Slashdot Mirror


A Global Fish War is Coming, Warns US Coast Guard (usni.org)

schwit1 shares an article from the U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine. It includes this warning from the Coast Guard's chief of fisheries law enforcement: Nearly two decades into the 21st Century, it has become clear the world has limited resources and the last area of expansion is the oceans. Battles over politics and ideologies may be supplanted by fights over resources as nations struggle for economic and food security. These new conflicts already have begun -- over fish... In 1996, Canada and Spain almost went to war over the Greenland turbot. Canada seized Spanish vessels it felt were fishing illegally, but Spain did not have the same interpretation of the law and sent gunboats to escort its ships. In 1999, a U.S. Coast Guard cutter intercepted a Russian trawler fishing in the U.S. exclusive economic zone. The lone cutter was promptly surrounded by 19 Russian trawlers. Fortunately, the Russian Border Guard and the Coast Guard drew on an existing relationship and were able to defuse the situation...

Japan protested 230 fishing vessels escorted by seven China Coast Guard ships entering the waters of the disputed Senkaku Islands. Incidents in the South China Sea between the Indonesian Navy and Chinese fishing vessels and China Coast Guard have escalated to arrests, ramming, and warning shots leading experts to suggest only navies and use of force can stop the IUU fishing... The United States needs to show it is serious about protecting sustainable fisheries and international rule of law. It needs a fleet that not only will provide a multilateral cooperation platform, but also take action against vessels and fleets that are unwilling to cooperate... If cooperation cannot be achieved, the United States should prepare for a global fish war.

When I read "fish war," I was imagining it more like this.

192 comments

  1. Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The United States needs to show it is serious about protecting sustainable fisheries and international rule of law." Right. Change that to protecting its own interests, and international rule of law where it benefits self. As history has shown time and again.

    So, please, don't try to play just and rightful, it has not worked for America for many decades.

    1. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are neglecting to take into account the political conservatives (a.k.a. "idiots") in power who claim the world is not overpopulated and abortion is bad.

    2. Re:Protecting its own interests by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      This is just more World Police bullshit. The world doesn't need America to bully its way across the planet. If you think American violence solves problems think again.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Protecting its own interests by Z00L00K · · Score: 1, Funny

      Solution: Don't eat fish. Don't eat meat, while we are at it - don't eat.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and the rest of the world has fared SO MUCH better without them in the past. That seems very short sighted in your comment. You now know the reason they chose "America First" and you attacked them for that as well. Make up your mind.

    5. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We're being told the Western demographic is undergoing a population decline, so apparently we figured this out already. What's the response from the Left? Open borders so groups of people who HAVEN'T figured this out yet can come flooding in and reintroduce the problem.

      You guys are absolute bastions of hypocrisy and ignorance.

    6. Re:Protecting its own interests by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The idea that you can beat the differential equations describing large population dynamics with trying to convince individuals is preposterous to begin with.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Protecting its own interests by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      International stability is good for business. Rule of law is good for business. America probably still prefers working economy, sometimes even at its own non-financial expense. That said, the happy times of eating wild fish are rapidly ending.

    9. Re:Protecting its own interests by Wycliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea that you can beat the differential equations describing large population dynamics with trying to convince individuals is preposterous to begin with.

      No, but conservation efforts do work. Deer and Turkey in the USA are a perfect example. At one point they were practically extinct but regulating seasons has helped them come back in record numbers. On the extreme side, outlawing fish consumption in the USA would certainly reduce the global fish demand. Much more moderate options like outlawing wild caught fish, certain species, certain species from certain countries, etc... would also likely work to some extent.

      But I agree that trusting consumers to always do the right thing is likely not going to work. Although everyone thinks they want to save the environment, it's much harder for an individual to pay $10/pound for sustainable fish each week when they can get unsustainable fish for $5/pound.

    10. Re:Protecting its own interests by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it isn't. It is sensationalist headline bullshit.

      The article -- which is very good -- is referring to enforcing international agreements about fishing in U.S. exclusive economic zones (EEZ). According to the various international agreements on the seas, fishing, etc. -- it is up to the boundary nation to take care of these things.

      It points out the China not only frequently fishes near U.S. borders (among other locations), they haven't ratified key U.N. agreements on international fishing. They are also aggressively using their military to protect illegal fishing in other nation's territorial waters (Indonesia & the Philippines comes to mind). Let's not forget manufacturing artificial islands so they can use them as a basis for territorial claims. (South China Sea)

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    11. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Solution: Don't eat fish.

      There are plenty of fish species that are harvested responsibly. Learn which they are. As a general rule, eating small fish is better than eating big fish.

      Good choices:
      Catfish
      Tilapia
      Wild Pacific salmon
      Pacific cod
      Trout

      Bad choices:
      Atlantic cod
      Bluefin Tuna
      Rockfish
      Atlantic halibut
      Swordfish
      Shark

      Many of the big bad fish also have a lot of mercury, and should be avoided even if you don't care about overfishing.

      Seafood Watch Consumer Guide

    12. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just more World Police bullshit. The world doesn't need America to bully its way across the planet. If you think American violence solves problems think again.

      HA HA!

      You been bitch-slapped!

    13. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > What's the response from the Left?

      If you're talking about Left/Right or even Capitalists/Communists, you're already out of sync, and a tool for the obscurity forces (by definition, evil).

      The world is not like that anymore. Ecology, once a matter for zealots, is now a matter of survival -- not just the survival of mankind, but in a few years our own survival as individuals. Can you imagine a real war over fish? Some 20 years ago that would be science fiction stuff.

      Don't be stupid, thinking this will be cheap, because it won't. People would die. I have warned about Irak, and the idiots in charge decided to fsck up things anyway.

      TFA> "It needs a fleet that not only will provide a multilateral cooperation platform, but also take action against vessels and fleets that are unwilling to cooperate... If cooperation cannot be achieved, the United States should prepare for a global fish war."

      Are you dumb or what? This was my thinking when I was 5~8 year old and my brother has shown that such thing does not work. Think about why you have to lie when abroad and state you're Canadian instead of American.

      Cooperate means "operate together". That means nobody gets to call the shots; rather, teams work so that everybody wins (well, except the fish, that is). Forced cooperation is no cooperation -- that is called being a jerk.

      We have a worldwide problem. And if you don't adapt, but insist on your dumb ways, soon the Chinese and the Indians will want their fair share -- which means they'll want as much things per capita as Americans have... including fish. Of course, that won't work in our overpopulated world.

      You may be able to force everyone into slavery and live well -- provided you can live with the idea of being bad. The problem is when someone else wins and you get to be the slaves, and all those pesky things like e.g. not having enough protein for your children.

      Protecting American insterests is protecting the world interests. Either we all win or we all lose; there's no win-lose scenario.

    14. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget manufacturing artificial islands so they can use them as a basis for territorial claims. (South China Sea)

      Which has been rejected by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the rules of UNCLOS, which China is a signatory to:

      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China

      Of course Chine rejected the ruling, but that doesn't nullify the ruling's legal validity.

    15. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea- but the reality is unsustainable fishing should lead to sustainable fishing because anything else means ones livelihood is doomed. The free market may create a self-rectifying problem. The more expensive it becomes to fish (because there are less fish) the quicker people will develop sustainable fish repositories to raise fish. It isn't necessarily the case that government has to step in to solve every problem. A truly free market has the potential to do that as well. We don't have a truly free market in the United States and probably anywhere. I don't object to regulations against dumping toxic waste into our environment or similar. Any action of a business or individual that causes violence can be criminalized (to a degree) and/or regulated. However a lot of regulations are for "safety" and there is merely a risk involved. Dumping toxic waste is going to impact more than just you. I'm not sure depleting fish stocks would qualify as violence against others. Not being able to harvest fish because others have already done so is not violence even if it isn't in your or the majority's best interest. However that doesn't mean there aren't business opportunities that can resolve his problem that are short of government regulation or involvement.

    16. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have warned about Irak, and the idiots in charge decided to fsck up things anyway."

