Oceans Empty By 2048? 589
F34nor writes to mention a CBS news article about the depopulation of ocean species. According to a study by a scientist in Halifax, Nova Scotia and assisted by research from all around the world, the world's oceans will be emptied of large lifeforms by 2048. From the article: "Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% — a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries. But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide. 'A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences,' Worm and colleagues say."
They seem to be forgetting something... (Score:2, Insightful)
Higher Price = Less Demand
Less Demand = Fish Population Increases
If a can of tuna went for $300 dollars because of a tuna shortage, I bet a lot of people would start cutting back on their tuna consumption.
Re:They seem to be forgetting something... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ecosystems don't work that way. Fish need a certain population density to breed properly. They don't use singles bars like us humans.
The linear relationship you assume exists...doesn't.
It's so self-evident (Score:4, Insightful)
I see your point (Score:5, Insightful)
- Sea life is dying faster than it is being replenished
- The supply is finite
Wouldn't it seem painfully obvious that we'll run out? Do you think they're really relying on the "argument from authority" fallacy? Do you think that more sea life will just magically appear? Or do you just not care? People with your worldview really confuse me. I can't figure out if it's science you distrust, or statistics, or what. "Scientists are fallible" doesn't refute any single conclusion, much less one that you can figure out for yourself to be true. This isn't quantum mechanics or some other obscure field that requires a lot of expertise. If you cut down trees faster than trees grow, you'll end up with zero trees. Change trees to fish, and what do you get? How can you manage to have such scorn for something with such serious consequences?Re:They seem to be forgetting something... (Score:3, Insightful)
If tuna went for $300/can, it would be even more aggressively fished, not less.
Re:I see your point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just keep makin' babies (Score:2, Insightful)
Somebody isn't getting any.
Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They seem to be forgetting something... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They seem to be forgetting something... (Score:3, Insightful)
If tuna fisherman could get $300 for every can of tuna they sold, I bet they'd be a lot more motivated to catch every last tuna they could find. How much do you suppose the last tuna on Earth (ever!) would sell for?
Re:They seem to be forgetting something... (Score:3, Insightful)
Try looking at it this way. With tuna at $300/can, the market for it is people who (1) can afford $300 for a can of food and (2) think tuna is the best way to spend the $300. A small fishing fleet would suffice to serve that kind of niche market.
Re:They seem to be forgetting something... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't accuse other people of failing economics when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like citing Stephen King on the subject of, say, epidemiology. Does anyone think The Stand is a reputable source of scientific information? No? Then why would State of Fear be? Again, nothing wrong with liking a book, but there is no sensible reason to cite fiction as if it were fact. Crichton doesn't belong in a discussion of climate change.
Plus, Crichton himself isn't a very good science fiction writer. He gets his facts muddled in his other books; Jurrasic Park screwed up both archeology and biology - the Velociraptors being an example of the former, and "life will find a way" Lamarkism being an example of the latter. I could see citing a scifi author on a subject like technology in the future, but only if that author did his research.
Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are (Score:2, Insightful)
Your response is exactly what I'm suggesting. It's reasoned and you didn't resort to attacking me, but instead dealt with the issue I raised. I'm afraid though you lumped my own views in with that of the poster I was, for want of a better term, defending. I wasn't defending what he said, but encouraging others to respond differently.
I actually am totally on the Global Warming bandwagon. I had some concerns over the past decade, but slowly I have learned more, and don't doubt the seriousness of the issue. But my concern is the way people respond to the skeptics. I think this issue permeates western society in general, but I'll stay with the specifics here.
I'm a teacher, and I promise you the majority of the population I've taught, including many on /. never look at scientific journals, or even summaries of scientific journals. They rely on the media and snippets of information on the web to get their information. When we, those who actually seek out a deeper understanding of issues, have a chance to address those who are less informed, as I think the original poster was, we need to engage them in discussion. But generally when they give an uninformed opinion, they are assaulted with personal attacks, as somewhat happened in this instance. They logically conclude that the people on the other side of the issue are mean spirited extremists. That is where a lot of the distrust comes from.
I wish we lived in a society that didn't see the world in thirty seconds snippets. I wish everyone looked deeper. But they never will if they aren't encouraged to. In another thread, a poster commented on Crichton's State of Fear and was told not to cite it if he wanted to be taken seriously. That's a quick way to end a productive conversation.
I originally thought the book raised some important issues that deserved to be discussed. Since reading it, I've seen some clear refutations of much in the book, but I'm glad it was written. More people might now ask questions, and therefore start a discussion they would not have had otherwise.
If I yelled at my students whenever they asked an uninformed question or claimed something as fact that was really fiction, I would never have the opportunity to teach them because they would have a natural distrust for me. Let the uninformed questions come. Ask them questions, in return, that point to a better understanding. But too often, outside academic settings, when people venture an opinion, they are shot down with personal attacks. They then walk away, offended, and unwilling to consider an alternative.
Now if you ask rational questions and repeatedly get personal attacks in your face, then they look the fool.
--steps off soap box.--
Re:I see your point (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, we do get a lot of food from the oceans right now. Since we only have to catch the fish instead of raising them, it's like getting all that food free. Once that gravy train runs out, we'll have to significantly increase our agricultural output to make up the shortfall. Please read that as, "Our economy will have to work harder to obtain the same amount of food."
Fisheries are a renewable resource, if you harvest from them at a sustainable rate. Think of it as having a bank account with a million dollars in it. If you live solely on the interest, it can be a huge boon, providing you many more dollars over the years than are actually in the account. But if you start spending it irresponsibly on hookers, coke, and Alienware systems, you wake up one day and find that the account is at $1072.38. Instead of providing you ten thousand dollars a year, it can now only provide you ten. Of course, you can leave it alone and it will "recover", but that process won't be complete until long after you're dead.
It galls me when people like yourself talk about how we don't need to worry about destroying resource X, because when it runs out we'll move to resource Y. Especially when that resource could be eternally productive, if people would just agree to live off the interest, instead of sucking it dry. We'll all be worse off when the fish are gone.
Slashdot car analogy. (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA: They didn't pick the number, it is simply the point where the trend line cuts the X-axis, also it wasn't really the aim of the study to come up with a number it was simply a by-product of their survey. The study took current trends in fish catches and found we will run out of commercial fish stocks IF we continue our current fishing practices. In other words: Behaviour has both predicatble and unpredictable consequenses, think about them before shrugging the warning off as a computer glitch.
Disclaimer: I appreciate humour as much as the next bloke but I find it hard to laugh at the "soylent oceanographic servey".