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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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