      I'm surprised they didn't have you brief the top brass. What were they thinking with a resource like you available?

    17. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia much?

    18. Re:Protecting its own interests by Wycliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The free market may create a self-rectifying problem. The more expensive it becomes to fish (because there are less fish) the quicker people will develop sustainable fish repositories to raise fish.

      This does work to a certain extent. When commercial fishing becomes unprofitable or more expensive than farmed fishing then it will stop. The problem with this approach is that it requires a depletion of fish to a level where they may go extinct. It's not enough to stop when there are no more fish. You need to stop *BEFORE* there are no more fish unless you really think that having an ocean devoid of fish is a good thing. Passenger pigeons were once so plentiful that they darkened the sky. Humans didn't kill every last one of them but they killed enough that the numbers couldn't recover. Another example would be corn. A single stalk of corn can't survive on its own. It needs enough other corn stalks around so that it overpowers its predators. Every species has a minimal viable number that is required for the species to survive. If you cross below that level, even if you stop killing them, they will still die out.

    19. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure I see there is a territorial fishing war. But it is difficult to deny that most of the fish are gone. Commercial fishing over the last century or so has devistated ocean stocks. Most populations I have seen examined are always like 1% to 3% left of stocks compared to 150 years ago, or as few as 75 years ago. Once you fish all of the fish, there are no more fish; once fish are gone, they can be expected to be gone for good like any other species driven to extinction by humans depleating resources, leaving nothing for future generations of these species to keep a foot-hold on existing. And it isn't hunger, or need, but it is greed that is driving this. If there would be a war, I think it would have to be responsible nations trying to prevent the immature and irresponsible nations from grabbing the last of what is there at the expense of any possible fish population recovering to any level that could sustain fishing them.

    20. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless you literally know the fisherman this won't work. You're basically fighting multinationals seeking to suck out maximum profit in minimum time, screw the future. At best you'll get a blip in the ongoing destruction until they figure out how to redefine the terms of the game - see for example "recycled" paper* or "free-range" eggs**. The only way to win in a game like this is to not play: keep the fish (and meat) for special occasions, source it carefully (it will cost more) and stick to a largely vegetarian diet the rest of the time.

      *When you say recycled paper people imagine it has been used, collected and reprocessed, but these days most of it is just the ends of rolls and offcuts fed back into the mill before they even leave the factory floor. Actual recycled paper has been relabelled post-consumer recycled paper. Most people don't know this (surprise surprise, it isn't advertised) so they buy the regular, pointless kind at an inflated price and get little more than the feel-good factor.

      **You might visualise happy chickens pecking in verdant fields of green, but in reality it is defined as a stocking ratio just short (or not) of outright cruelty.

    21. Re:Protecting its own interests by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      The free market does solve this. The best known solution to the tragedy of an open-access commons is to create property rights, then get out of the way and allow the free market to work.

      As that's a solution which has already been successfully implemented several times to solve this exact fishing problem with trade-able Individual Vessal Quotas (IVQ). It's also been used to solve similar wildlife/game animals issues by selling the animals to private owners.

      Notice that nobody thinks we're going to run out of cows or chickens anytime soon in the world, yet they are slaughtered for more and more food every year!

      So how about we continue to try more of the solutions which have actually worked to avert these types of fishing conflicts?

      It shouldn't shock anyone that this article, written by the Coast Guard, happens to emphasize that by-the-way the Coast Guard should be given lots more ships and money to enforce regulations as the solution to the outlined problem. Next up, we'll read about how the Air Force believes we're going to need lots more air planes and pilots and support staff for the next big global conflict.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    22. Re:Protecting its own interests by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Not enough, actually.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    23. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an AC can know things your _top_ brass does not, how "top" are they really? And where do you think you are going next? Good luck, if you think it's been bad, you're in for some surprises... the kind of which most are f3d up.

    24. Re:Protecting its own interests by bravecanadian · · Score: 1

      We're being told the Western demographic is undergoing a population decline, so apparently we figured this out already. What's the response from the Left? Open borders so groups of people who HAVEN'T figured this out yet can come flooding in and reintroduce the problem.

      You guys are absolute bastions of hypocrisy and ignorance.

      Until our economic system is changed, we don't have a choice. It has nothing to do with left and right, you dummy.

    25. Re: Protecting its own interests by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I wonder if recycled paper actually isn't that here (Sweden) were lots actually get recycled. I assume some fiber won't cut it though.

      They even want to recycle metal from crematoris:
      Here your new braces - formley grandma's hip - unlikely titanium but ..

    26. Re:Protecting its own interests by martinX · · Score: 1

      Both sides seem intent on doing this, though each side will say it's for a different reason. Each side also proposes a different sort of 'open border', i.e. who it is open to.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    27. Re: Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if recycled paper actually isn't that here (Sweden) were lots actually get recycled. I assume some fiber won't cut it though.

      Not sure. I can only really speak from an Australian standpoint, and dodgy practices abound here. For example there was a recent fire in Melbourne at a recycling plant that took *weeks* to put out thanks to the backlog of recyclables with nowhere to go, and for a while there was another paper recycling plant that had "accidental" fires with monotonous regularity. Personally I still recycle on the basis that a finite possibility of a positive outcome beats a guarantee of a negative but you have to wonder what the point is sometimes.

      They even want to recycle metal from crematoris:
      Here your new braces - formley grandma's hip - unlikely titanium but ..

      lol actually I wouldn't have a problem with that: it's just metal after all. That said the whole funeral industry is a bit of an environmental monster: most times your choices are cremation (mucho CO2 emissions) or burial, which would be just fine if the coffin was allowed to be made out of plain, unlined timber rather than a pointlessly ornate, sealed, lined monolith. Personally I'd like a shroud and a burial somewhere all that fertiliser could do some good, but I'm odd that way.

    28. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good demonstration of why the whole left/right divide is outdated to the point of meaninglessness and needs to die. I'm pro-environment but anti-immigration. Economically (and in most things) I take the view that the best solution is usually a compromise, so somewhere between frothing small-government, free-market extremism and counter-productive, historically discredited over-regulation. And I believe people should be free to do as they will if it doesn't impinge on the lives of others... including freedom of sexual orientation. So tell me: am I left or right?

    29. Re: Protecting its own interests by aliquis · · Score: 1

      most times your choices are cremation (mucho CO2 emissions) or burial

      How much relative a whole life in a western society?
      Sweden had the second most crematories / capita after Japan before. We're always so progressive like that.

      But since we mass-import Muslims whose religion forbid that I guess that may change. Because we are progressive as that ..

      Sweden; Hell on earth.

      There's this ~local iron-age burial field out on an island no-one live on. I figure my ashes could be there just as those others. Lots of anemones in the spring, no maintenance.

    30. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malthus, Malthus, to the red courtesy phone, please.

    31. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, first - Tilapia is a trash fish. We used to throw it out. Because it is a trash fish. It is only eaten because there are declining stocks of good fish. Next, most fish taste like crap and many contain mercury. Save mercury. Eat more mercury. No thanks.

      Wild Pacific Salmon you say? Good luck. Lots of fish are sold as that. Most of it is farmed crap that is awful for the environment. I'm not going out on the fishing boat to prove it was wild pacific salmon. To me (I am a super taster - look that up) it tastes awful anyway. Pacific cod? Yeah. OK, you might get some of that. It also might be atlantic haddock. Fish sales are FILLED with fakes. Look up all the stories on it.

    32. Re: Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the typical Trump voter.

    33. Re: Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of your solutions can work on a international stage.
      We could limit or even eliminate wild caught fish all we want, and likely other countries would applaud the additional fish we were leaving available to them.
      It's almost like the coast guard actually knew what it was taking about.

    34. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The game is broken if there is one player refusing to respect the rules.

    35. Re:Protecting its own interests by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

      None of this discussion had anything to do with left or right. You guys are absolute bastions of stupidity and annoyance.

    36. Re: Protecting its own interests by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      You didn't read the links, did you? The ones which talked about the International arrangements creating the private property rights...

