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

Re:We know it's true

[Broken scope]

The only one that I have seen so far that might be true is that 40 years after i was born i will turn 40. Exactly 40 years.

However, I am doing every stupid thing in my power to prevent this from happening.

Every bit helps

[arth1]

Next time at the super, buy farm raised fish. Every little bit helps, and not supporting the trawler factories that empty the ocean is a good small step you can take yourself.

Re:They seem to be forgetting something...

[MichaelSmith]

Less Demand = Fish Population Increases

Ecosystems don't work that way. Fish need a certain population density to breed properly. They don't use singles bars like us humans.

The linear relationship you assume exists...doesn't.

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.

Re:It's so self-evident

[jbertling1960]

Fish farming, particularly sea cage farming of saltwater species, has plenty of problems itself. The big five appear to be:

the wastes produced by farming
the fish that escape
the diseases and parasites that occur in farms
the chemicals used to treat diseased fish
the problems of stock depletion and contamination of feed.

See:

http://www.focs.ca/fishfarming/index.asp
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2000/july12/ fishfarms-712.html
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/Salm on/
http://www.westcoastaquatic.ca/article_fishfarms_p roblems_muchalat0205.htm

And many others.

What I find to be self evident is that the real issue is simply to many people, not enough planet.

Core Problem: Human Over-population

[reporter]

The fish stocks are declining to the point of extinction simply because the human population is too large. There is not enough fish to satiate the appetites of all 6 billion people.

Buying farm-raised fish is not the answer. To raise such fish, the farmers harvest other fish from the oceans in order to feed the fish on the farms. The end result is still the depletion of the wildlife in the oceans.

The only and correct solution is to stop growing the human population. However, no one wants to talk about over-population because talking about it usually elicits accusations of "bigot" or "racist".

The political mantra in the USA is that growing the population is wonderful. Both the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) and the "New York Times" (NYT) supports it. Both the WSJ and the NYT argue that unfettered immigration enriches everyone; talk about over-population runs contrary to unfettered immigration.

Over-population reminds me of global warming. Both are very serious problems, yet most people just do not feel the immediacy and seriousness of these problems. So, they hesitate to do anything that is substantive in fixing these problems -- until the day that the huge calamity (i.e. famine or environmental disaster) hits.

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:I see your point

[E 99]

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.

Despite the extremist language, no one is actually talking about the fish being gone. Fisheries "collapsing" means there's not enough to fish. (Or even just that there's a lot less than there used to be.) No one is talking about species going extinct. If you figure out a way to farm any of these species of fish they're all still there to capture are breed and raise your farm.

Whats next?

[Dark_MadMax666]

Some loony liberal pinko hippy commies will tell us that we are running out of oil ,and there is global warming looming? NONSENSE!

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.

what a hard-nosed skeptic you are

[misanthrope101]

Ssssssh! Shut up, the global warming mob might hear you.

Yes, it would be horrible to have all those people who have noticed that global temperature is increasing also notice that you are skeptical that the oceans will run out of sea life just because the living things in the sea are dying off faster than their numbers are being replenished. Those people are so weird, with their fact-based reality and belief that life on this planet matters. I'm glad you're too much of an independent thinker to fall for their soft-headed ruses.

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.

Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are

[Marsell]

I don't like that kind of reasoning: it has always been like this, therefore it always will be like this.

Just because you've survived several rounds of Russian Roulette until now does not mean the next one won't leave your brains on the wall.

Of course, this entirely ignores that we might have survived prior predicted dooms because (gasp) we might have modified our behaviour as a result of those predictions. However, even if this isn't true, the above reasoning is still suspect, and really not worthy of an intelligent citizen.

It looks like we might have a problem. I'd rather not find out the hard way.

Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are

[Thangodin]

Crichton's State of Fear is a now infamous piece of pseudo-science. Never cite it if you want to be taken seriously.

The Heartland Institute, which you sited, is a FUD site. You've been had.

300 year old trees in rainforest areas never used to burn down every decade or so--and the rainforests of the west coast that people are acting to preserve are precisely these areas. The brush which does burn down every 10 years or so is not preserved for environmental reasons, but because it is typically near housing developments which it will take down with it when it burns. British Columbia has been dealing with this problem for the past ten years--towns that are threatened by wild burns that have been prevented unnaturally. Frankly, we've gotten too good at fighting forest fires--but rainforests are too wet to burn. Old growth stands are taken down for lumber purposes. They are old growth precisely because they do not burn down regularly. But these are precisely the trees most valuable for lumber purposes. They're also very good at conserving water tables, which is of critical importance to Northwest agriculture.

Yellowstone scrub falls in the category of forests that typically burn down on a regular basis.

