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."

Comments

It's so self-evident

[Tester]

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.

I see your point

[misanthrope101]

"Resources are being used faster than they are being replenished, and the supply is finite" doesn't logically, inescapably lead to "we'll run out". Well, unless you use logic. See, this type of argument doesn't require that we just trust all these scientists. They aren't standing there saying "well, we're pretty smart, so you should believe us, with no evidence offered, and change everything you're doing." If these two conditions are correct:

1. Sea life is dying faster than it is being replenished
2. 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?

Re:I see your point

[misanthrope101]

with less species there is less competition. with less competition other species flourish. without evidence, my theory is just as likely.

The food net is more delicate than that, and species are heavily dependent on each other. Also, species survival depends on a certain population level--if you cut too far, individuals will have a harder time mating, and so on. I'm no expert, but I took a class on Oceanography, and it was surprising how delicate the balance is. Yes, the earth's oceans will recover from depletion--in thousands or millions of years. Scary "the sky is falling" stories like this aren't predicated on the idea that the earth will never recover, only that it won't recover in enough time to prevent serious harm to our (human) way of life. This goes a bit beyond shrimp being an extra dollar a pound.

Re:I see your point

[An Onerous Coward]

Are you claiming that, if the world's most productive fisheries collapse, only Japan will really care? You might want to push the following onto that stack: Hawaii, Canada, Australia (whose fisheries have already collapsed), and, well, just about every country with a coastline (or any country that trades with a country with a coastline).

Unfortunately, we do get a lot of food from the oceans right now. Since we only have to catch the fish instead of raising them, it's like getting all that food free. Once that gravy train runs out, we'll have to significantly increase our agricultural output to make up the shortfall. Please read that as, "Our economy will have to work harder to obtain the same amount of food."

Fisheries are a renewable resource, if you harvest from them at a sustainable rate. Think of it as having a bank account with a million dollars in it. If you live solely on the interest, it can be a huge boon, providing you many more dollars over the years than are actually in the account. But if you start spending it irresponsibly on hookers, coke, and Alienware systems, you wake up one day and find that the account is at $1072.38. Instead of providing you ten thousand dollars a year, it can now only provide you ten. Of course, you can leave it alone and it will "recover", but that process won't be complete until long after you're dead.

It galls me when people like yourself talk about how we don't need to worry about destroying resource X, because when it runs out we'll move to resource Y. Especially when that resource could be eternally productive, if people would just agree to live off the interest, instead of sucking it dry. We'll all be worse off when the fish are gone.

Re:They seem to be forgetting something...

[node 3]

You fail at economics.

If tuna went for $300/can, it would be even more aggressively fished, not less.

Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are

[AaronLawrence]

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...

Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are

[misanthrope101]

Oh, get over yourself.

Yes, the fact that I respect scientific evidence and am concerned about its implications definitely indicates that I have an overly inflated opinion of myself. I'm so arrogant that I accept the scientific consensus about climate change and its potential effect on our lives. If I only had enough humility to summarily dismiss the conclusions of scientists, the very people who gave me medicine, technology, etc. If I had a slightly lower opinion of myself I'd be arrogant enough to think I knew more than people who have more education and knowledge on this particular subject. Thank you for your acute and insightful assessment of my character.

People have been predicting the Malthusian doom of mankind and the planet forever

Ah yes, the hand-waving "they're making it all up, and scientists have been wrong before!" rebuttal. Are you saying the temp is not increasing, or that it will have no effect on human life? I can understand (though disagree with) the point that the temp is increasing but it just doesn't matter, but I can't quite figure out your position.