold war never went hot because our daily habits are even worse on a long timeline? We've already done damage that's difficult to even comprehend. There's dead zones all over the map, where there's nothing but a bunch of algae and isopods crawling around in the mud and bones on the sea floor. These are enormous amounts of surface area, but they also represent a huge depth, so it's actually a volume of completely ruined wilderness. It's many, many times worse than an equivalent amount of acreage on land turned barren. We don't really have the daily context to understand what a loss that is. If we cause a collapse of the ocean ecosystems, we are truly and fully ruined. People like to think that rational responses to situations are always moderate and level-headed, but that depends on context. The rational response to what's happening in this context is to freak the fuck out. Literally any sacrifice is going to be worth averting this kind of catastrophe. We are quite literally like the frog which is slowly boiling in the pot; we are slowly boiling ourselves, but it's a generational process so nobody ever thinks it's time for drastic measures. We're not looking at a choice between winning or losing; we're looking at the difference between extinction and cataclysm. The choice between a death toll of merely hundreds of millions vs. billions. It's extremely likely that this situation is going to end both of our family lines at some point in the next several generations. It's awful, but unless we figure out time travel these are the choices we have.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >that would be an over reaction that will harm more than it helps. Explain.
  - wolco 8y ago
    Legal avenues for fishing are gone. Illegal fishing takes over with no controls. More deaths more over fishing. Another scenerio. Farming fishing increases causing increase population which[p is then dumped into the clean water supply. What no one is mentioning is the amount of radioactive waste Japan is pumping into the ovean still. This is bigger problem but one being ignored.
    - justtopost 8y ago
      Got a citation for all that waste? A disaster for sure, but I feel the radiation talk is overblown. I am open to being set straight on the matter, but skeptical. I am particularly suspicious of anyone spouting baseless, and frankly antiscience 'nuculear power is bad' memes.
      - wolco 8y ago
        Nuclear power is great. Candu heavywater reactors have a great safety record. The Japan pumping nuclear waste into the ocean problem is ongoing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_di...
    - adrianN 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less fishing if it was illegal. You would only be able to sell your fish on black markets at high markups. That would price out many customers.
- adrianN 8y ago
  We could just pay fishermen to not fish, just like we pay farmers for fallow land.
  - hjek 8y ago
    How do you tell who is a fisherman if the fisherman does not catch fish?
    - adrianN 8y ago
      How do you tell who is a farmer if the farmer doesn't farm?
      - benchaney 8y ago
        The farmer owns farmland that could be used but isn’t.
        hjek 8y ago
        Of course it is problematic that land owners are actually rewarded for their wealth. But at least it's difficult to create new would-be farmland. However if the would-be fisherman owns a fishing boat that could be used but isn't, then perhaps a lot of would-be fishing boats would suddenly be constructed so would-be fishers would be paid for their would-be fish catching.
        praneshp 8y ago
        > Of course it is problematic that land owners are actually rewarded for their wealth No, they are rewarded for playing along with whatever scheme's currently running. Stop trying to demonize them.
        hjek 8y ago
        In UK at least, land ownership is very concentrated, so these "farming subsidies" are not usually going to the people you'd expect: > When our government says "we must help the farmers", it means "we must help the 0.1%". Most of the land here is owned by exceedingly wealthy people. Some of them are millionaires from elsewhere: sheikhs, oligarchs and mining magnates who own vast estates in this country. Although they might pay no taxes in the UK, they receive millions in farm subsidies.[0] > Farm subsidies, which remain limitless as a result of the Westminster government’s lobbying, ensure that every household in Britain hands £245 a year to the richest people in the land.[1] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-subsidies-blatant-transfer-of-cash-to-rich https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-s... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landowners-scotland-britain-feudal-highland-spring https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landow...
- JeremyBanks 8y ago
  How would it harm, and how will ceasing voluntarily while there are still fish in the ocean be worse than stopping once the oceans are completely dead?
makotech222 8y ago
It's not tragedy of the commons, its capitalism. A defining feature of capitalism is over-exploitation of natural resources in order to compete against others.
- kjkgjygjy 8y ago
  It doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, except if capitalism is to blame for low infant death rates by medical progress.

wolco 8y ago

No, that would be an over reaction that will harm more than it helps. Controls are important but stop all legal fishing is not the answer.