As for the fish, anyone who has been following reports on fish stocks could see this coming for the past ten years. The Salmon are dying off on the West coast, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, once the most plentiful fishing grounds on the planet, are dead, plankton, the basis of oceanic ecology, is dying off, the coast of China is pouring billions of tons of effluents into the Pacific, and bottom dragging nets have been destroying spawning habitats for decades. If this is a surprise to you, you really need to pull your head out of your ass once in a while and look around.

So, no trees, no water, no crops, and no livestock which depend on those crops. No fish, no seafood. What, exactly, did you think your kids were going to eat?

Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are

[RsG]

Crichton's State of Fear is a now infamous piece of pseudo-science. Never cite it if you want to be taken seriously.

I'm honestly amazed that people cite Crichton at all in a serious discussion. Not because I have anything against the man personally, but because he's a fiction writer.

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.

Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are

[edumacator]

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.--

Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are

[ResidntGeek]

*sigh* All right, I'll spell it out for you.

People have been predicting the Malthusian doom of mankind and the planet forever, and people like you have been sneering at the skeptics every time.

Obvious implication: Nothing happened, so they were wrong. Obviously you're wrong now, and nothing's going to happen. Because, you know, nothing happened in the past.

I don't know why I'm feeding a troll, but I suppose it's too late now. By the way, don't allude to Pink Floyd, if that was your intention with "sunshine". You're not worthy.

Obligatory quote...

[rubberbando]

So long and thanks for all the fish...

Re:They seem to be forgetting something...

[Psychotria]

No? There are lots of examples of industries that have collapsed because of over exploitation. The fact is, the fishing industries probably don't care (or worry) about the collapse--they can worry about that once it does (the word "greed" comes to mind here).

Re:They seem to be forgetting something...

[victim]

I'm sure the passenger pigeons will be comforted by your unwavering faith in free markets.

Re:Harrumph

[MarkRose]

Sounds fishy to me.

No whale! It canned be true! They didn't just trawl this up, you know!

Anyone else get caught by this title...

[TEMMiNK]

and think this was about the future of the George Clooney franchise Ocean's ??. My first response was, Ocean's Empty, that's a weird title, and 2048... George would be like 100, how will that work? I have to admit I was a little disappointed by the actual topic. :(

Re:We know it's true

[Kohath]

Futurama: Future Stock

That Guy: Let's cut to the chase. There are two kinds of people: Sheep and sharks. Anyone who's a sheep is fired. Who's a sheep?

Zoidberg: Uh, excuse me? Which is the one people like to hug?

That Guy: Gutsy question. You're a shark. Sharks are winners and they don't look back 'cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep. [Everyone sinks down and covers their necks.] I am proud to be the shepherd of this herd of sharks and I am gonna lead you to the top in this industry

---
It's on topic because it happens in the future and Zoidberg is a shellfish.

Re:Harrumph

[Overly Critical Guy]

Scientists are skeptical of this, calling it "mind-boggling stupid."

replacing fish in my diet

[nido]

The U.S. Feral Government has been busy telling us that fish is healthy, and that we should eat at least a serving a week. This ignores problems like mercury and PCB contamination, not to mention severe overfishing of the world's oceans. Also, farmed salmon just doesn't taste right, and is an ecological disaster in progress to boot. Search for 'salmon sea lice' for information on how salmon farms in Canada infect their wild cousins with lice, devastating the wild salmon runs in certain areas.

I've stopped eating fish - partially because it's expensive to get good wild salmon, but mainly because I think I can do better for less of a financial outlay. I figure that fish are best eaten for their Omega-3 essential fatty acid, and I can get that fat elsewhere. I buy grass-fed beef from a family farmer, and omega-3 enriched eggs when I can't find any eggs from local farmers. The omega-3 enrichment in eggs typically comes from flax in the chicken feed.

I'm currently growing purslane in my Earthbox, and am working on some Perilla seedlings too. Both are high in omega 3 (in the form of alpha-linolenic acid [ALA]), and I plan on eating them as salad greens. (Summer heat kills plants in the desert, so fall/winter/spring are the best growing months.)

And if I ever start raising chickens, I can grow Perilla and Purslane as feed for home-grown DHA and EPA-enriched eggs (letting the chickens do the ALA->DHA/EPA conversion).

Re:replacing fish in my diet

[umbrellasd]

The U.S. Feral Government has been busy telling us

Gotcha! Poster plays a Druid in WoW! "Think of the Firefin Snappers!" he says. "Is there no love for the Oily Blackmouth?" he says. You're not fooling anyone. We know what you're really talking about!

Re:They seem to be forgetting something...

[Jeremi]

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.

