NationStates Jolt Archive

You know that relaxing fishing trip you've always wanted to take? You better take it now -- according to a new study conducted by the journal Science, all major species of fish will die out by 2048, if current trends continue.

Symptoms of this problem have been percolating for years: decreased harvests, algal blooms, the growth of massive "dead zones" off the world's coasts... all the signs were there. And the problem may come to a head within our lifetimes.

The study was not some vague survey of ocean life. It was a vast endeavor, incorporating data collected from an international team of researchers that spanned the world. The numbers were clear: 29% of fish stocks worldwide have already collapsed, and over 90% will die out by the year 2048.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42269000/gif/_42269000_seafd_global_loss203gr.gif

The outlook is grim. Despite the introduction of new technologies, bigger boats, and stronger nets, harvests have continued to decline, falling 13% between 1994 and 2003. With the world's population burgeoning and the demand for seafood rising with it, the problem will only be exacerbated. Violations of environmental legislation -- such as the whaling moratorium recently broken by Iceland -- are indicative of this trend.

Some solutions have been proposed, but they will cost us. Steve Palumbi, a Stanford researcher working with the project, said, "Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood." The study found that species can be sustained while under the protection of conservation zones and other reserved areas. Once the traditional fisheries collapse, however, the demand to harvest these few remaining populations will rise dramatically.

This is truly shocking. Our hunger for food and resources is causing our oceans to die. Once seen as the most biologically diverse environment on Earth, our disruptive activities are causing their complex food chains and interdependencies to collapse like a house of cards. If this happens, not only will millions starve for lack of food, but our planet's biosphere will be dealt a serious blow.

Links:

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm)

National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061102-seafood-threat_2.html)

What is this, the fourth time this is posted today?

Kindly learn to use the search function, or at least peruse the front pages before you post "news."

Sad :( I don't eat fish, but dang I hate to hear this kind of news.

Hmmm... guess we need to start investing in Hatcheries and other fish farms.

iam not sure that i believe this

iam not sure that i believe this

In one way, I can see it happening with a large boom of people coming into the worl, 9 billion in like 30 yrs I think.

But on the other hand, the earth is 73% water(give or take a few%) and its filled full of fish, so its hard to think fish will just die out in less than 50 years.

What is this, the fourth time this is posted today?

Kindly learn to use the search function, or at least peruse the front pages before you post "news."
First of all, the stories I cited were less than an hour old. Second, the first post made about this was titled after a Douglas Adams novel, so I didn't recognize what it was about. Third, it had already dropped off the front page when I logged on.

Even so, something this important bears repeating.

What is this, the fourth time this is posted today?

Kindly learn to use the search function, or at least peruse the front pages before you post "news."

The second time. And the other thread is on page three now. And named after a Douglas Adams book, as Rhaomi just pointed out.

Hopefully, by 2048 technology will be advanced enough that eating actual animals will be an anachronism or even totally discarded as a source of nourishment. The kind of food that nanotechnology and bioengineering will produce is going to be a lot better and a lot more abundant than any animal...plus, we won't be able to tell the difference anyways.

First of all, the stories I cited were less than an hour old. Second, the first post made about this was titled after a Douglas Adams novel, so I didn't recognize what it was about. Third, it had already dropped off the front page when I logged on.

Even so, something this important bears repeating.

It's my opinion that all thread titles should be based off of Douglas Adams books. But that is just me.

Actually, it's because 2048 is when Zoidberg's people arrive on Earth.

Go fish farming!

Go fish farming!

I'm trying... I think I'm planting the fish too deep tho... :D

Actually, it's because 2048 is when Zoidberg's people arrive on Earth.

What will this guy drive to extinction? (http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9378/hbsig5th2uk.jpg)

Hedonism Bot...role model for the 21st century.

Go fish farming!

yeah, cause that'll fix everything...

fish stink!

yeah, cause that'll fix everything...

Aggressive fish farming programs can lift our reliance on fish caught in the oceans.

Aggressive fish farming programs can lift our reliance on fish caught in the oceans.

You might even be able to do it with fish fillets or steaks: scan them, analyze their chemical make up and then synthesize them according to the plan with nanotechnology. You could even tinker with their properties to make them tastier, but I don't think that would be necessary. Avoid catching them, avoid killing them, and most importantly you eliminate the pressure that we put on the environment through our food infrastructure. Everyone wins.

