Slashdot Mirror
Overfishing Responsible For Declining Fish Population (theguardian.com)
iONiUM send word of a new study into fishing practices around the world that found official reports have dramatically underestimated the number of fish caught over the past several decades. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, global catches peaked at 86 million tons in 1996, and began a slow decline after that. This study suggests the peak was much higher — around 130 million tons — and subsequent catch rates are falling three times faster. Significantly, they believe the decline is not due to less fishing activity, but rather the exhaustion of supply in many areas. One of the study's authors, Daniel Pauly, said, "I expect a continued decline because I don’t expect countries to realise the need to rebuild stocks. I don’t see African countries, for example, rebuilding their stocks, or being allowed to by the foreign fleets that are working there, because the pressure to continue to fish is very strong. We know how to fix this problem but whether we do it or not depends on conditions that are difficult."
Overeating responsible for obesity.
Summation 2
Teach a man to not fish (too much), and you feed him for many lifetimes.
Eat vegans instead
Instead be part of the bigger problem and pollute. You didn't think vegetables caused less pollution than certain livestock, did you?
Plus not everybody can simply just "go vegan".
Contribute to the declining fish populations with excessive fertilizer runoff!
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
More people eat more. 7 Bellion people eat alot more. I do not see this ending well.
Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and the oceans will eventually be depleted.
No, they spent money measuring something we already knew about more carefully to better determine the magnitude of change.
Otherwise they'd just call it "fishing."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
>> Overfishing Responsible For Declining Fish Population
What? You mean UNDERfishing didn't cause it? (File under "no shit, who gives a shit" next time, eh?)
[nt]
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
A vegan killing himself could help the environment, but he would have a bigger impact if he kill two or more other people. Do you think that vegan should do that?
Plus not everybody can simply just "go vegan".
Not only is going vegan stupid from a physiological standpoint (the fact is, our brains couldn't have evolved the way they did without meat; the fact that we could get away with eating vegetables came later after we selectively bred them to have a high enough energy density, and no vegan anywhere ever could survive off of truly wild plants) but some people have dietary needs that just can't work on a vegan diet. For example, if you're on dialysis, going vegan is practically a long drawn out suicide.
No thank you. I'll take my extra-large sirloin at Western Sizzler medium well, please. With A1 steak sauce to go with it (ducks).....
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Yeah, let's get larger and larger factory ships which are capable of staying at sea longer and process the catch directly. Let's also implement massive drag nets that also destroy the sea bed, coral and any other habitable environment for fish nurseries and you'll have massive extinction areas which are already forming. Great job progress! Winning!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
We know how to fix this problem.
The implication is that we should dial back fishing in order to let the stocks replenish.
Which means, hypothetically, you need to take all the fishing boat owners in, say, Boston Harbor and say "30% of you have to stop fishing".
And with no plan for what to do with the out-of-work owners and their families and some deck hands and their families. Just "stop fishing", that's how to fix the problem.
We actually *don't* know know to fix the problem. We *should* ease up on fishing, but that presents other problems which must then be fixed.
Studying overfishing is done by scientists, not fishermen. That should cover the STEM part. With better data on overfishing, we can make better policies, based on science, to try to reverse the problem. It was technological advances (sonar, etc) that allowed the cod fishery in eastern canadian waters to be overfished to the point that it collapsed.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
click to find out what is wetterer!
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
No thank you. I'll take my extra-large sirloin at Western Sizzler medium well, please.
Eh, sirloin gets too tough above medium. A decent cut of sirloin cooked medium rare/medium can be almost as tender (albeit a bit fattier and more than likely a bit of gristle) as a filet, and is much cheaper. Really though to eat any steak above medium is a crime.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Soon the amount plastic floating in the oceans* will exceed the mass of live fish - eat the plastic and if that does not work, GMO yourself so it works out.
*) Google is your ....
