Slashdot Mirror
Oceans Empty By 2048?
F34nor writes to mention a CBS news article about the depopulation of ocean species. According to a study by a scientist in Halifax, Nova Scotia and assisted by research from all around the world, the world's oceans will be emptied of large lifeforms by 2048. From the article: "Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% — a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries. But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide. 'A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences,' Worm and colleagues say."
Less Supply = Higher Price
Higher Price = Less Demand
Less Demand = Fish Population Increases
If a can of tuna went for $300 dollars because of a tuna shortage, I bet a lot of people would start cutting back on their tuna consumption.
The solution is painful, but simple. Commercial fishing has to disappear. Already half of the world's fish consumption is fish-farmed. In the same way that we don't allow commercial hunting of land animals, we'll have to forbid commercial fishing. It's true that for now farmed fish is most of the time not as good as the hunted one, but its just a matter of time before we improve the technology enough to fix the problem.
- Sea life is dying faster than it is being replenished
- The supply is finite
Wouldn't it seem painfully obvious that we'll run out? Do you think they're really relying on the "argument from authority" fallacy? Do you think that more sea life will just magically appear? Or do you just not care? People with your worldview really confuse me. I can't figure out if it's science you distrust, or statistics, or what. "Scientists are fallible" doesn't refute any single conclusion, much less one that you can figure out for yourself to be true. This isn't quantum mechanics or some other obscure field that requires a lot of expertise. If you cut down trees faster than trees grow, you'll end up with zero trees. Change trees to fish, and what do you get? How can you manage to have such scorn for something with such serious consequences?Somebody isn't getting any.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
The situation with the oceans seems fairly obvious and logical (and we know we've already depleted quite a lot), so I don't see how you can disparage as a "Malthusian doom". More like an inevitable direction that we will have to face up sooner or later...
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
It's like citing Stephen King on the subject of, say, epidemiology. Does anyone think The Stand is a reputable source of scientific information? No? Then why would State of Fear be? Again, nothing wrong with liking a book, but there is no sensible reason to cite fiction as if it were fact. Crichton doesn't belong in a discussion of climate change.
Plus, Crichton himself isn't a very good science fiction writer. He gets his facts muddled in his other books; Jurrasic Park screwed up both archeology and biology - the Velociraptors being an example of the former, and "life will find a way" Lamarkism being an example of the latter. I could see citing a scifi author on a subject like technology in the future, but only if that author did his research.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Your response is exactly what I'm suggesting. It's reasoned and you didn't resort to attacking me, but instead dealt with the issue I raised. I'm afraid though you lumped my own views in with that of the poster I was, for want of a better term, defending. I wasn't defending what he said, but encouraging others to respond differently.
I actually am totally on the Global Warming bandwagon. I had some concerns over the past decade, but slowly I have learned more, and don't doubt the seriousness of the issue. But my concern is the way people respond to the skeptics. I think this issue permeates western society in general, but I'll stay with the specifics here.
I'm a teacher, and I promise you the majority of the population I've taught, including many on /. never look at scientific journals, or even summaries of scientific journals. They rely on the media and snippets of information on the web to get their information. When we, those who actually seek out a deeper understanding of issues, have a chance to address those who are less informed, as I think the original poster was, we need to engage them in discussion. But generally when they give an uninformed opinion, they are assaulted with personal attacks, as somewhat happened in this instance. They logically conclude that the people on the other side of the issue are mean spirited extremists. That is where a lot of the distrust comes from.
I wish we lived in a society that didn't see the world in thirty seconds snippets. I wish everyone looked deeper. But they never will if they aren't encouraged to. In another thread, a poster commented on Crichton's State of Fear and was told not to cite it if he wanted to be taken seriously. That's a quick way to end a productive conversation.
I originally thought the book raised some important issues that deserved to be discussed. Since reading it, I've seen some clear refutations of much in the book, but I'm glad it was written. More people might now ask questions, and therefore start a discussion they would not have had otherwise.
If I yelled at my students whenever they asked an uninformed question or claimed something as fact that was really fiction, I would never have the opportunity to teach them because they would have a natural distrust for me. Let the uninformed questions come. Ask them questions, in return, that point to a better understanding. But too often, outside academic settings, when people venture an opinion, they are shot down with personal attacks. They then walk away, offended, and unwilling to consider an alternative.
Now if you ask rational questions and repeatedly get personal attacks in your face, then they look the fool.
--steps off soap box.--
An important change for education.
I remeber a young guy who drove too fast, we all told him repeatedly he would crash and hurt someone but he just shrugged it off and tried in vain to crack jokes about it. He worked with us for six months, even though he had his seat belt on the force of the impact threw him out of the drivers window, his father who had also lectured him recognised the car as he drove past the smash on the way home from work. The kid didn't die but he spent a year in hospital and AFAIK still requires full time care, nobody needed or wanted to say "I told you so".
TFA: They didn't pick the number, it is simply the point where the trend line cuts the X-axis, also it wasn't really the aim of the study to come up with a number it was simply a by-product of their survey. The study took current trends in fish catches and found we will run out of commercial fish stocks IF we continue our current fishing practices. In other words: Behaviour has both predicatble and unpredictable consequenses, think about them before shrugging the warning off as a computer glitch.
Disclaimer: I appreciate humour as much as the next bloke but I find it hard to laugh at the "soylent oceanographic servey".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.