3 ms·

Let's be more precise: the article speaks about bluefin tuna, one of the many tuna species, the high-end expensive one used for sushi. Other tuna species (that

by bd 18y ago

Let's be more precise: the article speaks about bluefin tuna, one of the many tuna species, the high-end expensive one used for sushi. Other tuna species (that are usually sold in cans) seem to be doing ok. Just to get the perspective - three bluefin species all together make just over 1% of all tuna catches: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/tuna-catches/en http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/tuna-catches/en

whacked_new 18y ago
IIRC, the other tuna species are not doing ok. They are projected to be gone within 40 years if current consumption trends continue. Of course that disqualifies them from "on the verge," but 40 years is hella fast in terms of extinction, or even from totally safe to not-safe.
- bd 18y ago
  We are speaking about self-replicating beings. This is not oil, that once drilled is gone forever. Predicting 40 years into future is hard. But there is definitely a problem. A fundamental one. Overfishing is a classical "tragedy of commons" example. There are no easy solutions.
  - whacked_new 18y ago
    Actually it should be possible to construct a model of oil quantity as if oil was a self-replicating being. After all, we are talking about conservation of matter (and matter-energy conversion which I suppose is negligible here). In this sense, oil self-replicates as animals (that have consumed the benefits of oil) die off, and fossilize over billions of years. That's just P(t) - C(t) + K for P = production, C = consumption, and K = amount available at t = 0. So for oil, we have small P, large C, large K. For tuna, we have small P, large C, small K. As such, projection estimates should rest on similar assumptions, and extinction models should be as realistic as you can get. I agree that there are no easy solutions, but the problem is there; it's the elephant in the room, in all aspects of consumption. (this was posted as more of a thought experiment than anything else).
    - bd 18y ago
      Maybe the proper solution is to increase the production? I found a much better article on bluefin tuna troubles in Scientific American - indeed there are attempts to farm tuna: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bluefin-tuna-in-peril http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bluefin-tuna-in-peril BTW that's also one of the reasons why I think predicting populations 40 years in advance is hard. Even for a good model assumptions can change. And for systems of nonlinear differential equations even small differences in constants can lead to widely different outcomes.
      - whacked_new 18y ago
        IMHO, the "best" countermeasure is the most inconvenient one, which is not only inconvenient on personal levels, but also on social levels. The inconvenience is evident in another posting on this thread and extends to areas beyond tuna -- which is why I am bearish on whole matter (just imagine the number of people with that sentiment), even if you increase production.

by bd 18y ago

whacked_new 18y ago

IIRC, the other tuna species are not doing ok. They are projected to be gone within 40 years if current consumption trends continue. Of course that disqualifies them from "on the verge," but 40 years is hella fast in terms of extinction, or even from totally safe to not-safe.

bd 18y ago
We are speaking about self-replicating beings. This is not oil, that once drilled is gone forever. Predicting 40 years into future is hard. But there is definitely a problem. A fundamental one. Overfishing is a classical "tragedy of commons" example. There are no easy solutions.
- whacked_new 18y ago
  Actually it should be possible to construct a model of oil quantity as if oil was a self-replicating being. After all, we are talking about conservation of matter (and matter-energy conversion which I suppose is negligible here). In this sense, oil self-replicates as animals (that have consumed the benefits of oil) die off, and fossilize over billions of years. That's just P(t) - C(t) + K for P = production, C = consumption, and K = amount available at t = 0. So for oil, we have small P, large C, large K. For tuna, we have small P, large C, small K. As such, projection estimates should rest on similar assumptions, and extinction models should be as realistic as you can get. I agree that there are no easy solutions, but the problem is there; it's the elephant in the room, in all aspects of consumption. (this was posted as more of a thought experiment than anything else).
  - bd 18y ago
    Maybe the proper solution is to increase the production? I found a much better article on bluefin tuna troubles in Scientific American - indeed there are attempts to farm tuna: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bluefin-tuna-in-peril http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bluefin-tuna-in-peril BTW that's also one of the reasons why I think predicting populations 40 years in advance is hard. Even for a good model assumptions can change. And for systems of nonlinear differential equations even small differences in constants can lead to widely different outcomes.
    - whacked_new 18y ago
      IMHO, the "best" countermeasure is the most inconvenient one, which is not only inconvenient on personal levels, but also on social levels. The inconvenience is evident in another posting on this thread and extends to areas beyond tuna -- which is why I am bearish on whole matter (just imagine the number of people with that sentiment), even if you increase production.