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    37. Re:Protecting its own interests by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      "The United States needs to show it is serious about protecting sustainable fisheries and international rule of law." Right. Change that to protecting its own interests, and international rule of law where it benefits self. As history has shown time and again.

      So, please, don't try to play just and rightful, it has not worked for America for many decades.

      Of course we are. Canadians do the same as do the Japanese. It's the job of our governments to do what is right for the citizens with the exception of tech workers of course :-)

      But, governments like Canada and the US do so for good reason. Not to help pump up the shareprices of Sunkist Tuna, but also to prevent a disaster like the Canadian Cod Industry from poachers. 17 years later they still are not back! Other predators came in that eat younger Cod. It will never come back probably as a result.

      It is bad when you have illegal poachers in your country ruining the economy for everyone else, but imagine a foreign entity coming in with fishing nets that are miles long and killing mass amounts of fish? Worse cut nets drag all over the world for years killing non stop which is why these so called libtard snowflake environmentalists want to ban them.

      So yes countries have a national interests to protect their resources from foreign poachers. Canada and the US had fights too over salmon, but conservation is one of the reasons as both countries loose if all the salmon are gone or become economically difficult to get.

    38. Re:Protecting its own interests by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      And here is where the free market destroys everyone where farmers all together destroy their grass and cattle together in the tragedy of the commons?

      This example set in medieval Europe happened frequently. Farmers over fed their cows and when grass became scarce instead of conserving in a panic all agaisn't their self interests quickly outdid each other trying to eat as much grass as they can and worry to screw the other guy.

      We have Canadian Cod disaster after 17 years it still has and probably never will recover.

      You assume people are rational actors. This whole shareholder first only think about the next quarter worry later puts pressure to follow the tragedy of the commons example above. This is where government needs to come up.

      When I lived in Alaska I was warned DO NOT FISH. To protect the salmon a police officer would arrest my me and son for freaking fishing but they did so because of fish stock that benefited everyone.

    39. Re: Protecting its own interests by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I do not want Mexican poachers in the Gulf of Mexico depleting stock for American fisherman. The government is not the bad guy but rather protecting the property of the fisherman.

    40. Re:Protecting its own interests by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Meh. This is a fish war.

    41. Re:Protecting its own interests by jandersen · · Score: 3, Informative

      The free market may create a self-rectifying problem. The more expensive it becomes to fish (because there are less fish) the quicker people will develop sustainable fish repositories to raise fish.

      This does work to a certain extent.

      One of the reasons why market self-regulation doesn't work in real life, at least when it comes to fisheries, is that as each species is fished out, they just move to a new one with little regard for the consequences. They are now heavily exploiting krill: the main prey of baleen whales like the blue whale, who are too specialised to exploit something else - the consequence may well be that they go extinct despite all the regulations and efforts the world community has put in to save them. Or take another consequence that most people are likely to feel the consequences of, if ever they venture to the beach or out to sea: we have depleted the stocks of species that prey on the larvae of jelly fish, which is why we now get reports of fishermen catching enormous loads of them. Fancy taking a dip in that?

      As far as I can see, the market won't regulate itself - as long as at least some of the players are too stupid or selfish to actually hold back from making a short term profit, self-regulation isn't going to happen. We need global regulations strictly enforced by all major nations in cooperation. We do in fact have sufficient technology - such as supervising fishing vessels from satelites: they follow easily recognisable patterns when they are fishing, so it is relatively simple to follow them around until they reach harbour.

    42. Re:Protecting its own interests by Subm · · Score: 1

      > The idea that you can beat the differential equations describing large population dynamics with trying to convince individuals is preposterous to begin with.

      Since the equations playing out most likely leads to overshoot and collapse of human population through pestilence, war, and famine, to far lower than it is now, in a polluted world, possibly unable to sustain modern society, and that many populations have sustained populations in equilibrium, it seems worth trying to replicate their success.

    43. Re:Protecting its own interests by sheph · · Score: 1

      Yes it does contain elements of that logical fallacy, but that alone does not necessarily make what the OP said untrue. It's a well known fact that everyone looks out for their own best interests. I think America has been exceptionally good at finding win win scenarios where possible. We've also trampled on foreign sovereignty, plundered others resources, and destabilized other countries on occasion. We've also been screwed out of resources we've purchased, had our own sovereignty violated, and had our own foreign interests destabilized. It's part of existing in the real world. Who the bad guys are all depends on what you want to focus on and what side of the fence you're sitting on. Personally if my choices are to be the screwer or the screwee... well that's not a hard equation to figure out.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    44. Re:Protecting its own interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deer and turkey were never practically extinct in the US. But conservation efforts can work.

    45. Re:Protecting its own interests by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Wow, it's like you didn't actually read my comment, nor the cited links, wherein the specific solution to the tragedy of the commons was revealed to be private property rights in the commons so that someone had a vested interest in protecting their own part of it rather than just over using the "common" resource.

      i.e. you can't have a tragedy of the commons without having a commons....

      And I'm not "assuming" anything, the theory is sound because when it's been used it has actually worked, unlike your apparent idea of just trying to create regulations of the commons enforced by the government, because the government and the user's incentive's don't match in that situation, which is why the commons becomes a tragedy.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    46. Re:Protecting its own interests by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

      Not mentioned is the effect of improving the productivity of the oceans with iron or other elements.

      In the long run, it's required that what we take out of an ecosystem has to be put back if you are going to have sustainable yield.

      It would take more work to figure out exactly what is needed to fertilize the oceans, but iron is a big part of it. Requiring fishing ships to replace the iron they are taking with the fish might go a long way toward improving fishing production.

      --
      End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
    47. Re:Protecting its own interests by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      The world's fisheries have _already_ collapsed and we're all just fighting over the dregs now. Read Cod by Kurlansky.

    48. Re:Protecting its own interests by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      It's not the US. There are 80 million people born every year right now. Just think about that a moment. In 10 years, that's probably more like a billion more. The US on its own is de-populating just like other industrialized countries - like Japan especially. Europe is in big trouble too. So let's leave the whole abortion BS out of this. While I support abortion, that's not the answer for the US. We're only 350 million total. They would replace every one of us in just 6 months.

      I have a feeling the only thing that can help the world from such an increase of population unfortunately is explosives and war. 80 million is just such a big frickin' number. We are over populated.

  2. Everything old is new again by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nearly two decades into the 21st Century, it has become clear the world has limited resources and the last area of expansion is the oceans.

    Ah, the exclusivity of our times — surely, nothing like this has ever happened before. Except around Newfoundland:

    After the War of American Independence the new United States demanded, as part of the peace settlement, continuation of the fishing rights they had enjoyed in North Atlantic waters as British colonies. Great Britain at the end of the War was not in a position to resist American demands and the Treaty of Versailles in 1783 accorded United States inhabitants equal rights with British subjects to fish in the waters of British North America, including Newfoundland.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Everything old is new again by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0

      Oh, do you mean that we are NOT all that special in the history of humanity, and we are merely acting in ways very similar to those societies that came before us, showing only a tiny bit of evolution despite our extremely technological advancement?

          I call hate crime on that! I am a special snowflake, mommy said so, so I can't be driven by the same weaknesses or strengths as other people. Our times are unique and we have never had to fight such evil (like hearing opinions we don't like or fighting over natural resources) before, these are all completely new developments.
           

    2. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do people pull something out of the past and just say, "See it happened before so we have nothing to worry about."

      Things are different now. The World's fisheries are teetering on the brink of collapse. As one species gets fished out, another one is fished. There are fish in my super market's case that I've never seen before.

      And the prices of what is still being fished is obscene. $30/lb for wild caught CoHo Salmon.

      And farmed fish - they feed farmed salmon with wild caught fish. There is no such thing as sustainable fish farming in reality - just in the industry's PR.

      And with government subsidies around the industrialized World for fisherman to haul more in, it's just accelerating the problem.

      Also, show us where in the past there was over 7.2 BILLION people on Earth? And you're gonna point and say this happened before?

