9 ms·

As an Argentinian, I can add that sadly this has been happening for years, and it appears on the news for time to time. The vessels are mainly from China, in ad

As an Argentinian, I can add that sadly this has been happening for years, and it appears on the news for time to time. The vessels are mainly from China, in addition to South Korea, Japan, and Spain. The economic situation of Argentina means that there are not enough funds to control de coast. So these ships go in and out at the 200 miles that limit the international waters. It’s easy to see by satellite, but hard to control with a small and under equipped coast patrol.

eric__cartman 5y ago
It's a sad situation not only for us, but for anyone interested in preserving marine life. These ships are destroying the ecosystems in that whole maritime area and all we can do is watch and ask them to stop. If we continue to be powerless to stop that (which sadly we are unless some country steps up and helps by financing the navy) all wildlife in the ocean will be permanently and irreversibly affected. I sometimes hate humanity as a species. How can a living thing be purposefully so destructive towards it's own planet? The only one it has and will ever have (at least for now we haven't infested any other planet). This is one of the many things that makes me angry knowing there is nothing that will realistically be done to stop it. We will suffer the consequences and these people will then go and fuck up some other sea area until there is nothing left anywhere in the world.
- mercy_dude 5y ago
  > I sometimes hate humanity as a species All of it? I mean hate towards globalization that helped China and other hegemonic dictators with no regards for rule of law continue to do what it does is one thing. Blatant hate for humanity is another.
  - jmartrican 5y ago
    Humanity has always lead to other, at possibly every point in history.
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      Yes but all of humanity? All? It’s like looking at murder rates and hating Humanity because it murders despite the majority of the global population having not even touch a Gun before.
  - eric__cartman 5y ago
    Well that statement may have been a little too aggressive and come off the wrong way. I was quite pissed when wrote that comment. I believe humans can do great things, we really do. I wouldn't have chosen to be born as any other living thing (not that I had a choice anyways lol). It's just the selfishness of some people that results in massive damages that ruins it for the rest of us. That said we have to realize as a whole that our current way of living is not sustainable and will result is us screwing over future generations that will have to live in an incredibly polluted, and ecologically damaged planet. We have to use our intellect and capacity of achieving anything we put our mind towards and take real, meaningful steps to solve this problem. Before it's too late. There are also many other important global issues that need our attention as a society but that's past the scope of this comment.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      > That said we have to realize as a whole that our current way of living is not sustainable and will result is us screwing over future generations that will have to live in an incredibly polluted, and ecologically damaged planet. We have to use our intellect and capacity of achieving anything we put our mind towards and take real, meaningful steps to solve this problem. Before it's too late. This is what humans have been doing for a long time. The problems were just much more acute for the next generations. Until very recently, most humans were born into scenarios without good shelter, solid water supplies, solid food supplies, general safety, or any medical protection from trivial things like infection let alone anything more complicated. What’s happening here is this poor Chinese fisherman are still dealing with the acute issues (feeding existing family, etc) so the trade of returning home empty handed vs breaking boundaries is too difficult for them to come out on the right side of.
  - ajmurmann 5y ago
    It's not only globalization though. It's mankind's inability to both understand and prioritize long term consequences and to govern the commons properly. The same thing manifests on local levels as well.
    - creato 5y ago
      Blaming this on inability to understand is a mistake. Many people, perhaps even most, just don't care that they are doing something collectively long term destructive. In the short term, they are benefiting, and they can move on to the next country incapable of defending its territory when they are done with Argentina's fish.
- Dumblydorr 5y ago
  Every person didn't author themselves. They're all driven by innate greed and desire and suffering. The fishermen, the Chinese oligarchs, the Chinese communist party - they're all the center of their own consciousness, each person trying from moment to moment. I pity people, I don't hate them. I may dislike the capitalist system that leads to environmental destruction, but no individual authored our global society. So, I do see your viewpoint, but looking at individuals is one small slice of the problem, not the whole by any means. We can't count on individual goodness, not when greed or desire is allowed to motivate our leaders so heavily.
  - JackFr 5y ago
    It’s weird that the Chinese Communist Party manifests the destruction you attribute to the capitalist system. Not wrong — just weird.
    - developer93 5y ago
      They're more state controlled capitalism than communism these days as I understand it. The name is just a name.
    - bromuro 5y ago
      it’s weird because it is wrong: the capitalism vs communism narrative you are referring to doesn’t exist in this globalized world, is just an oversimplification for the masses - of you prefer just propaganda.
  - throwaway2037 5y ago
    I'm confused about this part: "the capitalist system that leads to environmental destruction". Are you aware of the Aral Sea environmental disaster? To quote Wiki: <<Formerly the fourth largest lake in the world with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea began shrinking in the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet irrigation projects.>> As I understand, most of the diverted water was used to grow cotton. That harm was done during the Soviet Union. Most would agree, the Soviet system was less capitalistic than the current Mainland Chinese system. All types of governments can cause environmental ruin, and all types of governments can clean it up. Also, not all environmental ruin is permanent. The United States, UK, and Japan had extensive, wide-spread industrial pollution in the 1960s and 1970s. They spent the next 30 years cleaning up, and did a pretty good job.
- JPKab 5y ago
  Do keep in mind that there is no other species on the planet that is capable of protecting the ecosystem from the eventual and inevitable asteroid impact. We might not be there yet but we are going to be the first species in the history of the planet capable of protecting the biosphere from the inevitable assault from the cosmos.
  - newnamenewface 5y ago
    This is nonsensical extrapolation probably hundreds of years into an ideal future. We aren't there yet and we won't be there for a long time at the current rate of things. Diverting an asteroid of any significant mass is functionally impossible even given years notice today.
    - hnxs 5y ago