There is no such a thing as "bleeding obvious". Overfishing *does* cause decline in fishing population, but one must ascertain the such "overfishing" did occur. The cause could be some other thing, though, like global warming. BTW, what is bleeding obvious for some is not for everyone, so I had to tell many people where I live that *anthropogenic* global warming is not the "bleeding obvious".
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
You didn't think vegetables caused less pollution than certain livestock, did you?
Yes, a vegan diet, which is based mostly on legumes and grains, produces much less pollution than a meat based diet.
No, that would intrude on others' rights. But I do believe in the right of any mentally competent adult to commit suicide--should they choose to NOT be a selfish asshole who doesn't care about the earth, that is.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Cows are vegans, so that cheeseburger I'm about to have is part of the solution.
Soylent green?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not entirely. The argument goes that cattle produce a lot more methane than does average human. However, when humans become vegans, they also see a massive increase in passing gas and a much higher percentage is methane.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Hmmmmm....might have to try that....thanks! :)
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
I did have a lot of cats but then I got sick of vegetables...
CLASSIFIED : Soylent Oceanographic Survey Report, 2015 to 2019
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
And therein lies the difference of scientific method vs the GOP approach of 'common sense'. GOP, and other conservatives, will tell you that common sense proves there are plenty of stocks in the oceans and that climate is not changing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Brilliant. Too bad overcooking your steak won't do a goddamn thing about any prions you're worried about.
How feasible would it be to seriously upscale fish farming efforts to large numbers for the stocks people want to eat? And is the taste about the same?
Vegans taste like fish, or chicken?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Didn't some group just recently lose their shit about the amount of water used to grow vegetables in CA?
Accused the farmers of some kind of environmental crimes or something. Where do these Vegans think their veggies will come from?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
My guess would be lamb, venison, maybe bear depending on diet.
Time to offend someone
The argument goes that cattle produce a lot more methane than does average human.
Yes, they do, by a factor of over 100. Most of it comes from burps, not farts.
However, when humans become vegans, they also see a massive increase in passing gas
It would be more accurate to say they see a slight increase in passing gas.
If you are concerned about fertilizer runoff, you could go organic.
Being an overweight, warcraft-obsessed shut-in was definitely the better choice.
Contribute to the declining fish populations with excessive fertilizer runoff!
There are number of other causes that contribute to declining fish populations.One problem is massive corruption with subsequent underreporting of catches which is something only aggressive law enforcement can solve. Then there are pirate fleets that operate in international waters which means that coastal state do not have the authority to put an end to their activities. This is particularly bad because many fish stocks migrate in and out of the economic exclusion zones of coastal states where they can be protected by armed coastguard vessels, patrol aircraft, drones, satellite system and into international waters where the pirates have free reign and that is where the truly alarming overfishing happens. One possible solution to this is to either dramatically expand the economic exclusion zones of coastal states or to put together some sort of international patrol force drawn from the navies of multiple nations. Either way if fish stocks are allowed to collapse completely it may not be possible to reconstruct the damaged ecosystems so the sooner something is done the better. Whoever is tasked with regulating fisheries in international waters, particularly when it comes to pirate fleets had better have permission to carry a big stick and use it liberally. By that I mean board offending pirate fishing vessels, have them sailed to the nearest harbor by a prize crew and sell the boats for scrap or in some other way take them out of the hands of pirates permanently. Another thing that could be done would be to prosecute the 'respectable' investors that bankroll the pirate fleets. It would also help to get governments off their ass if environmental activists stopped worrying about a few whalers in the North Atlantic killing miniscule numbers of whales (this small time whaling will die out soon enough anyway because the whale meat is so full of toxic gunk that in a couple of decades it won't be fit for human consumption) and put their energy into ferreting out the money men that finance the pirate fleets finger them publicly. There is nothing that works better on governments than shaming them into action. The damage done by these people and their fleets is many orders of magnitude greater than the damage that is being done by whalers today or bands of hunters in the arctic catching seals for furs.