I guess the next logical step would be to actually replicate fish through cloning, but who knows? 2048 is going to be so much more advanced than 2006 that we can barely envision it as is.

You might even be able to do it with fish fillets or steaks: scan them, analyze their chemical make up and then synthesize them according to the plan with nanotechnology. You could even tinker with their properties to make them tastier, but I don't think that would be necessary.

I guess the next logical step would be to actually replicate fish through cloning, but who knows? 2048 is going to be so much more advanced than 2006 that we can barely envision it as is.

Technology is speeding up...Christ knows what the world will be like in 42 years.

Hell, we might even be able to build nano-machines designed specifically to destroy algae.

Aggressive fish farming programs can lift our reliance on fish caught in the oceans.

though we'll still have the crashed ecosystem thing going on out there. which is the real problem - nobody needs to eat fish.

Actually, it's because 2048 is when Zoidberg's people arrive on Earth.

I thought that was only Anchovies...

Technology is speeding up...Christ knows what the world will be like in 42 years.

Who knows...in 42 years, we might not even need food in the most literal sense. Maybe it will just be energy that will be translated by our brains in to the greatest, most delicious food ever prepared...a level of sensory experience unprecedented by anything we have ever conceived.

That might be wishful thinking for now, but no matter what we will be better off by magnitudes inconceivable today.

Hell, we might even be able to build nano-machines designed specifically to destroy algae.

Destroy algae, repair genetic or cellular damage, clean up pollution...you name it, we'll probably be able to do it. Nanotechnology is the future, albeit one that has to be carefully managed to prevent it from going out of control.

though we'll still have the crashed ecosystem thing going on out there. which is the real problem - nobody needs to eat fish.

That's why keeping the ecosystem from crashing is going to be so important in the next decade or two...if we survive that, chances are we will be able to slow, stop, or reverse the problem in the time following that. The next 20 years are the critical years of humanity and our planet.

"The outlook is grim. Despite the introduction of new technologies, bigger boats, and stronger nets, harvests have continued to decline, falling 13% between 1994 and 2003."

. . .

Do 'they' realize that the "introduction of new technologies, bigger boats, and stronger nets" is merely compounding the problem...? The better the fishing equipment is - the more fish you catch - the less fish there are in the sea - and the less you are able to catch; thus leading to declining harvests...

Unless we were to leave the seas alone for ten years or so ,(which is nearly an impossibility and would just increase the destruction of farmland), or farm fish in mass quantities seperate from "native" fish populations, there is not much we can do.

Increasing the size of nets won't do a thing...

Do 'they' realize that the "introduction of new technologies, bigger boats, and stronger nets" is merely compounding the problem...? The better the fishing equipment is - the more fish you catch - the less fish there are in the sea - and the less you are able to catch; thus leading to declining harvests...

Not to mention bigger boats give off more pollution and disrupt the water more, causing damage that goes deeper and farther than smaller boats.

Maybe people need to eat less fish...I imagine it's not the poor fishermen that are causing the planetary-scale overfishing, it's the people with the discretionary income to consume large quantities of fish that are destroying these populations.

Do 'they' realize that the "introduction of new technologies, bigger boats, and stronger nets" is merely compounding the problem...? The better the fishing equipment is - the more fish you catch - the less fish there are in the sea - and the less you are able to catch; thus leading to declining harvests...

Exactamente... it is a vicious circle.

Who knows...in 42 years, we might not even need food in the most literal sense. Maybe it will just be energy that will be translated by our brains in to the greatest, most delicious food ever prepared...a level of sensory experience unprecedented by anything we have ever conceived.

But lo, it hath been created (http://questionthedogma.com/blog1/jimmy-dean-pancake-sausage-chocolate-chip-735947.jpg).

Sorry, but I just get a kick out of that tripe.

But lo, it hath been created (http://questionthedogma.com/blog1/jimmy-dean-pancake-sausage-chocolate-chip-735947.jpg).

Sorry, but I just get a kick out of that tripe.

Truly, what better way to summarize the decadence of our culture:

"Imagine a sausage, wrapped in a pancake and placed on a stick, forever"

The next 20 years are the critical years of humanity and our planet.

damn these interesting times

damn these interesting times

Remember the Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.

Truly, what better way to summarize the decadence of our culture:

"Imagine a sausage, wrapped in a pancake and placed on a stick, forever"

with chocolate chips

"Imagine a sausage, wrapped in a pancake and placed on a stick, forever"

The Ancient Romans are sooooooo jealous.