      Who said anything about diverting it? Or destroying it, if that’s the next point your mind is going to.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Huh? Radiation pressure alone is enough to divert an asteroid if you spot it in time. You don't need nukes, just a rocket and enough paint to change the albedo on one side.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - foobiekr 5y ago
    “Someday we might do something meaningful so bear that in mind when observing the reckless, sadistic and destructive present day behavior” is comic book movie reasoning.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Some of us are doing meaningful things to push towards the future. If you feel that there is only reckless, sadistic, and destructive behavior going on, that says more about what you and the people who surround you are doing to help.
- fastball 5y ago
  Without humanity there would be nobody to witness the fish. The earth doesn't care which species live or die or go extinct. No matter how bad humanity is, the world is a more beautiful place with us in it, because "beauty" as a concept would not exist if we were not here. Mass extinction events happen without human contribution. Is it bad when we make it happen? Yes. But humans are also the only thing around that can help stop extinction events from happening in a universe which doesn't give a shit about any of us.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    Yeah, the planet will exist without humans but i think preserving the planet’s beauty for future generations is a worthy goal, no? Or do you prefer the idea of future environmental dystopia?
    - fastball 5y ago
      I definitely want to preserve the beauty for our offspring, but that isn't really in keeping with the statement "I sometimes hate humanity as a species." If you hate humanity then beauty is pointless, because humans are the only ones who appreciate beauty for beauty, rather than "beauty" just being an evolutionary signal to fuck.
      - r00fus 5y ago
        Honestly I don't think many here subscribe to that extreme viewpoint you posted - it seems like a straw-man argument.
        fastball 5y ago
        Given that I was responding directly to a comment that explicitly said "sometimes I hate humanity as a species", I obviously disagree with the straw-man characterization.
  - antonvs 5y ago
    > "beauty" as a concept would not exist if we were not here. This is incorrect - see e.g. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150511-why-are-animals-so-beautiful http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150511-why-are-animals-so-b... or https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution-animal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution... One of the unattractive human attributes is our self-centered arrogance. And unfortunately, combine with our other traits this results in some pretty bad behaviors that have a terrible impact on other species. The question of whether the planet would be better off without humans is not so obviously answered in the negative. But arrogance lifted to these levels would probably not exist if we weren't here.
- Razengan 5y ago
  > How can a living thing be purposefully so destructive towards it's own planet? After you are born, you need to eat. What solution can you think of?
- thewileyone 5y ago
  It's greed and unfettered capitalism dude.
koheripbal 5y ago
I don't understand the cost argument. Enforcement is only expensive if you offer minimal punishments. Other countries have in the past literally board and scuttle trespassing fishing vessels. Do that, even only a couple times, and few foreign boats will risk the trip. It is cheap to do.
- Tams80 5y ago
  You underestimate how utterly corrupt a lot of authorities are in Argentina. Once bribes, 'personal cuts', etc. have been made/taken, there's not much left. Not to mention the kind of culture that breeds.
  - tomerico 5y ago
    That’s a different argument than cost.
    - nicce 5y ago
      One perspective is that these authority positions need to offer better payment to reduce the need for taking the bribe. This will increase costs.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Is there a word for these sorts of “why don’t they just...” type of suggestions?
  - noughtme 5y ago
    Uninformed.
  - burnished 5y ago
    yeah, just guarantee that everyone rocks up to a conversation already enlightened. problem solved, no more questions like that.
  - JackFr 5y ago
fnord77 5y ago
I don't know the details but if private citizens can find these fishing boats, surely the AR Navy could. AR has 3 full-size destroyers, I imagine sailing one through a fishing fleet and even firing a couple shots could chase them off for good? Unless people are getting paid off to look the other way?
- fencepost 5y ago
  Firing on them could be problematic - at least if you actually sink one. I suspect seizing the vessels and keeping them (returning after payment of ruinous fines) would be more effective.
  - heartbeats 5y ago
    Wouldn't that cost them too much in administrative costs? Impounding a vessel is fairly cumbersome, let alone 100 plus crew. Game-theoretically, it seems preferable to sink them without any warning. Consider: the fines would only be paid if they are less than the cost of acquiring a new ship. So if they have to pay fines of 90% of the value, you're still saving them 10% compared to getting a new ship. And if the fines are >100%, they would just ignore it and leave Argentina with the ship. Unless Argentina can turn it into a revenue stream, sinking them unconditionally seems preferable. The Chinese fishing boats don't have anything to give them in a negotiation. All they have to give them is leaving the area, and that is accomplished by sinking the boats too.
    - CameronNemo 5y ago
      Sinking the boat would also provide proof that the vessel was invading.
    - fencepost 5y ago
      Firing on and sinking a flagged vessel and possibly killing crew (also, how do you then prove that you DIDN'T kill anyone?) is exactly the kind of thing that gets governments openly involved. Seizing a private vessel and fining the owners? That's a civil matter and while there may be backroom discussions everything stays civil. "The military of Country X is firing on and sinking our country's vessels" is much more likely to lead to retaliation. China may not have the navy or willingness to project power across the Pacific, but I guarantee they have the capability if focused to utterly destroy the computing infrastructure of the country - and while enthusiastic private parties may not get involved in civil penalties, "Argentina just declared war on us!" is a hell of a rallying cry. Edit: also keep in mind that even governments are not monolithic entities with a single mind. Those costs are coming out of someone's budget.
layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
Don’t they have any more Exocets leftover from the Falklands War?
sumedh 5y ago
> The economic situation of Argentina means that there are not enough funds to control de coast. I guess Argentina can offer to host a US military base in exchange for taking care of Chinese fishing vessels.
- is_true 5y ago
  Argentina already has a Chinese base. Peronism was way worse than covid for the country.
matthewmorgan 5y ago
Could be a good reason to make friends with your British neighbours, who happen to have a few ships.
hef19898 5y ago
And that South Korea, Japan and Spain are involved too, makes it impossible to confront China about it. Greed for a quick buck again bite us im the back.

