4 ms·

>China may be listed as self-sufficient in fish, but its fish are not coming from near China PRC fishing is ~85% domestic aquaculture. THE HIGHEST RATIO OF SUS

>China may be listed as self-sufficient in fish, but its fish are not coming from near China PRC fishing is ~85% domestic aquaculture. THE HIGHEST RATIO OF SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE IN THE WROLD. Of 15% remaining wild catch, ~50% is from east sea, i.e. PRC coast. So ~95% self sufficiency. ~98% including SCS, i.e. PRC definition of sovereign waters. Functionally, self sufficiency is at 100%, since PRC large aquaculture exporter. All the distant fishing drama/propaganda is just 2-5% of PRC fishing, which per capita they underfish relative other major fishing distant water fishing actors like JP, SKR, TW, Spain etc. For reference PRC distant water catches like 1.5kg per capita, the others 3-30kg+, i.e. 2-20x PRC. TLDR is PRC is the largest aquaculture producer (absolute&relative) that also grossly under extracts from global commons relative to other DWF, unless one thinks PRC citizens entitled to less fish.

irishcoffee 5mo ago
Hey maxglute, I could post verbatim what you did, changing only numbers. Without a reliable source, your numbers are meaningless. Trying to find an honest source about chinese economics is not possible, they don’t exist. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s widely known. The prc doesn’t divulge this information accurately.
- maxglute 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - maxglute 5mo ago
    E: correction: countering PRC act is 500m per year
    - irishcoffee 5mo ago
      Nobody read that post, I wouldn’t bother correcting it.
      - maxglute 5mo ago
        It's no trouble.
  - ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
    I've got no dog in the hunt here, but one appropriate response to an observation that you provided no sources, would be to provide sources. What you did instead, which is assert unsourced numbers harder, while attacking the messenger, is not appropriate. Wait! Before you reply: Attacking another messenger (me) for making another observation (the one above) would also not be inappropriate. Feel free to not cite anything, though, that's totally your call.
    - maxglute 5mo ago
      >would be to provide sources. Naw, SAUCE PLS in 2026 is rhetoric distraction strategy expecting knowledgeable person do HW, maybe it's valid pre LLM, but now it's safe to dismiss as insincere. It's entirely appropriate flex subject matter knowledge and expect skeptics to validate on their own in era of accessible deep research. And call out responses like OPs, who ask for source, but also dismiss/insinuate source "don’t exist", i.e. they're not actually curious for source. Hence it's entirely appropriate to note bad faith, see ops other reply blow: "Nobody read that post, I wouldn’t bother correcting it.". As it is also entirely appropriate to tell you, ultimately also your call to be just as lazy, instead of wasting space on feed me sauce pls, go do a trivial copy paste into an AI model to validate claims.
      - ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
        > Naw, [asking for sources] in 2026 is rhetoric distraction strategy expecting knowledgeable person do HW I can't tell if this is serious or satire of conservative politicians. Poe's law in action, I guess. > go do a trivial copy paste into an AI model to validate claims. Like I said, you're free to continue not providing sources for your assertions (even though you yourself claim it would take a trivial amount of your time to do), just like people are free to continue not believing your assertions. I'm ok with that happy equilibrium, so I don't feel compelled to do any particular research into your assertions for you. If you want me to do your job, you'll have to pay me. > Hence it's entirely appropriate to note bad faith To the extent it is "entirely appropriate to note bad faith": As a person equal to you, I am noting your attacks on others in lieu of substantiating your assertions.
dwd 5mo ago
There's a good reason other countries are not heavily investing in aquaculture. Pollution, pathogens and heavy use of antibiotics and vaccines required to keeping large numbers of fish in confined areas. It's not a solved problem at least in Australia and consumers prefer wild caught. 15% is still a large number. 15% of the Chinese population is 2/3 of the US population and 15x the population of Australia. That's a lot of wild caught fish. But it's not just China. Fishing boats from Indonesia and other SE Asian countries are more often intercepted within Australia's economic exclusion zone.
- maxglute 5mo ago
  You can make the same criticism for all terrestrial live stock, at least aquaculture has lowest feed conversion ratio, i.e. lower than chickens. World, especially east asia not going to go vegetarian, so aquaculture probably most ecological path to animal protein sufficiency / efficiency. >That's a lot of wild caught fish Note half of 15% wild catch is east sea, i.e. it's mostly in PRC EEZs. Most of other half in SCS, which is dispute shit show. We're really talking ~3% that is legitimately distant fishing, and to be blunt PRC, who due to geography as one of the LEAST EEZ to population / shore ratio (being surrounded by other island neighbours), only capturing 3-7% (if you include SCS) of total consumption via distant water is reasonable. Which is the "real" reason why PRC double down on aquaculture, they're simply large land country with huge population with high aquaculture appetite with limited EEZ resource. Ultimately this something for UN to sort out, and because PRC reliance much less on high seas fish resource, you're going to hear bitching from other DWF actors way before PRC. In the meantime there's simply no reason for PRC to not DWF at her current per capita rate just because people who can't compare per capita eat up propaganda. The reality is PRC is 20% of global pop and wild catches about 20% of global catch. Has about comparable IUU misbehavior. Useful idiot behavior singling out PRC when many other fishing nations... who happen to be US partners, are not getting same lazy propaganda talking point for extracting much more per capita.