If tuna fisherman could get $300 for every can of tuna they sold, I bet they'd be a lot more motivated to catch every last tuna they could find. How much do you suppose the last tuna on Earth (ever!) would sell for?

Sorry, I'm offtopic but

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to mention this. I thought this was some kind of promo for the last movie in "the series". Ocean's Empty. No? Sorry. I'll let myself out now.

Re:They seem to be forgetting something...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Economics has this concept called a "demand curve". Demand for tuna is elastic.

Try looking at it this way. With tuna at $300/can, the market for it is people who (1) can afford $300 for a can of food and (2) think tuna is the best way to spend the $300. A small fishing fleet would suffice to serve that kind of niche market.

Re:current trends

[Znork]

"That's the problem with systems as mind-bogglingly complex as the ocean: you can't count on current trends continuing."

It really isnt that complex. In some places, two decades ago, you could go out and fish for a few hours from, or nearby the shore, and have enough fish to eat for a week. In those exact same places you can now fish for a week and not have a single fish.

I mean, this isnt some nebulous long-term effect; if you're ever fishing for sport in areas affected, it's quite noticable, and within the timeframe of 'your dad took you fishing and it was fun and you got fish, now you can take your kids and fish for seaweed and jellyfish'.

"That's easy for me to say, though, as my family's well-being isn't tied to my success as a fisherman."

Yes, well, I really pity anyone whose well-being is tied to being a fisherman. Many will be faced with the unpalatable choice of failing because of regulation or failing because there simply is no fish to catch. For many, success just isnt on the menu anymore. Just like fish.

I saw a decrease...

[zogger]

.......commercial fishing in two periods of time, separated by roughly a decade. The level of decrease in fish stocks I personally saw was astounding. And this was quite some time ago, I can't imagine it has gotten any better.

It really helps to get a handle on this if you stop thinking of it as fishing, and no, I am not kidding. Just a little mental trick works well. Switch the term from fishing to "oceanic market hunting", then go back and look in history what market hunting did to wild terrestrial animal species, passenger pigeon, bison, migratory wildfowl, the dodo, etc. It did not take long historically speaking to see humongous stock depletion. Ocean fishing is market hunting, it will have the same effect eventually, there's no way around it. The time frame may be arguable, but the effect won't if let to go on like it is now, because there will be demand, even if it is only from the top 2% of thee wealthiest. I mean, they used to serve *plovers tongues* in restaurants. That's the sort of goofy market pressure that can happen, all the way to extinction or near extinction.

    The only way we managed to even remotely save a lot of terrestrial species was with a total ban on wild game hunting for commercial purposes(I will only speak of the US now I really don't have much knowledge of this from other countries). We have personal sport hunting now and that has worked with a lot of good game management in place, and that only came about from enough people noticing "hey, where did all the animals go to???" It was an almost too late collective "duh" moment, and one would hope we have a bit more data and scientific sophistication to work with now than we did in the late 1800s. And even with game management laws in place, some times desperate times can negate those factors. If you go back and look at the great depression era, some species that are in good shape suffered near total collapse, eastern white tailed deer got hunted to severely low levels back then, even though the laws were there, desperately poor people just had to eat, so they did, and the laws were just flaunted.

I agree with another poster above, in the oceans, trawling is responsible because it is so deadly efficient in killing a lot of animals. In the US they used to allow "punt guns" for waterfowl hunting, basically short barreled boat-mounted small cannon, very efficient in harvestng ducks, so efficient that during market hunting times they about wiped out some species in short order, they had to be banned outright, and now shotguns are limited to 10 gauge maximum size. I think we as humans are going to need to address this sort of thing with wild ocean hunting of fish if we don't want to suffer the same fate we did with the land animals. Heck, there has to be some more older New England and Candian slashdotters here who can remember when cod was dirt cheap in the store, I mean rdiculous cheap, I sure can, because they were so abundant, and there were still a lot of other species that were abundant so cod was considered a second tier-class fish, now it ain't so, and cod is now in a decline state and expensive.

Re:They seem to be forgetting something...

[jbuda123]

Ack! No!!! If the price increases to $300/can because of some government intervention to put a floor under prices (the way they do/have done for many crops) then yes, it will lead to more fishing. But the price isn't increasing because of this - it's increasing specifically because there are fewer fish, meaning it now takes almost $300 to CATCH a can of fish! In a well functioning market with low barriers to entry like tuna catching, the marginal price roughly equals the marginal cost. Which means the profit on a $300 can of tuna is going to be roughly what it is on a $3 can of tuna, which is to say probably a few cents. So given that almost NO ONE will buy $300 tuna, I'm not seeing a lot of money in the $300/can tuna industry.

Don't accuse other people of failing economics when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Slashdot car analogy.

[TapeCutter]

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".