eric__cartman 5y ago

It's a sad situation not only for us, but for anyone interested in preserving marine life. These ships are destroying the ecosystems in that whole maritime area and all we can do is watch and ask them to stop. If we continue to be powerless to stop that (which sadly we are unless some country steps up and helps by financing the navy) all wildlife in the ocean will be permanently and irreversibly affected. I sometimes hate humanity as a species. How can a living thing be purposefully so destructive towards it's own planet? The only one it has and will ever have (at least for now we haven't infested any other planet). This is one of the many things that makes me angry knowing there is nothing that will realistically be done to stop it. We will suffer the consequences and these people will then go and fuck up some other sea area until there is nothing left anywhere in the world.

mercy_dude 5y ago
> I sometimes hate humanity as a species All of it? I mean hate towards globalization that helped China and other hegemonic dictators with no regards for rule of law continue to do what it does is one thing. Blatant hate for humanity is another.
- jmartrican 5y ago
  Humanity has always lead to other, at possibly every point in history.
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    Yes but all of humanity? All? It’s like looking at murder rates and hating Humanity because it murders despite the majority of the global population having not even touch a Gun before.
- eric__cartman 5y ago
  Well that statement may have been a little too aggressive and come off the wrong way. I was quite pissed when wrote that comment. I believe humans can do great things, we really do. I wouldn't have chosen to be born as any other living thing (not that I had a choice anyways lol). It's just the selfishness of some people that results in massive damages that ruins it for the rest of us. That said we have to realize as a whole that our current way of living is not sustainable and will result is us screwing over future generations that will have to live in an incredibly polluted, and ecologically damaged planet. We have to use our intellect and capacity of achieving anything we put our mind towards and take real, meaningful steps to solve this problem. Before it's too late. There are also many other important global issues that need our attention as a society but that's past the scope of this comment.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > That said we have to realize as a whole that our current way of living is not sustainable and will result is us screwing over future generations that will have to live in an incredibly polluted, and ecologically damaged planet. We have to use our intellect and capacity of achieving anything we put our mind towards and take real, meaningful steps to solve this problem. Before it's too late. This is what humans have been doing for a long time. The problems were just much more acute for the next generations. Until very recently, most humans were born into scenarios without good shelter, solid water supplies, solid food supplies, general safety, or any medical protection from trivial things like infection let alone anything more complicated. What’s happening here is this poor Chinese fisherman are still dealing with the acute issues (feeding existing family, etc) so the trade of returning home empty handed vs breaking boundaries is too difficult for them to come out on the right side of.
- ajmurmann 5y ago
  It's not only globalization though. It's mankind's inability to both understand and prioritize long term consequences and to govern the commons properly. The same thing manifests on local levels as well.
  - creato 5y ago
    Blaming this on inability to understand is a mistake. Many people, perhaps even most, just don't care that they are doing something collectively long term destructive. In the short term, they are benefiting, and they can move on to the next country incapable of defending its territory when they are done with Argentina's fish.
Dumblydorr 5y ago
Every person didn't author themselves. They're all driven by innate greed and desire and suffering. The fishermen, the Chinese oligarchs, the Chinese communist party - they're all the center of their own consciousness, each person trying from moment to moment. I pity people, I don't hate them. I may dislike the capitalist system that leads to environmental destruction, but no individual authored our global society. So, I do see your viewpoint, but looking at individuals is one small slice of the problem, not the whole by any means. We can't count on individual goodness, not when greed or desire is allowed to motivate our leaders so heavily.
- JackFr 5y ago
  It’s weird that the Chinese Communist Party manifests the destruction you attribute to the capitalist system. Not wrong — just weird.
  - developer93 5y ago
    They're more state controlled capitalism than communism these days as I understand it. The name is just a name.
  - bromuro 5y ago