It has been a while, but I read something from a proponent of insects in the diet. The argument was that the additional farming to provide necessary protein for vegans/vegetarians caused more pollution and harmed more "traditionally-feeling" animals than eating insects as your protein. He stated that insects don't process and feel pain in the way that traditional meat sources do and that vegans would be environmentally and ethically better off using insects for protein. I wasn't particularly interested so I didn't fact check, but it seemed plausible.
Hmmmmm....might have to try that....thanks! :)
If you do try it, try it at a place you are familiar with and know the quality of their meat. A not so good quality sirloin will be tough at medium/medium rare because it can have a lot of gristle.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I think there the key is to know where it comes from, how it is handled, what they are fed, how they are kept. I know where my meat comes from, I have to pay the farmer for my share and then pay the processor for the processing. Having gone to both since I was a child I know how they operate and what to expect. I spent a lot of time out at that farm and now my kids like seeing where next years meals are coming from. I have been around back at the processor for years bringing in wild game for processing as it is cheap enough to pay a professional and get the best usage instead of the hatched job I would do.
Small operators like that know if they screw up their customers will up and leave and never come back as there are other good processors and farmers out there. A few years back they even had fun with the whole "Pink Slime" issue putting up a big banner out from stating "Pink Slime free since '71". There is a night and day difference in the quality I get from them and what I find elsewhere For example when I was in college and eating the dorm food I would get a bone chip in the burger patty and I found this really odd as I had never had this happen yet it happened all the time. Also I the beef there always lacked flavor but I figured it was because they cooked the crap out of it. Then I lived outside of my state for about a year and didn't have access and found out that while they did cook the shit out of it grocery store meat does suck even when cooked correctly.
Time to offend someone
Sounds like its time for a naval force that just simply sinks pirate fishing fleets. The navies of the major military powers could use such fleets for target practice, maybe even the odd nuclear bomb test.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Not only is going vegan stupid from a physiological standpoint (the fact is, our brains couldn't have evolved the way they did without meat; the fact that we could get away with eating vegetables came later after we selectively bred them to have a high enough energy density, and no vegan anywhere ever could survive off of truly wild plants) but some people have dietary needs that just can't work on a vegan diet. For example, if you're on dialysis, going vegan is practically a long drawn out suicide.
Non-sequitur. Whether or not our brains could have evolved the way did without meat (baloney), has nothing to do with whether or not being a vegan now is "stupid from a physiological standpoint."
Commonly eaten vegetables cause less pollution than commonly eaten livestock. Yes, veganism is an absolute position, but it doesn't claim to be better for the environment 100% of the time. It's a heuristic that is better maybe 90% of the time. Eating imported palm oil is probably worse for the environment than eating locally sourced crickets and mealworms. But honesty, who does that? People who complain about vegans actually want to eat stuff like bacon hamburgers and shit, and you are going to have a hard time cherrypicking results that claim THAT is better for the environment.
I propose they try. What's the worst that could happen if they fail?
Hmm....Good point.
It's either 30% lose a job, or 100% lose a job when fish go extinct. The appeal to emotion jerking is pointless in the face of this little detail.
I agree with your logic, but not the conclusion.
Appeals to emotion are what convinces people. For some reason, logic and evidence don't seem to be very persuasive in real life, so I'm trying to branch out into emotional appeals to see what effect that has. It seems to work in the MSM for various subjects.
(As for example, the recent article showing the number of excess deaths caused by the VW emissions scandal, which is dwarfed by the number of excess deaths due to invasive airport screening, which is higher and has gone on for much longer.)
In any event, "solving the problem" will take more than a blanket statement "just reduce fishing".
Hopefully we can point out the difficulties, and maybe researchers will put more thought into the total problem instead of focusing on narrow issues.
Perhaps the government could pay fishermen not to fish, in the manner that it used to pay certain farmers not to grow certain crops? There's some logic to this: the fishermen incur less cost if they don't have to take their boats out, so the government would have to pay somewhat less than their gross catch worth.
