3 ms·

> For relatively little economic size. This isn't oil & gas Don't underestimate it. Maybe is not obvious, but the majority of humans, many millions of people d

> For relatively little economic size. This isn't oil & gas Don't underestimate it. Maybe is not obvious, but the majority of humans, many millions of people do not starve to death because fisheries save them each day providing the main and only reliable source of protein in their daily intake. The impact of all fishes vanishing tomorrow would be devastating for the world. A thousand of countries would burn in war in less than a year, and there would be huge, massive, migrations towards the North Hemisphere.

netcan 6y ago
Point taken. I didn't mean to be trite. Fishing is nutritionally important, and economically important to a lot of people in the world. This shouldn't be measured in gdp contribution. I also don't take the cultural element lightly. Fishing is culturally essential to many cultures and subcultures wherever there is water. There is a reason fisheries are still one of the main diplomatic issues to this day. Dollar amount is, on the other hand, meaningful in the ways that it is. Oil & gas are "unsustainable" in the "considering that we live on this planet" sense... the same sense that many fishing industries are unsustainable. The environment would be significantly better off without them. But, it's only recently that we can even see ourselves living without oil and gas. Those mines and pipelines, leaks, coal coughs and refineries still power us. Energy touches all of us, a lot. Ocean fish... we eat them sometimes. ..and oceanic ecosystems are not something that we can destroy regardless of economics. It's morally wrong.
Retric 6y ago
That’s wildly inaccurate, the largest percentage of fish come from aquaculture not wild capture. ~90 Million tons of fish sounds like a huge number but quite a lot of that’s ends up as animal feed etc. Pork by comparison adds up to ~120 Million tons per year and people actually directly consume the majority of it. People get well over twice as much protean from cows than wild fish. Add in chickens for 130 Million tons per year for even more perspective, before looking at plant based sources. Serious analysis shows wild fish are critical for a few communities, but have a minor role in the global food supply.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  In 2018, 150 million tons of fish and shellfish were used directly for human food. This is more than pork (113 millions in 2018). Other 29 millions were used to feed animals. (Source: FAO) > People get well over twice as much protean from cows than wild fish This is an eurocentric point of view. To start, around 65% of the humans in the planet are lactose intolerant. The second most populated country in the planet will not eat cattle, and Jews and muslims will not eat pork. US people eat 100Kg of meat/year on average whereas Hindi survive with 5Kg of meat/year on average. > wild fish are critical for a few communities There is not modern aquaculture without a regular supply of wild fish flour provided by fisheries. Remove all the seafood suddenly and Japan or Singapore would not survive two years. Not as we know it currently. Neither would do India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, China, Chile or Peru. Just the muslims would have a hard time to not starve, and one of each four people in the planet is a muslim.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Of that 150M tons of fish ~90 was from fish farms and ~60 Million tons was from the wild. Yes, some of that wild fish is used to feed fish farms, but you don’t turn 29M tons of wild fish into 90M tons via fish farms. It’s simply one of several cheap protein sources used in fish farming. Overall fish farms are ~50% more important than fishing and trying to combine them when I already noted the difference is disingenuous. And no this is not Eurocentric these are worldwide totals. Cow meat on it’s own provides more protein than wild fish and that’s less important than cow milk. Worldwide cow milk represents 85% off all milk consumption it’s somewhat regional though still plenty global. I suggest you actually look into milk and meat consumption in say India which you said would be devastated without fishing. ~1/4th of Indians consume zero meat of any source they would be completely unaffected by fishing being banned. Cattle consumption in India is 2.7 million metric tons which actually puts it reasonably close to the worldwide average in terms of ocean fishing : beef consumption ratio. https://www.statista.com/statistics/826722/india-beef-and-veal-consumption/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/826722/india-beef-and-ve... PS: Further confusing the issue the majority of India’s fish come from fresh water.
    - 6y ago

netcan 6y ago

Point taken. I didn't mean to be trite. Fishing is nutritionally important, and economically important to a lot of people in the world. This shouldn't be measured in gdp contribution. I also don't take the cultural element lightly. Fishing is culturally essential to many cultures and subcultures wherever there is water. There is a reason fisheries are still one of the main diplomatic issues to this day. Dollar amount is, on the other hand, meaningful in the ways that it is. Oil & gas are "unsustainable" in the "considering that we live on this planet" sense... the same sense that many fishing industries are unsustainable. The environment would be significantly better off without them. But, it's only recently that we can even see ourselves living without oil and gas. Those mines and pipelines, leaks, coal coughs and refineries still power us. Energy touches all of us, a lot. Ocean fish... we eat them sometimes. ..and oceanic ecosystems are not something that we can destroy regardless of economics. It's morally wrong.

Retric 6y ago

That’s wildly inaccurate, the largest percentage of fish come from aquaculture not wild capture. ~90 Million tons of fish sounds like a huge number but quite a lot of that’s ends up as animal feed etc. Pork by comparison adds up to ~120 Million tons per year and people actually directly consume the majority of it. People get well over twice as much protean from cows than wild fish. Add in chickens for 130 Million tons per year for even more perspective, before looking at plant based sources. Serious analysis shows wild fish are critical for a few communities, but have a minor role in the global food supply.

pvaldes 6y ago
In 2018, 150 million tons of fish and shellfish were used directly for human food. This is more than pork (113 millions in 2018). Other 29 millions were used to feed animals. (Source: FAO) > People get well over twice as much protean from cows than wild fish This is an eurocentric point of view. To start, around 65% of the humans in the planet are lactose intolerant. The second most populated country in the planet will not eat cattle, and Jews and muslims will not eat pork. US people eat 100Kg of meat/year on average whereas Hindi survive with 5Kg of meat/year on average. > wild fish are critical for a few communities There is not modern aquaculture without a regular supply of wild fish flour provided by fisheries. Remove all the seafood suddenly and Japan or Singapore would not survive two years. Not as we know it currently. Neither would do India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, China, Chile or Peru. Just the muslims would have a hard time to not starve, and one of each four people in the planet is a muslim.
- Retric 6y ago
  Of that 150M tons of fish ~90 was from fish farms and ~60 Million tons was from the wild. Yes, some of that wild fish is used to feed fish farms, but you don’t turn 29M tons of wild fish into 90M tons via fish farms. It’s simply one of several cheap protein sources used in fish farming. Overall fish farms are ~50% more important than fishing and trying to combine them when I already noted the difference is disingenuous. And no this is not Eurocentric these are worldwide totals. Cow meat on it’s own provides more protein than wild fish and that’s less important than cow milk. Worldwide cow milk represents 85% off all milk consumption it’s somewhat regional though still plenty global. I suggest you actually look into milk and meat consumption in say India which you said would be devastated without fishing. ~1/4th of Indians consume zero meat of any source they would be completely unaffected by fishing being banned. Cattle consumption in India is 2.7 million metric tons which actually puts it reasonably close to the worldwide average in terms of ocean fishing : beef consumption ratio. https://www.statista.com/statistics/826722/india-beef-and-veal-consumption/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/826722/india-beef-and-ve... PS: Further confusing the issue the majority of India’s fish come from fresh water.
  - 6y ago