    it’s weird because it is wrong: the capitalism vs communism narrative you are referring to doesn’t exist in this globalized world, is just an oversimplification for the masses - of you prefer just propaganda.
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  I'm confused about this part: "the capitalist system that leads to environmental destruction". Are you aware of the Aral Sea environmental disaster? To quote Wiki: <<Formerly the fourth largest lake in the world with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea began shrinking in the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet irrigation projects.>> As I understand, most of the diverted water was used to grow cotton. That harm was done during the Soviet Union. Most would agree, the Soviet system was less capitalistic than the current Mainland Chinese system. All types of governments can cause environmental ruin, and all types of governments can clean it up. Also, not all environmental ruin is permanent. The United States, UK, and Japan had extensive, wide-spread industrial pollution in the 1960s and 1970s. They spent the next 30 years cleaning up, and did a pretty good job.
JPKab 5y ago
Do keep in mind that there is no other species on the planet that is capable of protecting the ecosystem from the eventual and inevitable asteroid impact. We might not be there yet but we are going to be the first species in the history of the planet capable of protecting the biosphere from the inevitable assault from the cosmos.
- newnamenewface 5y ago
  This is nonsensical extrapolation probably hundreds of years into an ideal future. We aren't there yet and we won't be there for a long time at the current rate of things. Diverting an asteroid of any significant mass is functionally impossible even given years notice today.
  - hnxs 5y ago
    Who said anything about diverting it? Or destroying it, if that’s the next point your mind is going to.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Huh? Radiation pressure alone is enough to divert an asteroid if you spot it in time. You don't need nukes, just a rocket and enough paint to change the albedo on one side.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- foobiekr 5y ago
  “Someday we might do something meaningful so bear that in mind when observing the reckless, sadistic and destructive present day behavior” is comic book movie reasoning.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Some of us are doing meaningful things to push towards the future. If you feel that there is only reckless, sadistic, and destructive behavior going on, that says more about what you and the people who surround you are doing to help.
fastball 5y ago
Without humanity there would be nobody to witness the fish. The earth doesn't care which species live or die or go extinct. No matter how bad humanity is, the world is a more beautiful place with us in it, because "beauty" as a concept would not exist if we were not here. Mass extinction events happen without human contribution. Is it bad when we make it happen? Yes. But humans are also the only thing around that can help stop extinction events from happening in a universe which doesn't give a shit about any of us.
- r00fus 5y ago
  Yeah, the planet will exist without humans but i think preserving the planet’s beauty for future generations is a worthy goal, no? Or do you prefer the idea of future environmental dystopia?
  - fastball 5y ago
    I definitely want to preserve the beauty for our offspring, but that isn't really in keeping with the statement "I sometimes hate humanity as a species." If you hate humanity then beauty is pointless, because humans are the only ones who appreciate beauty for beauty, rather than "beauty" just being an evolutionary signal to fuck.
    - r00fus 5y ago
      Honestly I don't think many here subscribe to that extreme viewpoint you posted - it seems like a straw-man argument.
      - fastball 5y ago
        Given that I was responding directly to a comment that explicitly said "sometimes I hate humanity as a species", I obviously disagree with the straw-man characterization.
- antonvs 5y ago
  > "beauty" as a concept would not exist if we were not here. This is incorrect - see e.g. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150511-why-are-animals-so-beautiful http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150511-why-are-animals-so-b... or https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution-animal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution... One of the unattractive human attributes is our self-centered arrogance. And unfortunately, combine with our other traits this results in some pretty bad behaviors that have a terrible impact on other species. The question of whether the planet would be better off without humans is not so obviously answered in the negative. But arrogance lifted to these levels would probably not exist if we weren't here.
Razengan 5y ago
> How can a living thing be purposefully so destructive towards it's own planet? After you are born, you need to eat. What solution can you think of?
thewileyone 5y ago
It's greed and unfettered capitalism dude.

