5 ms·

I married a marine biologist, and dinner parties with her friends were eye opening in the way they talk so matter-of-factly about the ecological collapse that’s

I married a marine biologist, and dinner parties with her friends were eye opening in the way they talk so matter-of-factly about the ecological collapse that’s already happened in our oceans. Compared with 100 years ago, the total biomass of predatory fish (basically, the ones we eat) is down by roughly 70%. And that’s accelerating.

markstos 4y ago
So do you still eat fish?
- nominusllc 4y ago
  You know the answer to this, so why ask? Just make your accusation directly and take your smugness in lump sum rather than annuity.
  - markstos 4y ago
    You've got a crystal ball here? Some people change their behavior when they learn they their current behaviors are contributing to significant harm and there is a viable alternative to reduce harm. We've got a choice about whether we contribute to the harm caused by commercial fishing or not.
  - boston_clone 4y ago
    Seems this is a sensitive topic for you; is there perhaps some cognitive dissonance at play? If so, it’s probably worth teasing out the details and reassessing behaviors or beliefs.
- fallingfrog 4y ago
  You hear this kind of argument a lot, people like to accuse one another of "virtue signaling". I like to call it the Joker argument- "You're just like me underneath, Batman." It's an argument you can trot out in any situation too, even if you don't have any real point to make, because it isn't an argument at all, but rather a character attack. It's lazy and dishonest.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    Presumably you responded to the wrong comment by mistake, but if not what argument are you referring to? All I see is a simple question that most certainly doesn't say anything about anyone's character. It is true that any possible answer to the question won't tell us much in the grand scheme of things, but that shouldn't stop someone from having a little curiosity now and again. Curiosity is the spice of life, as they say.
- heisenzombie 4y ago
  It has certainly changed my habits substantially. I don’t eat a lot of fish, and what I do eat is mostly aquacultured here in New Zealand: freshwater salmon and green-lipped mussels are the lowest impact options available to me. I sometimes have wild-caught fish when I’m away with friends who spearfish. On the very rare occasion I buy wild-caught fish, I’m very picky about species and method (long lines or maybe set netted, never trawled)
divbzero 4y ago
Does anyone know if we are facing similar ecological collapse on land?
- vkou 4y ago
  We've already caused it. The overwhelming majority of land mammal mass is either humans, or farm animals raised for humans to eat. Almost half of the world's land surface is now farmland.
  - ThrowawayIP 4y ago
    And the vast vast majority of this farmland that could be used to raise human-edible crops is used to feed domesticated animals. While humans die of starvation.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    > Almost half of the world's land surface is now farmland This is a BS statistic meant to shock and inappropriately counts the entire area of wilderness that might be used for grazing which is just wilderness that would have supported similar animals anyway.
    - vkou 4y ago
      Managed crop monoculture, which ~half of farmland is - is not 'something similar' to natural forests, plains, grasslands, scrubland, etc. Even grazing land rarely looks anything like it does before we've shaped it for our use. And even when it does, at first glance, it gets a monoculture of animals, instead. Farmers are not keen on seeing their herds deal with competition or predation from the wild.
      - PeterisP 4y ago
        On the other hand, we have local biodiversity regulations which require certain land to be grazed and/or cut (as for hay), since the 'meadow' biomes and the associated birds and insects have adapted to the many centuries of land being farmed and can't survive if the plains aren't grazed and are left to just grow.
beardedetim 4y ago
Can I ask a stupid question in earnest? Is it bad for them to die out? Is the fear that if we lose 90% of this life that there will be complete collapse of the worlds ecosystem? Maybe a better question would be: where can I find more information on the consequences of this?
- acuozzo 4y ago
  AFAIK 50-80% of our oxygen comes from Phytoplankton in the ocean.
- darraghenright 4y ago
  I believe that when a fish population declines by 80–90% it never recovers, that's it. Even if you leave them alone. It happened to cod in Newfoundland. The excellent 2009 documentary "The End of the Line" was the first place I heard discuss catastrophic fish population crashes, and it covers this dramatic topic and its very serious implications in detail. It also talks about the mind-boggling, almost unbelievable scale at which modern fishing vessels such as supertrawlers operate. Frankly, I was horrified by what I learned about modern fishing watching this movie. https://theendofthelinemovie.com/ https://theendofthelinemovie.com/
MilesCe 4y ago
I don't think the data supports the notion that there is a collapse. A lasting 70% reduction without the ongoing interference (overfishing) by humans would be a problem, but even that would not be a collapse. A couple decades ago the concept of overfishing became more well-known, and the industry was forced to change. The reason that the industry reacted also has to do with the fact that a true collapse of the fish population would also decimate the entire industry - they have an interest in keeping it stable. If 99% of a fish population goes away, it would take decades for the population to recover to normal levels. During those years, there would be no profit. The true reason why the fish population is down 70% is due to the fact that every year the fishing industry takes out as many fish as possible without causing a lasting depression of fish population. If all fishing would be stopped right now, the global fish population would recover to pre-human levels within probably 20 or 30 years. Here's what someone from the Australian fishing industriy has to say about this: "We have learned from the ’60s to ’90s era and today most large fisheries are well managed (some in Asia/Africa are not) and either recovering or operating at maximum economic yield. You cannot catch fish to extinction – they will always recover if you stop fishing. It’s the recovery time that is the issue – and the time to when you can recommence harvesting, sustainably." Of course these people are heavily biased, and the industry is rotten to the core and full of corruption, but it's hard to argue against this self-evident logic.
- bch 4y ago
  > I don't think the data supports the notion that there is a collapse. It’s not a collapse of “the ocean”, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_north...
- fallingfrog 4y ago
  How do you know this? OP states that their statement comes from marine biologists.
  - MilesCe 4y ago

markstos 4y ago

So do you still eat fish?