There are no dietary needs that cannot work on a vegan diet, because chemically, it is possible to extract all necessary nutrients from plants and bacteria. Ok, but how realistic is that? Well, for a lot of people, you can just buy such things. Suppose one in ten thousand cannot practically be vegan for some true physiological reason, and one in ten cannot be vegan for some socio-economic reason. Is that really an argument against others going vegan?
The wild plants thing is irrelevant, because we invented this thing called agriculture.
Pretty much sums up what a "tragedy of the commons" is. Only fix is cooperation and regulation. Not holding breath.
Non-sequitur. Whether or not our brains could have evolved the way did without meat (baloney), has nothing to do with whether or not being a vegan now is "stupid from a physiological standpoint."
First of all, there's no scientific reason that one should avoid meat (with the exception of meats cured with nitrites.)
Second of all, it's not baloney. We were hunter-gatherers long before we began planting crops. Before we began planting crops, plants that we consumed just didn't have the energy density that they do today. Not only that but wild plants just don't have the micronutrients needed for our own survival, as our livers aren't capable of producing 8 required amino acids, and most plants don't have enough vitamins B12, A, D Iron, and Zinc, and wild plants especially don't. Most importantly however, is that plants lack creatine, which is why brain development in the early days wouldn't have been possible.
Whitepapers:
http://journals.cambridge.org/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Also essential for muscle growth:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
So there you have it, three well cited sources for why it's bad from a physiological standpoint.
While I'm sure PETA propaganda says otherwise, but PETA is definitely wrong, likewise so are you.
In fact, if you want a wake up call for why vegetarians can't survive on wild plants, look here:
https://www.geneticliteracypro...
They did teach that lion to eat to tofu, though.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Feeding livestock takes more resources then eating plants directly.
This is certainly true from a purely thermodynamic perspective. However, it should be noted that, in some circumstances, livestock grazing requires less labor, equipment, and energy than crop farming, and can be performed with climates and terrains where crop farming might be difficult or impossible. For the individual food producer, then, there may not always be much of a choice as to whether to be a farmer or a rancher--it's often a foregone conclusion.
Is that really an argument against others going vegan?
No, that's their choice. However telling others to (typically in the interest of a PETA style moral crusade) is dumb for the same reason that Scientology is dumb.
I heard an interesting talk not long ago where the claim was that eating bacon (actually all pork products) is better for the environment then some veggies such as lettuce and especially cows and sheep. Chicken was another meat that was potentially much more environmentally friendly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
When the europeans first arrived on the shores of the United States, there was a climax hardwood forest from near the coast west to the Mississippi River valley. That was all cut down.
In the central US the topsoil was 30 to 50 feet deep. Erosion and poor resource management has reduced that to a few inches. Also the undergound aquifers were so full that and individual could dig a well by hand that would provide enough water for a homestead. Today you have to drill down 2500 feet or deeper to find water. It took a very long time to build up the topsoil (10,000 to 12,000 years) and fill the aquifers (eons) and humanity has used all that up in just 200 years.
I really hate to think what we are leaving our grandchildren.
Straw man: I never said there was a "scientific reason" to avoid meat. As an aside (not the point of my original response), there are certainly moral reasons and sustainability reasons. You continue to support your non-sequitur. Whether or not our brains would have evolved this way without consuming meat (baloney or not) has NOTHING to do with whether it is feasible now (ie not "stupid from a physiological standpoint"). And your wild plants rant also has nothing to do with the feasibility. Full disclosure: I am NOT a vegan.
And not be part of the problem.
I buy all my meat from the grocery store where no animals were harmed. They also don't cause any of the fertilizer run off that farms do, or take up all of that land. It's much more sustainable. ;-)
There are wild plants that supply most nutritional requirements. Take wild hemp seed, has all the vital amino acids, all the essential oils, as well as most B vitamins. For energy density there are various wild roots as well as nuts that pack a lot of energy and many wild greens are much higher in vitamins and minerals then cultivated greens. Cultivated plants such as head lettuce are mostly water with generations of selective breeding for looks rather then nutrition. Even tomatoes have suffered from the selective breeding to make them good lookers and shippers rather then tasty and nutritious.
