See, that's your problem. All of /. seems to think the poor will let themselves starve to death so the rich can live the good life. I hope to see your head on a pike.

No. I never said people should catch all the fish. I said people will. Poor people eat whatever is cheapest, and stuff taken from the commons is cheapest.

If you make rules telling them otherwise, they ignore it because they want to live. If their government says they can't, they revolt.

Doesn't work that way. Hunger knows no law. Poor parts of the world will revolt if their food supply is threatened and whoever takes over will surely ignore the rules.

I agree. I just don't think we can solve the problem with fishing quotas unless they're one small part of a large, complex solution.

I understand but, as I said, food is traded on a worldwide market. Every restriction raises prices and hurts the poor. And if you restrict fishing in one place, they fish ten miles away. Desperate people do desperate things. I called you ignorant of suffering, no offense but it's true: you wouldn't believe how easily poor people will kill you if you threaten their food supply. Any significant change in worldwide price/supply would cause mass riots and force governments to change their minds about the restrictions. This is why we must look at the causes of the problem: overpopulation and waste. Manipulating supply can be a part of the solution, but only if it's very carefully managed.

It is sheltered and ignorant to live your life removed from the reality of suffering and then think everyone else will just eat less because you tell them to.

I know the science says that we're overfishing. But hungry people want to eat. Pray tell, how will you convince them not to?

Okay, let me rephrase.

The rich (that's you and me, and everyone reading this) take all the resources and the poor (that's most of the world) get scraps.

The rich notice that the resources aren't going to last, so they point at the scraps and say "You can't have that, or there won't be any left tomorrow." The poor don't care about tomorrow because they're hungry now and, furthermore, because tomorrow the rich will just do the same thing again. So they poach/steal or they find something that's not protected and exhaust that instead. This is how conservation usually works: it just shifts the extinctions around. You'll have a nice graph of, say, the whales recovering and wonder where, say, the sardines went. Remember that whoever supplies a need indirectly represents those with the need. The commercial fishing industry is merely the agent representing hunger.

If you don't address the underlying problem, establishing lists of endangered species and marine reserves and all that stuff helps squat. You can't stop desperate people. We speak of food, but this applies to all resources. I also don't want to restrict myself purely to the currently underprivileged. If you significantly restricted fishing, Japan would starve. They know this and you shouldn't think for a moment they'd play along.

I do not assert a right of anyone to work in any profession they choose. However, it's not nice to suddenly find yourself out of a job. People don't want to join the ranks of the poor and starving and we should be sensitive to that.

No. I'm telling you that people will eat the seed stock whether you like it or not. The underlying issues must be addressed.

The fact is that there are so many mouths to feed. I wish I could bring you over here so you can see for yourself. I'd show you, for example, the school where they built playground equipment and promptly had to forbid it to the children -- because their bones snap like twigs from malnourishment. Food is traded on a world-wide market, not just in your First World utopia.

It's wishful thinking to save the environment with restrictions because people will just find a different resource, even if it's catching the same fish illegally or a mile outside your waters. All our resources are under pressure, so you'd just move the problem around a little and pretend you've "solved" it. (Which must be why politicians love this. Saves them from cutting down on their own lifestyles or imposing one-child policy.)

You can't blame people for wanting to eat, and you can't blame companies for supplying that food because those are also people who want to eat. It's all fine and well to talk about the future, but a hungry man doesn't give a damn if it's the last fish or if it's forbidden. Not if it's the only one he can afford.

It's not a personal attack, but yes, you are living a sheltered and ignorant life. Legal restrictions on fishing will not do anything significant unless you also, and more importantly, address the underlying reasons for overfishing. And it's outright cruel to simply dismiss people who say they must make a living. They're telling the truth.

I'm sorry to say this but you're ignorant. How the hell do you expect to feed 7*10^9 people? Do you want them to eat soy beans? Farming doesn't impact the environment, right?

Now, if you were to say that there are too many people, or that the First World throws away perfectly good food, I'd understand. The problem is not the fisheries it's the public.

FYI, "trolling" means that you take a stance you don't really support in order to elicit a heated response, possibly over multiple posts.

Poking fun at someone is not trolling. Sarcasm is not trolling. In fact, anything that doesn't appear serious is probably not a troll at all. Mods take note.

We have caps around here. And so will the rest of you, when the telecoms companies get their way.