GASP! You mean overharvesting is a bad thing?

Now, if nothing else, I'd like to consider myself an ideas man so here's what I'm gonna propose:
Section off and sell the fishing grounds to companies and make them responsible for the keeping the fish populations in their area up and healthy. If they deplete their plot then they're out of luck and out of business. One strike and you're out. They'll learn to budget and protect their investment rather than plunder and never give back to what's considered public property right now.

When something belongs to everyone it belongs to no one. Everyone takes and no one gives back unless they're forced to, usually through government theft a.k.a. taxes. When people own something they usually want to protect it, especially when it's their source of income.

Now there will have to be minimum standards to be kept by all but there will also need to be a way of enforcing them. International law is usually meaningless until a national agnecy steps in to enforce it.

Fish farms are also a good way to reduce dependance on ocean life. Get a few pools of brine and dump some eggs, you got yourself a fish farm. Again, it would have to maintained by the owner or it'd end up empty.

And my home, the land of 10,000 lakes has a lot of fresh water fish to offer if you're willing to wait with a rod and reel.

I believe that extrapolation is not a very smart idea. Other people have been doing that, they were dead wrong. Take ol' 70's Paul Ehrlich for example, who predicted that food prooduction would collapse in the 1980's and there would be massive, world-wide famines. And well, obviously, he was dead wrong.

Still, it's obvious we can't exploit the oceans like that anymore.

I believe that extrapolation is not a very smart idea. Other people have been doing that, they were dead wrong.
You don't need extrapolation to see that nearly a third of the world's fish populations have already died out, and that the few remaining fisheries are being relentlessly taxed by the insatiable demands of an ever-growing world population.

The future is coming, people -- and it is bleak beyond description.

Indeed, fish farms are the solution.

With humanity's numbers being measured in the billions, and with many natural deposits of wildlife ranging in the millions, or tens of thousands. We have simply grown beyond the point where we can hunt for food.

It is true that many cultures consider the hunt to be a part of their heritage, but people should realize that just by crunching the numbers, our society can no longer exist on hunting and gathering alone. We would end up stripping the environment of one species at a time until there were few left.

Farming worked with cattle, and it can work with fish. Fish are much easier to maintain, and grow to maturity considerably more rapidly than cattle. Home grown fish could concievably grow much larger and faster than their wild counterparts, because we could eliminate internal competition within species by segregating young fish from old fish. They could recieve vitamins and innoculations in this controlled environment.

Corporations cannot be trusted to maintain individual plots of the ocean. As it stands, there are a finite number of fish already, and the numbers are steadily decreasing. The Corporations' solution? Bigger boats, and Badder Nets. The majority of corporations are concerned only with short term profits, and remaining competitive. The environment is obviously not on their agenda, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If a company, or yea even a nation depletes their stock of fish, they have and will simply resort to illegal fishing practices by harvesting in waters owned by other nations/companies. Remember the Spanish fishing vessels which threatened to destroy the Turbot population in Canadian waters in 1995?
http://www.american.edu/ted/turbot.htm

Net fishing in the world's oceans should be banned in the short term(5-10 yrs.) until the population levels again become acceptable. Once this has been achieved, oceanic fishing should be strictly regulated.

Sure, there may be no dolphin in your can of tuna, but what do you think the 'Oceanfish' in your catfood is? That's everything extra the companies caught in their massive nets and didn't want to throw away....

Can I just point out that with the majority of fish farming today the fish are fed on fish meal.

that's distressing...way to go, damn omnivores...

What does it matter?

Enjoy while you can, dear omnivores. There's no point in trying to do a fucking thing about it as long as our dear leaders are pigheaded asshats, lacking the will to disentangle themselves from transnationals to the extent that implimenting effective stop measures against global warming can be done, before half the ice stores cease to exist.

My then, saltwater critters will be reserved for petshops, tacky homes & zoos.

Oh well... When I'm old & dying of lung cancer, at least I'll be able to shout "I fucking told you so" while sucking some vegan nuts. Fucked up that's all it'll be, but a "told you so" is better than nothing... I think?

I'm afraid the fish collapse may be a sign of worse things to come. :(

I read in my October 2006 issue of Scientific American that we may be in line for another mass extinction by 2200, not from human activity, but by toxic gases emanating from the earth AND the sea.

