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.

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: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

[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?

Obligatory quote...

[rubberbando]

So long and thanks for all the fish...

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).

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.

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.