      It's not Doom and Gloom yet, but we're getting there real fast. And people get hungry and thirsty, they go where the food is and fight for it.

    3. Re:Everything old is new again by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      The difference now is that we have rapid population growth with good medicine and life spans that are increasing and the usual things that keep the human population down, biological agents and war are increasingly ineffective. Add that some humans pollute there food sources so need to look outside there own borders. What the world needs now is a rapid depopulation. maybe constrained resources might be the new methof of population control

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    4. Re:Everything old is new again by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

      Look up "demographic transition" in the social science sense, then get back to me.

      The situation you describe is no different from many others, and other species - population expands to the limit of the resources as a rule. The human race is the first to lift a significant fraction of the population of the species above survival level, first, a tiny fraction as the result of the agricultural revolution, and now a significant fraction as the result of the industrial revolution.

            Living on the edge of starvation is the norm, and we are the exception.

    5. Re:Everything old is new again by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Farmed carp should work fine. Has been for milennia, making it domesticated. And these buggers eat all konds of crap so they can be fed like chickens.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    6. Re:Everything old is new again by idji · · Score: 3

      What';s different now is that we are depleting the seas of fish, hence reducing notrogen, phosphorus and iron, not to mention the biological impact. I hope we don't see in the next century life in the sea consisting of low energy jellyfish, because there is not enough bio-energy in the system to sustain more energetic creatures.
      What we are seeing is real, unprecedented and will cause many human catastrophes.

    7. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fish farming has been proved to be environmentally bad. And carp is a trash fish. Very few people eat it because of all the bones. I guess you could commercially grind the shit out of it and sell it as paste or something. But it seems like another food of last resort - just above all that garbage about eating bugs and stuff.

    8. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a documentary that had a segment on Tilapia farming. They are fed basically scraps/garbage. I try not to think about that when I eat Tilapia. On the other hand, they have relatively small ecological impact to farm. I wish I could find that info again.

    9. Re:Everything old is new again by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Marinating carp in vinegar dissolves the bones. Even without vinegar, there is no need to grind the meat, it is enough to cut it in a certain way.
      And as for very few people eating it, carp is a very common Christmas meal for the Czech.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re:Everything old is new again by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      ...And people get hungry and thirsty, they go where the food is and fight for it.

      Sounds like a wall on our Southern border isn't such a bad idea

    11. Re:Everything old is new again by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Except around Newfoundland [marianopolis.edu]:

      And Iceland.

      Hey, it's Iceland. Cue Rei to come in complaining (quite rightly) about not being able to type the thorn in "ÃzorskastrÃÃin".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Tragedy of the Commons by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a literal example of the case example known in economics as "tragedy of the commons."

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by blindseer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, and there are two ways I see to fix this.

      The first possible solution requires a government entity to enforce limits on individuals. This enforcement must mean punishment harsh enough that people cannot simply pay a fine and still come out ahead.

      A second possible solution is to divide up the commons into places that an individual has near complete control. That way if they overuse then they are just putting themselves out of business.

      My dad would rent out land to neighboring farmers but never for less than three years. The reason he said was because if they rented for just a year or two then they'd tend to not care for the property. They'd plant a crop, and not bother with weed control or fertilizer. If they had "ownership" of the land for three years then they'd have to take care of it the first year if they expected a crop that third year.

      Giving people ownership, of anything really, doesn't seem popular though. It seems people would rather live in the mess that a commons inevitably becomes than see some individual actually own something.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Giving people ownership, of anything really, doesn't seem popular though. It seems people would rather live in the mess that a commons inevitably becomes than see some individual actually own something.

      The problem is that the economic systems tend towards runaway effects. Whether they're climatological, or just money helping already-wealthy people get more of the money, it almost doesn't matter. The fact is that ownership begets ownership. In and of itself, it is not enough. There's always someone who can afford to accrue property with the intention of crapping it up.

      I don't know what the answer is, but I know that more people have to become more involved. I don't think that letting a few people ultimately own everything is going to foster that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Well, there IS a third solution, mentioned in the "future documentary" titles "Soylant Green"...

    4. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by sjames · · Score: 3

      The enclosure worked out really well for a few wealthy people. Not so much for everyone else.

    5. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by blindseer · · Score: 0

      There's always someone who can afford to accrue property with the intention of crapping it up.

      Because it's not a perfect solution then it's the worst? Of course private property owners aren't always working in their best interest, that's the exception not the rule.

      Look at commune farms versus private farms. In the Soviet era the farmers would have the government fields but were allowed small plots for themselves. The small privately owned plots produced more crop than the much larger government plots. Why? Because of ownership. They got paid the same regardless of how much the government land produced. The private land produced something they could eat, or sell on the black (or perhaps more "grey") market for profit.

      Not allowing people to make money and keep it just makes everyone equally poor. The ability to keep private property helps the poor too, you know that don't you? It's kind of hard to get out of poverty if ownership is somehow bad. For society to become wealthy means that some will get more wealth than others. This wealth disparity should not be feared or despised, it just is. There will always be poverty, not much we can do about that. As a nation, community, or whatever gets more wealth there will be greater wealth disparity because there will always be someone with zero.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the difference between large government-owned plots farmed by workers with no individual stake, and large corporate-owned plots farmed by workers with no individual stake?

      Individual incentive is absolutely important, but the GP's point was that ownership has a tendency to accumulate - private farms get bought out by increasingly large conglomerates - not that ownership itself is bad.

    7. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That is easy. When the large government-owned farm plots do not raise any food, the government allocates more money to the project. When large corporate-owned farm plots do not raise any food, the corporation sells off the land.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When large corporate-owned farm plots do not raise any food, the corporation sells off the land.

      Corporation buys field. Corporation farms field continuously, without even letting it lie fallow, let alone with crop rotation. Soil is depleted and incapable of producing food. Corporation sells field to... a housing development, because its time in food production is over.

      The USA consumed record quantities of ethanol fuel last year, and over 90% of fuel ethanol is produced from corn. Virtually 100% of corn ethanol feedstock is grown continuously. Once used for this purpose, the land will not support crops without providing nearly 100% of their needed nutrients as fertilizer — it is hydroponic farming in a dirt medium. Not soil — healthy soil is at least 20% organic material, and preferably up to 80%. Dirt, on the other hand, is made up mostly of silicates.

      It's ridiculous to pretend that all land use is equivalent. And it's also ridiculous to pretend that fuel ethanol mandates are a strictly governmental problem, since they were lobbied for by the corn industry, so please don't go there. That would be tedious. The problem continues to be corporatism. There's nothing that corporations do that co-ops couldn't accomplish, except shield people from well-deserved blame.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Exactly what housing developer is going to buy land outside of Hill City, KS?
      AS for your claim that there is nothing corporations do that co-ops couldn't accomplish is true...except that history shows that co-ops rarely do so.

      More importantly, I was responding to someone who asked the difference between large government-owned plots and large corporate-owned plots. The fact of the matter is that history teaches us that government-owned farming leads to starvation and depletion of the land (the same result you claim for corporate owned farming). That same history teaches us that corporate-owned farming (which is not my preferred arrangement) results in the land being kept productive. Corporations consider the land an asset and work to keep it productive. Your example of ethanol mandates exactly shows how government intervention actually encourages the rise of large corporations. Yes, those corporations lobby the government for mandates and subsidies (and many private farmers do as well), but it is those mandates, and other government subsidies, which make corporate farming ever more viable. Those mandates and subsidies make monoculture farming more profitable than traditional multi-crop farming. I grew up with multiple relatives who were farmers and I remember them discussing the relative profitability of various crop mixes and how government subsidies encouraged farmers to grow less than optimal crops on their land.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you plan on parceling out the ocean for ownership? And what about the movement of fish?

      Also, even if individuals do own parcels of the ocean, they still need some sort of navy to protect their parcels. It's not possible for people to manage small portions of the ocean. So, they will sell their parcels to a big corp. And now, you have big corps that own the ocean.

    11. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Look at commune farms versus private farms. In the Soviet era the farmers would have the government fields but were allowed small plots for themselves.