irishcoffee 5mo ago

Hey maxglute, I could post verbatim what you did, changing only numbers. Without a reliable source, your numbers are meaningless. Trying to find an honest source about chinese economics is not possible, they don’t exist. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s widely known. The prc doesn’t divulge this information accurately.

maxglute 5mo ago
[flagged]
- maxglute 5mo ago
  E: correction: countering PRC act is 500m per year
  - irishcoffee 5mo ago
    Nobody read that post, I wouldn’t bother correcting it.
    - maxglute 5mo ago
      It's no trouble.
- ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
  I've got no dog in the hunt here, but one appropriate response to an observation that you provided no sources, would be to provide sources. What you did instead, which is assert unsourced numbers harder, while attacking the messenger, is not appropriate. Wait! Before you reply: Attacking another messenger (me) for making another observation (the one above) would also not be inappropriate. Feel free to not cite anything, though, that's totally your call.
  - maxglute 5mo ago
    >would be to provide sources. Naw, SAUCE PLS in 2026 is rhetoric distraction strategy expecting knowledgeable person do HW, maybe it's valid pre LLM, but now it's safe to dismiss as insincere. It's entirely appropriate flex subject matter knowledge and expect skeptics to validate on their own in era of accessible deep research. And call out responses like OPs, who ask for source, but also dismiss/insinuate source "don’t exist", i.e. they're not actually curious for source. Hence it's entirely appropriate to note bad faith, see ops other reply blow: "Nobody read that post, I wouldn’t bother correcting it.". As it is also entirely appropriate to tell you, ultimately also your call to be just as lazy, instead of wasting space on feed me sauce pls, go do a trivial copy paste into an AI model to validate claims.
    - ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
      > Naw, [asking for sources] in 2026 is rhetoric distraction strategy expecting knowledgeable person do HW I can't tell if this is serious or satire of conservative politicians. Poe's law in action, I guess. > go do a trivial copy paste into an AI model to validate claims. Like I said, you're free to continue not providing sources for your assertions (even though you yourself claim it would take a trivial amount of your time to do), just like people are free to continue not believing your assertions. I'm ok with that happy equilibrium, so I don't feel compelled to do any particular research into your assertions for you. If you want me to do your job, you'll have to pay me. > Hence it's entirely appropriate to note bad faith To the extent it is "entirely appropriate to note bad faith": As a person equal to you, I am noting your attacks on others in lieu of substantiating your assertions.

dwd 5mo ago

There's a good reason other countries are not heavily investing in aquaculture. Pollution, pathogens and heavy use of antibiotics and vaccines required to keeping large numbers of fish in confined areas. It's not a solved problem at least in Australia and consumers prefer wild caught. 15% is still a large number. 15% of the Chinese population is 2/3 of the US population and 15x the population of Australia. That's a lot of wild caught fish. But it's not just China. Fishing boats from Indonesia and other SE Asian countries are more often intercepted within Australia's economic exclusion zone.

maxglute 5mo ago
You can make the same criticism for all terrestrial live stock, at least aquaculture has lowest feed conversion ratio, i.e. lower than chickens. World, especially east asia not going to go vegetarian, so aquaculture probably most ecological path to animal protein sufficiency / efficiency. >That's a lot of wild caught fish Note half of 15% wild catch is east sea, i.e. it's mostly in PRC EEZs. Most of other half in SCS, which is dispute shit show. We're really talking ~3% that is legitimately distant fishing, and to be blunt PRC, who due to geography as one of the LEAST EEZ to population / shore ratio (being surrounded by other island neighbours), only capturing 3-7% (if you include SCS) of total consumption via distant water is reasonable. Which is the "real" reason why PRC double down on aquaculture, they're simply large land country with huge population with high aquaculture appetite with limited EEZ resource. Ultimately this something for UN to sort out, and because PRC reliance much less on high seas fish resource, you're going to hear bitching from other DWF actors way before PRC. In the meantime there's simply no reason for PRC to not DWF at her current per capita rate just because people who can't compare per capita eat up propaganda. The reality is PRC is 20% of global pop and wild catches about 20% of global catch. Has about comparable IUU misbehavior. Useful idiot behavior singling out PRC when many other fishing nations... who happen to be US partners, are not getting same lazy propaganda talking point for extracting much more per capita.