ajmurmann 8y ago
For years I tried to only buy "sustainable" fish. It's almost impossible. Different lists give you different criteria. So much fish is endangered. So much fishing happens in ways that fish that's not even desired gets caught and thrown back in dead. Worth, some fishing techniques even damage the sea bed itself. On top of that most fish in stores is mislabeled making it downright impossible to enjoy fish without ruining the planet.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  Ultimately we are removing too much biomass from the sea, fish isn't a sustainable food source at the scale we remove it.
- dawnerd 8y ago
  That’s why I don’t eat fish or any product containing fish. Simply can’t trust it.
- nradov 8y ago
  Do you consider the Seafood Watch program inadequate? http://www.seafoodwatch.org/ http://www.seafoodwatch.org/
vertexFarm 8y ago
I completely disagree. We are reaching a point where it would be incredibly difficult to do more harm than inaction. If we continue the way we're going now, there is going to be a moment in the future where a thermonuclear war would have been less harmful in the long run because it would have put a damper on our industry. It'll eventually get that bad, as horrible and unthinkable as that is. Wouldn't that just be unbearably ironic? If we end up regretting that the cold war never went hot because our daily habits are even worse on a long timeline? We've already done damage that's difficult to even comprehend. There's dead zones all over the map, where there's nothing but a bunch of algae and isopods crawling around in the mud and bones on the sea floor. These are enormous amounts of surface area, but they also represent a huge depth, so it's actually a volume of completely ruined wilderness. It's many, many times worse than an equivalent amount of acreage on land turned barren. We don't really have the daily context to understand what a loss that is. If we cause a collapse of the ocean ecosystems, we are truly and fully ruined. People like to think that rational responses to situations are always moderate and level-headed, but that depends on context. The rational response to what's happening in this context is to freak the fuck out. Literally any sacrifice is going to be worth averting this kind of catastrophe. We are quite literally like the frog which is slowly boiling in the pot; we are slowly boiling ourselves, but it's a generational process so nobody ever thinks it's time for drastic measures. We're not looking at a choice between winning or losing; we're looking at the difference between extinction and cataclysm. The choice between a death toll of merely hundreds of millions vs. billions. It's extremely likely that this situation is going to end both of our family lines at some point in the next several generations. It's awful, but unless we figure out time travel these are the choices we have.
kadendogthing 8y ago
>that would be an over reaction that will harm more than it helps. Explain.
- wolco 8y ago
  Legal avenues for fishing are gone. Illegal fishing takes over with no controls. More deaths more over fishing. Another scenerio. Farming fishing increases causing increase population which[p is then dumped into the clean water supply. What no one is mentioning is the amount of radioactive waste Japan is pumping into the ovean still. This is bigger problem but one being ignored.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    Got a citation for all that waste? A disaster for sure, but I feel the radiation talk is overblown. I am open to being set straight on the matter, but skeptical. I am particularly suspicious of anyone spouting baseless, and frankly antiscience 'nuculear power is bad' memes.
    - wolco 8y ago
      Nuclear power is great. Candu heavywater reactors have a great safety record. The Japan pumping nuclear waste into the ocean problem is ongoing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_di...
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less fishing if it was illegal. You would only be able to sell your fish on black markets at high markups. That would price out many customers.
adrianN 8y ago
We could just pay fishermen to not fish, just like we pay farmers for fallow land.
- hjek 8y ago
  How do you tell who is a fisherman if the fisherman does not catch fish?
  - adrianN 8y ago
    How do you tell who is a farmer if the farmer doesn't farm?
    - benchaney 8y ago
      The farmer owns farmland that could be used but isn’t.
      - hjek 8y ago
        Of course it is problematic that land owners are actually rewarded for their wealth. But at least it's difficult to create new would-be farmland. However if the would-be fisherman owns a fishing boat that could be used but isn't, then perhaps a lot of would-be fishing boats would suddenly be constructed so would-be fishers would be paid for their would-be fish catching.
        praneshp 8y ago
        > Of course it is problematic that land owners are actually rewarded for their wealth No, they are rewarded for playing along with whatever scheme's currently running. Stop trying to demonize them.
        hjek 8y ago
        In UK at least, land ownership is very concentrated, so these "farming subsidies" are not usually going to the people you'd expect: > When our government says "we must help the farmers", it means "we must help the 0.1%". Most of the land here is owned by exceedingly wealthy people. Some of them are millionaires from elsewhere: sheikhs, oligarchs and mining magnates who own vast estates in this country. Although they might pay no taxes in the UK, they receive millions in farm subsidies.[0] > Farm subsidies, which remain limitless as a result of the Westminster government’s lobbying, ensure that every household in Britain hands £245 a year to the richest people in the land.[1] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-subsidies-blatant-transfer-of-cash-to-rich https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-s... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landowners-scotland-britain-feudal-highland-spring https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landow...
JeremyBanks 8y ago
How would it harm, and how will ceasing voluntarily while there are still fish in the ocean be worse than stopping once the oceans are completely dead?

makotech222 8y ago

It's not tragedy of the commons, its capitalism. A defining feature of capitalism is over-exploitation of natural resources in order to compete against others.

kjkgjygjy 8y ago
It doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, except if capitalism is to blame for low infant death rates by medical progress.