      That sounds exactly like feudalism.

    12. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      My point was that if you're going to try to use ownership to solve the problem, that you're going to have to solve the problem of ownership tending to concentrate in the hands of a few who don't actually give a damn about the land. Remember, farmers created the dust bowl, and it was government organizations that educated them on such subjects as crop rotation. It's actually government intervention that made America an agricultural powerhouse.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Tragedy of the Commons by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      But if you "own" a few square miles of sea, can you prohibit your neighbour from pumping the fish out of your part of the sea?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  4. obhvious to anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anyone with half a brain, has seen this coming. Fish stock declining, half assed attempts at increasing them. Growing world population.
    The west subsidizing poor countries to have more kids.

    1. Re:obhvious to anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obvious solution: Bomb the west to dust.

    2. Re:obhvious to anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The muslims are working on it.

    3. Re:obhvious to anyone by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      What's worse, the growing tide of immigration moves people from places where they have low carbon footprints straight in to countries where they have extremely high carbon footprints. The West's insatiable greed for wealth is choking our atmosphere.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  5. Probably worse than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Either we all cut down on the fishing now, or pretty soon nobody'll fish anything at all, forever.

    1. Re:Probably worse than that by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      I expect that in time we'll start moving to genetically engineered factory farmed fish as natural stocks become depleted and prices raise. They've existed in various forms for around 30 years now, and only recently was a type of genetically modified salmon approved for human consumption by the FDA. Switching over to engineered fish that could supply a lot of the demand would go a long way towards letting native ocean populations recover. Further down the road, I expect we'll just be able to grow meat without even needing to raise the animal and that we'll be able to do so more cheaply than fishing or even raising animals.

      It's mostly just been that an overly vocal anti-GMO crowd complaining about all of this and the average consumer not caring enough because natural fish aren't too expensive.

    2. Re:Probably worse than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't willingly knowingly eat GMO-anything for so many reasons nuclear power starts to look like a simple issue. But you're welcome to try and explain why farming fishies somehow requires fiddling with their genes, too. Without the "GMO good, and anybody who disagrees is an idiot"-tone to it, please.

  6. Re:Fuck the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    If only the EU had a military to go with that threat. I mean there's NATO but who are we kidding, without the US it's nothing. Britain isn't going to fight the US and it's pulling out of the EU anyway, and France is not likely although both have decent military strength and nuclear weapons. Germany was defanged a long time ago, as were Spain and Italy. Who does that leave in the EU - the Turks? The Swedes?

    Anyway the EU has got bigger demographic problems - you're in danger of not being around in the future.

  7. aiming a 2 ton whale at evile's secret lair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    countdown to blubber sequel.. cease fire stand down.. sing along .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLO3NmGJuHg

  8. Halibut in my neck of the woods by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    is $30/lb sometimes. That's insane. And I don't mean at Whole Foods or similarly overpriced places. Just regular grocery stores. It was never the cheap fish, but $30/lb is insane.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Halibut in my neck of the woods by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of what I've gone through with bison. Two years ago I was buying it for $5/lb.. Two months later my grocery store stopped selling it because they said the price got too high. A few months later they got it back in...at $10/lb.

      The reason: The meat manager said it was being bought up by all of the restaurants. So it was entirely due to supply and demand.

      This was about two years ago. And the price is still $10/lb. with no end in sight. Just like your fish, does this mean no one thought of increasing the supply of bison? Or are some people keeping the supply in check in order to justify their mark up.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    2. Re:Halibut in my neck of the woods by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      So don't buy it

    3. Re:Halibut in my neck of the woods by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of what I've gone through with bison. Two years ago I was buying it for $5/lb.

      Bison is typically 2 to 3 times the price of beef. I have a friend who tried to raise them in Wyoming. He installed powerful electric fences, and still had problems with them breaking through. Cattle can be artificially inseminated, but bison cannot, so he kept a few bulls, which are big and mean. Loading a herd of yearling bison into a truck to go to the slaughterhouse can be ... challenging, and not so good for the truck.

      There are some advantages. They can graze on crappy pasture contaminated with locoweed and other stuff that cattle will not eat. They also have no problem enduring harsh winters and will paw through the snow to reach grass.

    4. Re:Halibut in my neck of the woods by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      You can thank the politically powerful IPHC for some of that price. Visit this site, and look at this map. There is no biological basis for how the catch quota for area 3A exceeds the catch quota for all parts of area 4 combined. That's strictly the IPHC keeping its members happy (ie wealthy). Of course the other factor is that the number of people around the globe who are willing to pay $30/lb for halibut grows every year.

  9. Notaproblem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the next century or so, when temperatures continue to react to carbon levels in the atmosphere, and ocean temperatures continue to shift, the oceans may release enormous amounts of trapped methane, leading to mass extinctions.

    It's happened a few times in Earth's history:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    If we don't cut back on the fossil fuels, we might want to focus our technology on developing enclosed fungus/mushroom growing techniques. Because about the only way we large mammals survive such a scenario is being able to isolate ourselves from the environment for many lifetimes - and without open-air farming, about the only thing you'd be able to do is use carefully selected fungus at a large scale.

    I wonder if kids in that era would think of games that were NOT super mario bros as unrealistic, since they are used to pipes and mushrooms. Well, until the last equipment parts started failing, and they started to be unable to maintain proper sanitation, and died from their crops being contaminated by common bacteria.

    At that point, it would be more Oregon Trail.

    1. Re:Notaproblem. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's too late. This is already going to happen even if we went to zero today. That would lead to big wars and even more release of carbon. It's so inevitable (as I have been told numerous times) that I gave up caring and never felt better about my own personal future.

  10. Similar to border conflicts by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Small, sometimes violent confrontations along borders are common when relations between the neighbouring countries are tense, but are not the cause of bad relations.

  11. Fish Wars by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    My money is on the sharks. I don't think there's any question they're going to win the fish wars.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Fish Wars by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      I'm betting on Arthur Curry.

    2. Re:Fish Wars by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If Hollywood is any indicator, they may have their time but in the end it doesn't look too good for them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Fish Wars by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Nope, Far East Asia countries will still have their insatiable demand of Shark Fin Soup. It is pretty bad what is happening. Equivalent to what the US did to the Bison in the 1800's.

    4. Re:Fish Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The huge bison herds were not natural - They were created by native Americans by burning the great plains to improve the quality of the grass, thus allowing more more bison to subsist on it. Herds of that size would never have developed without management.

    5. Re:Fish Wars by tmjva · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same joke.  Glad I looked first.

      --
      Tracy Johnson
      Old fashioned text games hosted below:
      http://empire.openmpe.com/
      BT
  12. Re: You fish your bit, I'll fish mine by ranton · · Score: 3, Informative

    You do understand the oceans are all connected right?

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  13. No big loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anything pulled from the ocean nowadays is too dangerous to eat, if you're actually paying attention

    between the heavy metals, prescription drugs, and toxic chemical pollutants like DDT and PCBs, you're insane if you feed that shit to your family

  14. Europe would NEVER impose its will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's time that the EU go to war with the US to stop them from forcing their laws on the rest of the world. As a European, I hope we get some courage and use force to end the US bullying.

    Europe would NEVER try to impose its laws on the rest of the world!

    Oh, wait...

    1. Re:Europe would NEVER impose its will by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You didn't read the link you provided, did you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Fish war documentary by theweatherelectric · · Score: 0

    A documentary on the coming fish war.

  16. And the human cancer continues to spread.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You all know about cancer: A group of cells multiplying indiscriminitly, taking more and more ressources for themselves, dumping more and more of their rejects into the host organism hoping that it will just take care of it.

    But it's OK. Cancer can't think, right ? It's just cells. It doesn't know that it's doomed to fail, that it will INEVITABLY overwhelm its host to a point that is no longer sustainable, that his host will INEVITABLY die, and that of course, it's going to die along with it.

    Cancer is stupid. It's just cells doing what their flawed/damaged genetic code tells them to do. It can't THINK.