Vitamin D and creatine are synthesized in our bodies.
As for meat, most people eat more then they need and it would be more sustainable to switch away from cows and sheep to pigs and chickens or even better, insects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
And that reason is?
Go ahead, do tell.
Because the point you may be missing is that telling other people things is part of communication, and that can include instructions. Sure, some people can say dumb things, but that's no reason to go all dumb and clap your hands over your ears and hear nothing.
Especially since even the dumbest person can be right sometimes. That little boy was eaten by a wolf. Which leads to the question of why the villagers left a boy out there they didn't trust to watch the sheep.
While our bodies create D and creative, you can't reliably get enough from plants. As the three white papers noted, vegetarians are more often than not deficient in both.
Anyways, agreed about the cow thing, but a better (also tastier) substitute for beef is ostrich:
http://cronkitezine.asu.edu/fa...
Bleh stupid autocorrect, meant creatine.
Says who?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The fish.
Have gnu, will travel.
And people who don't eat enough vegetables often suffer from malnutrition in other ways.
Actually that's not true:
http://inhumanexperiment.blogs...
Though if you do it wrong you'll run into problems. The Inuit survived by consuming large amounts of blubber.
In fact, gout is on the rise.
I have gout caused by stage 4 CKD, which itself is from IgA Nephropathy. Or rather, I was stage 4 until a few weeks ago. My albuminuria showed up negative in recent routine blood tests, so my nephrologist had me stop ACEi therapy. As a result, creatinine clearance increased to mid-stage 3 numbers (about 45.) Still though, in order to avoid gout, kidney function needs to be well above 60.
I actually eat very little meat, by the way, which is a stipulation for anybody who is stage 4. The reason why is because a byproduct of protein (any protein, including plant protein) is ammonia, which is otherwise toxic, however your liver converts that into the inert molecule urea. Having more of that in your blood means more work for your kidneys, so you solve that by limiting protein intake. However that still doesn't stop a buildup of blood-urea nitrogen, or uric acid, which causes gout. My last blood work showed my uric acid at 12mg/dl, which is twice the upper normal range, and hence I've begun taking a xanthine oxidase inhibitor.
However now that my filtration is up, I can increase protein intake, and it won't make the medication any less effective.
Somebody who goes into complete renal failure however needs to consume LOTS of meat, far more than the typical person in fact, which itself is the result of dialysis leaching protein from your blood. As I mentioned earlier, it's practically impossible for somebody to be vegan while on dialysis (many try, but ultimately don't succeed.)
The claim was probably something like it takes less resources to produce one calorie of pork than it takes to produce a calorie of lettuce. I wouldn't be very surprised if that's true. Nobody eats lettuce for the calories. Lettuce is practically water. Now do a comparison for grains or potatoes vs meat.
Or just to get back on topic, fish!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
It's not just that but stupid legislation that causes by-catch to be thrown overboard instead of being used. Say a boat goes out and has a quota for fish A and in the process they catch a bunch of other fish too. Of course that's going to happen since the nets don't discriminate. Now in the EU if they land with that other fish it counts against them even if they can't do anything with it so they have to get rid of it. All that fish has been killed for nothing. Something should be worked out so that the fish can be used and the fisher isn't penalized too harshly (assuming that they by-catch isn't too much which might indicate that they went out looking for it instead of what they were supposed to be).
This is not going to play well in the 'blame everything on globul warming' circles.
Hey, back in 79, we (those of use working at CDC) did not know what was causing Kuru/CJD. At the time, we thought that heating that better cooking would kill whatever it was (back then, it was assumed to be an unknown virus or possibly a protein ). When Dr. Prusiner gave a talk and suggested that decent heating of the meat SHOULD kill the entity, even though he said the ionizing radiation had mixed effects (which said that it was small. very small). So, I got into the habit of doing this. Simple as that. Besides, there is more than just prions out there. So, I make sure that I go with decent meat companies before eating it rare.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Oh.... Ha.
What gives a fish any right to say what humans are "supposed" to do?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'