nominusllc 4y ago
You know the answer to this, so why ask? Just make your accusation directly and take your smugness in lump sum rather than annuity.
- markstos 4y ago
  You've got a crystal ball here? Some people change their behavior when they learn they their current behaviors are contributing to significant harm and there is a viable alternative to reduce harm. We've got a choice about whether we contribute to the harm caused by commercial fishing or not.
- boston_clone 4y ago
  Seems this is a sensitive topic for you; is there perhaps some cognitive dissonance at play? If so, it’s probably worth teasing out the details and reassessing behaviors or beliefs.
fallingfrog 4y ago
You hear this kind of argument a lot, people like to accuse one another of "virtue signaling". I like to call it the Joker argument- "You're just like me underneath, Batman." It's an argument you can trot out in any situation too, even if you don't have any real point to make, because it isn't an argument at all, but rather a character attack. It's lazy and dishonest.
- randomdata 4y ago
  Presumably you responded to the wrong comment by mistake, but if not what argument are you referring to? All I see is a simple question that most certainly doesn't say anything about anyone's character. It is true that any possible answer to the question won't tell us much in the grand scheme of things, but that shouldn't stop someone from having a little curiosity now and again. Curiosity is the spice of life, as they say.
heisenzombie 4y ago
It has certainly changed my habits substantially. I don’t eat a lot of fish, and what I do eat is mostly aquacultured here in New Zealand: freshwater salmon and green-lipped mussels are the lowest impact options available to me. I sometimes have wild-caught fish when I’m away with friends who spearfish. On the very rare occasion I buy wild-caught fish, I’m very picky about species and method (long lines or maybe set netted, never trawled)

divbzero 4y ago

Does anyone know if we are facing similar ecological collapse on land?

vkou 4y ago
We've already caused it. The overwhelming majority of land mammal mass is either humans, or farm animals raised for humans to eat. Almost half of the world's land surface is now farmland.
- ThrowawayIP 4y ago
  And the vast vast majority of this farmland that could be used to raise human-edible crops is used to feed domesticated animals. While humans die of starvation.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  > Almost half of the world's land surface is now farmland This is a BS statistic meant to shock and inappropriately counts the entire area of wilderness that might be used for grazing which is just wilderness that would have supported similar animals anyway.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Managed crop monoculture, which ~half of farmland is - is not 'something similar' to natural forests, plains, grasslands, scrubland, etc. Even grazing land rarely looks anything like it does before we've shaped it for our use. And even when it does, at first glance, it gets a monoculture of animals, instead. Farmers are not keen on seeing their herds deal with competition or predation from the wild.
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      On the other hand, we have local biodiversity regulations which require certain land to be grazed and/or cut (as for hay), since the 'meadow' biomes and the associated birds and insects have adapted to the many centuries of land being farmed and can't survive if the plains aren't grazed and are left to just grow.

beardedetim 4y ago

Can I ask a stupid question in earnest? Is it bad for them to die out? Is the fear that if we lose 90% of this life that there will be complete collapse of the worlds ecosystem? Maybe a better question would be: where can I find more information on the consequences of this?

acuozzo 4y ago
AFAIK 50-80% of our oxygen comes from Phytoplankton in the ocean.
darraghenright 4y ago
I believe that when a fish population declines by 80–90% it never recovers, that's it. Even if you leave them alone. It happened to cod in Newfoundland. The excellent 2009 documentary "The End of the Line" was the first place I heard discuss catastrophic fish population crashes, and it covers this dramatic topic and its very serious implications in detail. It also talks about the mind-boggling, almost unbelievable scale at which modern fishing vessels such as supertrawlers operate. Frankly, I was horrified by what I learned about modern fishing watching this movie. https://theendofthelinemovie.com/ https://theendofthelinemovie.com/

MilesCe 4y ago

I don't think the data supports the notion that there is a collapse. A lasting 70% reduction without the ongoing interference (overfishing) by humans would be a problem, but even that would not be a collapse. A couple decades ago the concept of overfishing became more well-known, and the industry was forced to change. The reason that the industry reacted also has to do with the fact that a true collapse of the fish population would also decimate the entire industry - they have an interest in keeping it stable. If 99% of a fish population goes away, it would take decades for the population to recover to normal levels. During those years, there would be no profit. The true reason why the fish population is down 70% is due to the fact that every year the fishing industry takes out as many fish as possible without causing a lasting depression of fish population. If all fishing would be stopped right now, the global fish population would recover to pre-human levels within probably 20 or 30 years. Here's what someone from the Australian fishing industriy has to say about this: "We have learned from the ’60s to ’90s era and today most large fisheries are well managed (some in Asia/Africa are not) and either recovering or operating at maximum economic yield. You cannot catch fish to extinction – they will always recover if you stop fishing. It’s the recovery time that is the issue – and the time to when you can recommence harvesting, sustainably." Of course these people are heavily biased, and the industry is rotten to the core and full of corruption, but it's hard to argue against this self-evident logic.

bch 4y ago
> I don't think the data supports the notion that there is a collapse. It’s not a collapse of “the ocean”, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_north...
fallingfrog 4y ago
How do you know this? OP states that their statement comes from marine biologists.
- MilesCe 4y ago