    But why is humanity as a whole KNOWINGLY choosing the exact same dead-end path with the exact same INEVITABLE end result ?

    1. Re:And the human cancer continues to spread.... by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't. Humans are the only species on this planet that have even bothered to stop and think about their own ecological impact. Any other species whether predator, prey, or somewhere in between will just multiply endlessly with the only thing limiting their growth being the ability for the environment to support the population.

      Equating humanity to a disease is just going to lead to bad thinking, because your solution is that humanity should be wiped out. That's what any person would tell you they'd want to do if they had cancer. So if you think humanity is a cancer, why haven't you taken the first logical step towards fixing the problem and ended your own existence? If you won't even do that, then what makes you think you get to demand that the lives' of others is ended?

    2. Re:And the human cancer continues to spread.... by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Well, looking at the kind of humans that pump out units like there's no tomorrow, the "doesn't think" analogy stays valid.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: And the human cancer continues to spread.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know who Mr. Rabbit is and also where Jessica Hyde is.

    4. Re:And the human cancer continues to spread.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But where exactly is that 'unit pumping' taking place? Not here. In fact the opposite is occurring. In wealthy nations all over the planet, Units are not being made quickly enough to replace the ones being lost. Population replacement rate is 2.3 children per woman, just to keep from going extinct.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility#/media/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg

      So, do you want to be the one the tell the Africans to cut it out?

    5. Re:And the human cancer continues to spread.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No need to. Just stay the hell out of the continent and it will work out.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:And the human cancer continues to spread.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you think humanity is a cancer, why haven't you taken the first logical step towards fixing the problem and ended your own existence? If you won't even do that, then what makes you think you get to demand that the lives' of others is ended?

      But but but... I have to be alive to make sure the others die! ;)

    7. Re:And the human cancer continues to spread.... by Ionized · · Score: 1

      Any other species whether predator, prey, or somewhere in between will just multiply endlessly with the only thing limiting their growth being the ability for the environment to support the population.

      well the problem is that we are way too smart and way too successful, and also have modern medicine. other species grow to fill what their environment will support. we, on the other hand, just keep changing our environment (and ourselves!) to support more and more of us. and those changes are becoming more and more worrisome. we are also terribly adaptable, and when one food source dries up we start exploiting a new one. it is not a sustainable pattern and at some point we are going to be well and truly fucked.

  17. My money's on the frikken' sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially if they have lasers.

    On their heads.

  18. Already happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Somalia. Iceland. Cuba. Even now, Japanese whalers are on the prowl.

  19. We can't allow this! by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mr. President, we must not allow a fish gap!

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  20. The US is damned either way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I agree, but when they suggested that's what they wanted with their "America First", they were condemned by the international community and are now the villains of the world. Maybe they will get tired of being the scapegoat for every societal woes that plague humanity and finally give up on the rest of the world and concentrate all their military to protecting their own country. We will leave the rest of the world to Germany, France, Russia, India, and China .

    When the EU becomes a much larger version of the Nazi regime in Europe, you should not expect them to come and assist you this time. The EU has pretty much already decided they no longer desire their assistance anyway.

    It seems that threshold has been reached such that it has become an exercise in futility to convince otherwise.

    In conclusion, "So Long and Thanks for all the Fish".

    --- Wonko The Sane.

  21. Re:Fuck the US by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Beware the IKEA weapons. They even come with ("english") instructions:

    Thank you purchase Sweden flat-pack bomb. Please assembly in timely maner follow instructiones step 1 to 40 and pressing button "detonate". Thanks you.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  22. Like the trade war? by Kohath · · Score: 0

    Every day we hear this or that policy could start a trade war. But the last "trade war" was like 40+ years ago. They've predicted hundreds of trade wars since then and none have occurred.

    Why should we listen to people telling stories about what they imagine the future might be like? Stop crying wolf all day every day.

    1. Re:Like the trade war? by Sique · · Score: 1

      There are ongoing trade wars all the time. Whenever you hear about two countries signing a "trade and mutual support agreement", you know another trade war has been ended.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Like the trade war? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      So "trade war" means "any disagreement at all about trade policies" then? Or even potential disagreements that might become disagreements because the sides haven't addressed them at all yet?

      It's still crying wolf if you conveniently decide to call every plant and animal and insect "wolf".

    3. Re: Like the trade war? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      I think trade war is appropriate term when tit for tat retaliation begins spreading to other industries of trade.

  23. Re:Fuck the US by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Hopefully we'll stick to our principals

    Stick to your principals? What?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  24. Re:Fuck the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They aren't really talking about the EU and other western nations though - it is really all about China. There is an article from the last week about a Chinese vessel caught with illegal catch from the Galapagos Islands.

  25. Good time for a proxy war by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 2, Funny

    The US could give a fire and forget torpedo to every one person fishing rowboat in Malaysia and similar places. Something they can just point towards any Chinese trawler and dump overboard. That'll win via attrition and help solve China's habit of randomly scrawling lines all over the map and saying it's theirs.

  26. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Convert to plant-based diets now or you will all perish.

    And stop making babies. There is already enough people on your tiny planet.

    1. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please tell us where your planet is located? I want to migrate there.

    2. Re:Idiots by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm going to perish anyway, may as well have a good steak first.

    3. Re: Idiots by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      It's been tried, skipping having babies. But no vagina could survive birthing a grown person. Only babies fit.

  27. Re: You fish your bit, I'll fish mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So what you're saying is: we need to build some kind of ocean wall. Maybe we can have Mexico pay for it too.

  28. Something fishy going on by sinij · · Score: 3, Funny

    Something fishy going on here, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

    1. Re: Something fishy going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe try using some cheezy puns as bait to lure in some mod points.

  29. Re:Hey - fuck you, buddy. by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Like in, say, Syria, where the US did everything in their power to destabilize the region and leaving Europe now to deal with the fallout?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  30. China and Russia want to rape the world by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Backwards barbarian countries don't GAF, and are just out to smash and grab as much as they can. There will be no sea life, the oceans will die, we will die, but they won't care, because a few well-connected mafia types got to make a bit of easy money.

    Long live American and Western hegemony. Because it may be the last line of defence between us, and oblivion triggered by greedy, selfish barbarians.

    1. Re:China and Russia want to rape the world by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Backwards barbarian countries don't GAF, and are just out to smash and grab as much as they can. There will be no sea life, the oceans will die, we will die, but they won't care, because a few well-connected mafia types got to make a bit of easy money.

      Long live American and Western hegemony. Because it may be the last line of defence between us, and oblivion triggered by greedy, selfish barbarians.

      I know that it's trendy to blame the west but the most irresponsible fishing is coming from Asia.

  31. Re:Fuck the US by benjfowler · · Score: 0

    Putin's dick is so far up your arse it's not even funny.

  32. Re: Fuck the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Canadian watching EU vessels strip mine the ocean around us, I say "FU EU"

  33. both of you, put up or shutup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aquaculture would restore the ancient kelp forests around California coasts of Long Beach to Morro Bay that were dredged away for safer supertanker transit. What prevents it from growing back is commercial taking of spiny lobster whom defend kelproots from urchins, and the sea otters werewhat ate the urchin popularion but they were mostly removed too.

    Everyone wants for free wha the sportsman and recreational outdoorsman lifestyle advocates, but none put as much effort as an outdoorsman. Even Sportsmen take breeding numbers of adult animal species in excitable numbers Department of Fish And Game (and Wildlife) should be ashamed since the toxic infection levels and serving size amount and freezerburn rate is inconsistent rationale of the Spirtsman to an Outdoorsman.

    Money is a poor opinion of politic competing with the humanitarian intetests. Commercial fishing was supposed to be a environmentally friendly and efficient collection of prey where so many private small charters could be a safety hazard, yet is opposite now.

    Nature of fish has shown primirives of procreation an orgy outcome to fill the ocean if the oceans were seeded with fishfood and only 1year moratorium.

    Of'course, it is commercial fishing that has done more damage than anything enthusiasts could ever enjoin to do at once.

