2 ms·

The flip side of this is easily illustrated: Look up the North Atlantic Cod Fishery. We failed to tell fishermen to stop fishing, and as a result the entire ec

The flip side of this is easily illustrated: Look up the North Atlantic Cod Fishery. We failed to tell fishermen to stop fishing, and as a result the entire ecosystem collapsed and has never returned. They had to stop fishing anyway, and their way of life collapsed too. Its a tricky reality to balance, but the fishing industry have historically always gotten this wrong. At a certain point you have to be willing to tell people that their way of life is unsustainable. Of course, then we have to recognize that most of us live an unsustainable way of life, fishermen just happen to be living unsustainably in a shorter term than the rest of us.

freedomben 3y ago
Absolutely, completely agree. The fishing industry has demonstrated extensively that they can't be trusted to self-manage (North Atlantic Cod, and Pacific Salmon are great examples). The appeal of over-fishing for short term gains at the cost of long-term is just too good for them to refuse, and they will take what they can. Normalcy bias[1] (which they come by honestly as humans) will do it's thing and convince them that a little bit won't hurt, or it will never disappear, or whatever it needs to. Whatever the solution is, it will definitely include reductions in fishing allowances, and that's going to hurt for producers and consumers alike, but it still has to be done. If we don't, in 5 to 10 years they'll be changing jobs anyway cause the fish will be gone and the ecosystem devastated. The trick isn't to avoid all suffering, that's just not possible. The trick is (IMHO) to first understand it, then minimize it. Homer Alaska guy will have to accept reduced income for at least a few years until the population rebounds. In the end, at least his business, home, and way of life aren't completely destroyed. I don't know how we establish/create an independent and reasonable regulator to manage limits, but that's what we need to figure out. The existing entities are too corrupt and have proven that they can't be trusted. On the flip side, some environmental groups are too extreme and also not trustworthy regulators. It's a very hard and complex problem. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias
- rob74 3y ago
  Your sentence can be generalized: "The appeal of [over-exploiting natural resources] for short term gains at the cost of long-term is just too good [...] to refuse". But, as with overfishing, the bill is eventually coming...

freedomben 3y ago

Absolutely, completely agree. The fishing industry has demonstrated extensively that they can't be trusted to self-manage (North Atlantic Cod, and Pacific Salmon are great examples). The appeal of over-fishing for short term gains at the cost of long-term is just too good for them to refuse, and they will take what they can. Normalcy bias[1] (which they come by honestly as humans) will do it's thing and convince them that a little bit won't hurt, or it will never disappear, or whatever it needs to. Whatever the solution is, it will definitely include reductions in fishing allowances, and that's going to hurt for producers and consumers alike, but it still has to be done. If we don't, in 5 to 10 years they'll be changing jobs anyway cause the fish will be gone and the ecosystem devastated. The trick isn't to avoid all suffering, that's just not possible. The trick is (IMHO) to first understand it, then minimize it. Homer Alaska guy will have to accept reduced income for at least a few years until the population rebounds. In the end, at least his business, home, and way of life aren't completely destroyed. I don't know how we establish/create an independent and reasonable regulator to manage limits, but that's what we need to figure out. The existing entities are too corrupt and have proven that they can't be trusted. On the flip side, some environmental groups are too extreme and also not trustworthy regulators. It's a very hard and complex problem. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

rob74 3y ago
Your sentence can be generalized: "The appeal of [over-exploiting natural resources] for short term gains at the cost of long-term is just too good [...] to refuse". But, as with overfishing, the bill is eventually coming...