5 ms·

The article makes it pretty clear that overfishing is likely to wipe out local fish populations.

by ipsin 12y ago

brudgers 12y ago
As opposed to entire marine fisheries destroyed by industrialized fishing that puts tins of tuna on grocery shelves.
- sigzero 12y ago
  Which has nothing to do with the article.
  - schiffern 12y ago
    I beg to differ. The economic principles underlying both are the same — technology pushed the supply curve too far to the left, past the critical regeneration threshold (which must exist for any self-renewing resource). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg#t=27m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg#t=27m53s
- Zancarius 12y ago
  The concern here isn't so much about fishing (though it may be a problem) as much as it is what the nets are treated with, which might affect fish populations, other species, and the very humans they're intended to protect. The article explicitly states that permethrin is highly toxic to cold-blooded animals, fish in particular, and could over-stress local populations. If the fish they don't catch die from exposure to insecticides, the situation is liable to get much worse. I understand why the nets were treated with insecticide, but it seems a bit foolhardy to have done so when there was a possibility the nets might not be used for their intended purpose. Although I suspect no one involved considered such a possibility, or if they did that it wouldn't be nearly as wide spread. I think this represents one of the major problems with our current means of providing foreign aid. Although well-meaning, providing mosquito nets to people in effort to protect them from a disease that is likely to kill them versus starving to death (which definitely will kill them), the people are going to address their immediate concerns first. I don't know what the solution is, but it seems that just attacking one particular problem at a time isn't working. I agree with other comments here that eliminating malaria probably means dealing with food stability and access to clean water first and foremost, then addressing malaria (in parallel, possibly). I respect the organizations that are trying to help, but the solutions don't come easily. But then you also have the other problem that these are impoverished, sometimes war-torn areas that have threats even beyond the scope of access to food and water...
  - pvaldes 12y ago
    When people don't fall sick again and again in his beds by malaria, they can work more days and have more resources to spend in the food market. This should be understood as an economy improvement for the family. Same as to have a roof. Overfishing and the extinction of both fishes and the professional fishers is a big problem for all the community.
    - Zancarius 12y ago
      Oh, I agree. I just think the problem in this case is that it's difficult for us (being well fed and well educated) to fully appreciate the immediacy of starvation.
- pvaldes 12y ago
  sadly, a very good point.
indrax 12y ago
This reminds me of a recent article about an abandoned flooded mall. Fish were added to control the mosquito population. So what happens to the mosquitoes when the fish population drops?

The article makes it pretty clear that overfishing is likely to wipe out local fish populations.

by ipsin 12y ago

The article makes it pretty clear that overfishing is likely to wipe out local fish populations.

brudgers 12y ago

As opposed to entire marine fisheries destroyed by industrialized fishing that puts tins of tuna on grocery shelves.

sigzero 12y ago
Which has nothing to do with the article.
- schiffern 12y ago
  I beg to differ. The economic principles underlying both are the same — technology pushed the supply curve too far to the left, past the critical regeneration threshold (which must exist for any self-renewing resource). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg#t=27m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg#t=27m53s
Zancarius 12y ago
The concern here isn't so much about fishing (though it may be a problem) as much as it is what the nets are treated with, which might affect fish populations, other species, and the very humans they're intended to protect. The article explicitly states that permethrin is highly toxic to cold-blooded animals, fish in particular, and could over-stress local populations. If the fish they don't catch die from exposure to insecticides, the situation is liable to get much worse. I understand why the nets were treated with insecticide, but it seems a bit foolhardy to have done so when there was a possibility the nets might not be used for their intended purpose. Although I suspect no one involved considered such a possibility, or if they did that it wouldn't be nearly as wide spread. I think this represents one of the major problems with our current means of providing foreign aid. Although well-meaning, providing mosquito nets to people in effort to protect them from a disease that is likely to kill them versus starving to death (which definitely will kill them), the people are going to address their immediate concerns first. I don't know what the solution is, but it seems that just attacking one particular problem at a time isn't working. I agree with other comments here that eliminating malaria probably means dealing with food stability and access to clean water first and foremost, then addressing malaria (in parallel, possibly). I respect the organizations that are trying to help, but the solutions don't come easily. But then you also have the other problem that these are impoverished, sometimes war-torn areas that have threats even beyond the scope of access to food and water...
- pvaldes 12y ago
  When people don't fall sick again and again in his beds by malaria, they can work more days and have more resources to spend in the food market. This should be understood as an economy improvement for the family. Same as to have a roof. Overfishing and the extinction of both fishes and the professional fishers is a big problem for all the community.
  - Zancarius 12y ago
    Oh, I agree. I just think the problem in this case is that it's difficult for us (being well fed and well educated) to fully appreciate the immediacy of starvation.
pvaldes 12y ago
sadly, a very good point.

indrax 12y ago

This reminds me of a recent article about an abandoned flooded mall. Fish were added to control the mosquito population. So what happens to the mosquitoes when the fish population drops?