  34. I was thinking more like this by mnemotronic · · Score: 2

    I was thinking more like this. (https://youtu.be/lefP0_ZM-Lw)

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  35. Re: You fish your bit, I'll fish mine by petes_PoV · · Score: 1, Troll

    You do understand the oceans are all connected right?

    All the more reason why global policy shouldn't be "enforced" or interpreted by the most belligerent asshole with the most guns.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  36. Did someone say fish fighting? by Brama · · Score: 1
  37. Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This particular scenario is highly unlikely, especially among nuclear nations. Are we really going to nuclear holocaust for some fish? Probably not.

    No, what is more likely is that fish farming will become even more widespread. Making up to 50% of the fish consumed in certain places, its safer, cheaper and more reliable than fishing the oceans. Fish farming is probably going to continue to take market shares and provide the population with high quality, low cost fish.

    1. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low cost anyhow. Quality? Depends on your reference point. Todays fish taken from poluted waters or compared to 19th century fish.

    2. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Territorial waters are not just for fishing, there are many companies planning to build solar farms and wind farms at the ocean. I think China already realized this, hence the occupation of almost the whole of South China Sea, even intruding inside exclusive economic zone of its neighbors to push its borders (like its cases against Vietnam and Philippines).

    3. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you control the food and the environment you can more easily control the quality of the food you are producing.

  38. Re: You fish your bit, I'll fish mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the more reason why global policy shouldn't be "enforced" or interpreted by the most belligerent asshole with the most guns.

    To enact your utopia, the least belligerent asshole will have to acquire more guns than the most belligerent asshole. If you count belligerence by gun-possession, you've created an unwinnable game.

  39. Re: You fish your bit, I'll fish mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To enact your utopia, the least belligerent asshole will have to acquire more guns than the most belligerent asshole.

    I have an alternative. We can form mercenary armies paid in cryptocurrency, and the rules of the Trade Council shall be encoded into the currency's contracts language and used to vote on the payouts. DASH is pulling in $600k/mo to fund DASH development based on a similar scheme. Scaled up, it can be used to fund war, and thus the ledger itself becomes the "most belligerent asshole," immune from liberal criticism.

  40. Re:Hey - fuck you, buddy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like in, say, Syria, where the US did everything in their power to destabilize the region and leaving Europe now to deal with the fallout?

    Well, that's what you get when you issue "red lines", trying to proscribe behavior - like poison-gassing civilians - and when the supposedly-proscribed poison-gassing happens, utterly ignoring your own "red line".

    Kinda ruins credibility with everyone in the region.

    And didn't Europe just love it when Obama was elected? Maybe they better start rethinking things...

  41. fish war?? by lkcl · · Score: 1

    call that a fish war?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... now that's what i call a fish war...

  42. Or a more limited war, along these lines by hughbar · · Score: 1
    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  43. Re:Fuck the US by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, it's a good thing that "forcing their laws on the rest of the world" has never been something that Europeans were into. Oh... Wait...

    Look. The species hasn't evolved. That simply cannot happen in such short a time span. There's nothing particularly special about people, in Europe or anywhere else, that prevents imperialism. It's just not en vogue, politically or socially, in Europe these days. But Europe has, in fact, been rediscovering a taste for exporting their laws beyond their own borders of late. See, for example, the notion that the concept of a "right to be forgotten" includes censoring what Americans are allowed to see on google.com vs. just what the Spanish, for instance, are allowed to see on google.es.

    It's really just what's socially acceptable. And humans, on the whole, can regress into utter bastardry fairly quickly; especially if they can be persuaded that an: "If it's us against them, I vote us." situation exists. "President" 45, and the Charlottesville types are the obvious evidence of the backslide here. But you people aren't immune. The UK has taken massive steps back into darkness with Brexit. And even though she was defeated, the fact that Le Pen did as well as she did in the recent election says very bad things about France as well. And don't forget that the important bits of Russia are also in Europe.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  44. I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome our new aquatic overlords.

  45. Re: You fish your bit, I'll fish mine by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Right, the oceans are connected. The thing is that fish can thrive in one area of the ocean even if they are effectively extinct in another area.

    We see this in Africa with all the connected lands where wildlife can roam. One nation might not have hunting licenses and conservation officers to enforce hunting regulations. Another will have sanctioned hunting, licenses, and officers to enforce the law. The nation with enforcement will have a thriving wildlife because the animals have value, if the animals are gone then so are the hunters and the money they bring.

    Where there is no enforcement the poachers take over. Farmers will kill the animals too since they become a nuisance. The people generally don't want the wildlife because it attracts poachers, and they don't much care about killing domesticated animals if they get in the way. Or killing the owners of those cattle for that matter, if they get in the way too.

    So long as the poachers stay on their side of the border between these nations the wildlife can be protected. I wish I could remember the details but there was a case like this a few years ago. A famous rhino, lion, tiger, or something was in a large national wildlife preserve but wandered too close to a border where poachers were not controlled. The animal was found dead with trophy parts removed and the meat left to rot. There was some dispute on which side of the border it was on. And there were likely many instances of this which is why I can't recall the details.

    So, sure, some of the fish might wander from where they are protected to where they are not. What needs to happen though is that those that can't take care of the fish in their waters not be allowed to ruin it for the other nations.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  46. But god commanded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    be fruitful and multiple , whilst giving us dominion over all animals and fish - he wouldn't let them go extinct unless of course the end of days is due - in which case it doesn't matter anyays.

  47. here's how Iceland won three fish wars already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  48. Once we faced the same problem on land by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Hunting and gathering works as a lifestyle only for small nomadic bands that are used to constantly subsisting at the edge of starvation. We escaped the trap by inventing agriculture, it only assuring our long term survival but allowing us to build large permanent settlements, with all the civilizing potential they carry.

    Now it's time for us to stop hunting and gathering at sea. Fish farming has already outgrown its startup problems. It's time to support the idea in a major way.

  49. Re:You fish your bit, I'll fish mine by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

    How I mine for fish?

  50. Re: Hey - fuck you, buddy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, let's just completely ignore Russia's role in Syria completely.

    And while we're ignoring things, let's ignore England's role in India and Pakistan.

    Yes, if we ignore China, Russia, England, the EU, and a bunch of other countries, it becomes easy to see that the USA is the only problem.

  51. Funny that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When it comes to space a lot of geek keep telling "if a private enterprise colonize it (moon/asteroid) then right of possession trump everything else. But curiously when it is the chinese doing the work of putting up an artificial island, even if it is contested water the other nation have NO presence there, suddenly it is bad.

  52. America needs to stop buying from Chinese boats by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, what is going on, is that Chinese boats come across the pacific filling up, and then sells in America. This is what allows them to then sell fish DIRT CHEAP at home. The worst part is, that not only do they do their legal limits on the way over, but then fill up again, with fish from American waters that they do not have a license for.

    The only way to stop this is to prohibit their selling in America, or importing from Canada/Mexico if China sells there. Then no more licenses for CHinese boats to be in American economic zone.
    As it is, they are fishing our waters and destroying these faster than their own.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:America needs to stop buying from Chinese boats by quantaman · · Score: 3

      Seriously, what is going on, is that Chinese boats come across the pacific filling up, and then sells in America. This is what allows them to then sell fish DIRT CHEAP at home. The worst part is, that not only do they do their legal limits on the way over, but then fill up again, with fish from American waters that they do not have a license for.

      The only way to stop this is to prohibit their selling in America, or importing from Canada/Mexico if China sells there. Then no more licenses for CHinese boats to be in American economic zone.

      As it is, they are fishing our waters and destroying these faster than their own.

      Do you have sources for this? I have no doubt that China is doing a poor job of managing its fishery, but I'm really skeptical that they "fill up again, with fish from American waters that they do not have a license for".

      The one thing the US is really good at is military, and foreign vessels illegally fishing in US waters is something the US Coast Guard would care about.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:America needs to stop buying from Chinese boats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is just more of the usual Anti China/Russia ignorance on his part. much easier to blame some other evil entity regardless of how ridiculous the claims are.