koheripbal 5y ago

I don't understand the cost argument. Enforcement is only expensive if you offer minimal punishments. Other countries have in the past literally board and scuttle trespassing fishing vessels. Do that, even only a couple times, and few foreign boats will risk the trip. It is cheap to do.

Tams80 5y ago
You underestimate how utterly corrupt a lot of authorities are in Argentina. Once bribes, 'personal cuts', etc. have been made/taken, there's not much left. Not to mention the kind of culture that breeds.
- tomerico 5y ago
  That’s a different argument than cost.
  - nicce 5y ago
    One perspective is that these authority positions need to offer better payment to reduce the need for taking the bribe. This will increase costs.
elliekelly 5y ago
Is there a word for these sorts of “why don’t they just...” type of suggestions?
- noughtme 5y ago
  Uninformed.
- burnished 5y ago
  yeah, just guarantee that everyone rocks up to a conversation already enlightened. problem solved, no more questions like that.
- JackFr 5y ago

fnord77 5y ago

I don't know the details but if private citizens can find these fishing boats, surely the AR Navy could. AR has 3 full-size destroyers, I imagine sailing one through a fishing fleet and even firing a couple shots could chase them off for good? Unless people are getting paid off to look the other way?

fencepost 5y ago
Firing on them could be problematic - at least if you actually sink one. I suspect seizing the vessels and keeping them (returning after payment of ruinous fines) would be more effective.
- heartbeats 5y ago
  Wouldn't that cost them too much in administrative costs? Impounding a vessel is fairly cumbersome, let alone 100 plus crew. Game-theoretically, it seems preferable to sink them without any warning. Consider: the fines would only be paid if they are less than the cost of acquiring a new ship. So if they have to pay fines of 90% of the value, you're still saving them 10% compared to getting a new ship. And if the fines are >100%, they would just ignore it and leave Argentina with the ship. Unless Argentina can turn it into a revenue stream, sinking them unconditionally seems preferable. The Chinese fishing boats don't have anything to give them in a negotiation. All they have to give them is leaving the area, and that is accomplished by sinking the boats too.
  - CameronNemo 5y ago
    Sinking the boat would also provide proof that the vessel was invading.
  - fencepost 5y ago
    Firing on and sinking a flagged vessel and possibly killing crew (also, how do you then prove that you DIDN'T kill anyone?) is exactly the kind of thing that gets governments openly involved. Seizing a private vessel and fining the owners? That's a civil matter and while there may be backroom discussions everything stays civil. "The military of Country X is firing on and sinking our country's vessels" is much more likely to lead to retaliation. China may not have the navy or willingness to project power across the Pacific, but I guarantee they have the capability if focused to utterly destroy the computing infrastructure of the country - and while enthusiastic private parties may not get involved in civil penalties, "Argentina just declared war on us!" is a hell of a rallying cry. Edit: also keep in mind that even governments are not monolithic entities with a single mind. Those costs are coming out of someone's budget.

layoutIfNeeded 5y ago

Don’t they have any more Exocets leftover from the Falklands War?

sumedh 5y ago

> The economic situation of Argentina means that there are not enough funds to control de coast. I guess Argentina can offer to host a US military base in exchange for taking care of Chinese fishing vessels.

is_true 5y ago
Argentina already has a Chinese base. Peronism was way worse than covid for the country.

matthewmorgan 5y ago

Could be a good reason to make friends with your British neighbours, who happen to have a few ships.

hef19898 5y ago

And that South Korea, Japan and Spain are involved too, makes it impossible to confront China about it. Greed for a quick buck again bite us im the back.