    3. Re:America needs to stop buying from Chinese boats by John.Banister · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes & no. The USCG doesn't have the budget to patrol the entire edge of the EEZ. Any additional budget they got when they moved from department of transportation to department of homeland security was directed more towards improving other than economic aspects of security. Whether they care is moot when they don't have the vessels or the fuel to be on the spot every place there's a violation. You'll notice blobs of USA EEZ that are closer to mainland China than they are to mainland USA. Those are the ones where you're more likely to find Chinese fishing vessels.

      I'm sure it won't surprise you to know that NMFS and the Chinese government have different ideas about resource conservation, considering that even as our fertile soil exceeds theirs by 3:1, our fishing EEZ exceeds theirs in area by more than 12:1. Whereas, their population exceeds ours by 4:1 leading to a per capita fishing EEZ disparity between USA and China of more than 48:1.

  53. Which Faction to Support? by Scarletdown · · Score: 3, Funny

    If there is a fish war coming, who will be the belligerents, and which faction should I support?

    There are two that will most likely be involved, but I am torn between backing the sea bass and the sharks.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Which Faction to Support? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Kick his ass, sea bass!

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Which Faction to Support? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      But how is their temperament?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    3. Re:Which Faction to Support? by blindseer · · Score: 2

      And, do the sharks have lasers on their heads?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Which Faction to Support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter, these are mutant sea bass. Professor BX is out there teaching young mutant sea bass how to protect their waters.

    5. Re:Which Faction to Support? by DMJC · · Score: 3

      Simple, support the sides that are lowering their population. This is really a problem with overpopulation. If you're having more than two kids, you better be living in a country with an overall birthrate below 2.0, otherwise you're just destroying the environment and making things worse for everyone.

    6. Re:Which Faction to Support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kick his ass, sea bass!

      All your bass are belong to us!!

  54. Re:Fuck the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taken from a person who is entirely comfortable with the view from your head. You rightly point out people are people. There is no difference substantive difference between the folks who are fighting. People form click, gangs and countries in order to further own self interest and harm the interest of other groups. The Alt right and the Anti fascists are just two groups fighting for supremacy and breeding rights. People are smart and dishonest with themselves, so they tell themselves they are fighting against 'injustice' or 'racial dillution' when in fact they are just doing what their genes tell them to and fighting to gobble up resources so they can pass on their genes.

    In any environment where there is a surplus of resources they will inevitably end up fighting about it. Both sides are equally convinced they are good and the other guys are bad. Both sides are right.

  55. United earths oceans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need a new international body to better deal with the planets seafaring problems.

    To prevent "miscalculation" and all out "fish war" it is imperative new technology be developed to communicate with fish eating mammals.

  56. The only species in the Ocean that is sustainable by siamesevodka · · Score: 1

    The giant floating plastic garbage reef. Can't they render that into artificial crab meat? It would make a great seafood cocktail! Fishing war is more important than the plastic Island of polluting crap.Has any of these geniuses figured out that given a few years of dissolving plastic will take care of the fishing war?

  57. Re: Hey - fuck you, buddy. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    If we go back far enough we can surely blame it all on the Mongols, but let's stay in the here and now if you don't mind.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  58. Re:Fuck the US by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    And even though she was defeated, the fact that Le Pen did as well as she did in the recent election says very bad things about France as well.

    Marine Le Pen did not have that many voters. Consider her score among all citizen, and not just the one who cast a vote, and it gets less terrifying.

    The problem with french elections is that people have the feeling their vote has no impact on political decisions, hence they stop voting. People voted for Sarkozy and Hollande to get some change and still had the same economical policy: the one that gets decided at EU level.

  59. Re: You fish your bit, I'll fish mine by ranton · · Score: 1

    What works for some species will not work for others. Many fish are migratory, which makes them much different than large territorial African animals.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  60. Re:Fuck the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, like the EU has a military that can do anything to anyone.

    Fuck, I think if you added up all the submarines you guys have that are actually in service, you might have, 10. maybe 15. Y'all have been too busy enjoyin gthe US protecting you for the last 75 years and your militaries have been left to rot.

    Oh, and Fuck You.

  61. Re: Hey - fuck you, buddy. by sheph · · Score: 1

    Totally agree, but you left out the most important and local destabilizing factor of all. Assad himself executing, torturing, and using chemical weapons on his own people. Then you have the rebellion faction against him. We walked into the middle of a civil war attempting to help the rebels gain their freedom from Assad, and then Russia came along to back Assad in spite of the war crimes he's committed. If a certain previous president had acted when he drew his red line and it was crossed we wouldn't be where we are today. To complicate matters further we had ISIS come along attempting to take advantage of the situation which destabilized the region even further. And it's not just Europe dealing with the fallout it's all of us.

    --
    I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
  62. Re: Fuck the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want the US and the EU to fight a war against each other because some moron talked shit on Slashdot? To the point that you're celebrating the destruction that would occur. Fuck, you're a stupid asshole.

  63. Re: America needs to stop buying from Chinese boat by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    I have heard about this from 2 of my friends that work on fishing boats in our EEZ (2 ppl normally; 1 checks sanitary conditions, the other is supposed to check catch and keep legal ; they tell some horrible stories ). Google will produce a lot for you
    But this is pretty good, but talks about China's action all around rather just American water. And yes, China deploys driftnets in our waters on way out.
    our real issue is that coast guard is severely undermanned since we send too many to the middle East. Now, trump wants to gut coast guard even more to give money to ice , which is just plain stupid. Illegal aliens can be solved just by phasing in e-verify. In the mean time, America's waters are being gutted by China.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  64. A fish by any other name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Catfish are popular food choices, but now other "catfish" are being sold. Specifically, "Vietnamese Catfish" or "Shark Catfish" is not actually what a typical American would think of as a catfish. It is fairly obvious from a picture of the whole fish, but a cleaned fish or prepared fish is not easily recognizable. Still, they are edible and so show up on menus.

    Tilapia has shown to be a hardy and easily farmed fish with a mild taste popular among many consumers. They have also proven to be highly invasive should any actually escape their farms, which they have. So they are destroying eco-systems, too.

    Wild Pacific salmon is one of the most commonly found of fraudulent fish. It turns out that many times the farmed salmon get mislabeled as "wild" to command a higher price. Food coloring can be used to mimic the color and sometimes you find that it is not even salmon at all but trout with food dye.

  65. Re: Hey - fuck you, buddy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And while we're ignoring things, let's ignore England's role in India and Pakistan.

    You mean, keeping them from killing each other in the millions? And building water systems that actually worked? Stuff like that?

  66. Fish farms polluting & selling toxic, sick fis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone is thinking that fish farming is the answer, they should take a look at this documentary, showing what a toxic mess the whole unregulated fish farm food chain has become. I hesitate to suggest more govt regulation, but I think this film shows clearly that the free market isn't working when it comes to fish farms. https://youtu.be/RYYf8cLUV5E

  67. Reap what you sow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US caused this when they backed Iceland's theft of vast fishing grounds from Britain in the 'Cod Wars'. All for a few US military bases in Iceland.
    Suck it up you stupid fat cunts.

  68. But the Problem with fish repositories... by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

    ...is that all of our attempts to farm wild species always end up with concentrations of large numbers of fish in confined spaces, essentially living in their own "fish sewage".

    The genius of wild fishing is that the "pollution" from feces and the potential for spreading of diseases is spread out in a free-to-migrate wild population. What nature has evolved cares not an iota about arbitrary Human profit margins and motives, but is self-optimizing and adaptive to the conditions that maintain healthy fish populations. It remains to the human species to LIMIT THE HUMAN TAKE of the productivity that nature provides. Anything less is asking for disasters, such as the collapse of entire fisheries.

    We, Humans, need to control our own carnal proclivities and our own numbers to avoid overloading the natural services provided by natural systems. Life is not a game of financial monopoly. Life on the planet cares very little about the corporate bottom line obsessions of a psychotically obsessed rogue species.

    Humans will learn to cooperate, or they will die in the cesspools of their own making.

    --
    PlaynBass