Here's the article. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322

You don't need extrapolation to see that nearly a third of the world's fish populations have already died out, and that the few remaining fisheries are being relentlessly taxed by the insatiable demands of an ever-growing world population.

The future is coming, people -- and it is bleak beyond description.
Damn straight. I see Vetalia and co talking about nanotechnology as if its the cure all to our food problems, but I can't see it coming in until farr too late. Even then, its likely to be the preserve of the rich.

I'm afraid the fish collapse may be a sign of worse things to come. :(

I read in my October 2006 issue of Scientific American that we may be in line for another mass extinction by 2200, not from human activity, but by toxic gases emanating from the earth AND the sea.

Here's the article. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322

toxic gas? that's a new one. oh well. I just hope we die quickly, without too much pain...

It's my opinion that all thread titles should be based off of Douglas Adams books. But that is just me.
No, it isn't just you. :)

No paradise:
Can I just point out that with the majority of fish farming today the fish are fed on fish meal.

That's a good point. Now where could we get fishmeal.... fish farms perhaps?:p
Some fish/plankton eat algae, which grows rapidly on it's own in the right environment. Algae could be fed to these fish/plankton, which could then serve as food for the larger fish being farmed.

Another solution to the world's increasing food demand is simply to distribute the current agricultural technology we already do have, to parts of the world that do not have it. In many parts of the world, isolated rural communites are still using stone-age, or bronze-age farming technologies.

If these peasants had the marvels of; drip-irrigation, chemical fertilizers, mass-harvesting equipment, hydroponics, aeroponics, genetically modified crops, etc.,etc..... Then they could move on from just barely scratching an existance, to being a provider for the global community.

We'll be living on mars by 2200, so it's all good.

Solution: Eat less fish. Start eating more stuff that isn't going extinct. Like dogs.

Solution: Eat less fish. Start eating more stuff that isn't going extinct. Like dogs.

And humans.

And humans.

Yes, we do have a lot of humans lying about. The time has come for Soylent Green
>.>
<.<

yay people eradicate another animal keep up the good work (on the other hand i'm probaly dead by then, so who cares!?)

yay people eradicate another animal keep up the good work (on the other hand i'm probaly dead by then, so who cares!?)

Fish=/=animals
fish=fish
:)

Fish=/=animals
fish=fish
:)

while it's not the case that all animals are fish, it is the case that all fish are animals.

I was discussing this with a friend, and he and I have come up with a solution:

Global nuclear warfare. This will help curb the rate of extinction.

Yea and in 1970s scientists armed with huge study conclusions said we would run out of the worlds oil reserves by the year 2000. Take the fish study with a grain of salt. And tartar sauce.

About this whole fish buisness.... Although, yeah, scientist have made rather extravagant (and very untrue) claims in the past about our enviroment, these days we know the state our world is in because we have the technology to do so. Although I don't think ALL the fish will be gone by 2048, a good many of well known species will have. Did you know that cod is almost extinct? But no-one's really going to do anything about it, because they're going to leave all their problems to us, and our children. The government and the public never get round to solving a major problem until it is staring them right in the face (so how about that massive big crab? Oh yeah, they're extinct). That's why we're still blowing up the Middle East for oil, why not many people ARE going green dispite knowing about all this global warming malarky, and why the Third World is still the Third World, when it could all be solved via a much more long term method of aid instead of endless streams of money which don't do much to help at the end, and which usually ends up in the hands of African dictators. And although replacing fish with nano-technology is a good idea, mentioned by someone else I believe, I want to just remind you that by that stage WE'LL be the ones studying nano-technology, which ain't no picnic. In short, we're the ones who'll have to save the world, literally, and if we're too lazy to do it, game over. No more fish. So if anybody here falls into the lazy category(me) and happens to be a dolphin, make like Douglas Adams and fly off the Earth, taking all the fish with you. Which will make things so much easier for everyone.

Before I submit this, just a little bit of political satire...

DIE DAVID CAMERON DIE!!!! :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :headbang:

I want to know when humans will become extinct. I'm thinking some time in the 21st century, but I suppose we could scrape through into the 22nd before dying out.

in 5 minutes...

Yea and in 1970s scientists armed with huge study conclusions said we would run out of the worlds oil reserves by the year 2000. Take the fish study with a grain of salt. And tartar sauce.

The two oil embargoes saved us from that one; chances are, we'd need a similar disruption in CO2 emissions to achieve the same thing in this case.

Ironically, though, falling oil consumption would probably greatly reduce the global warming problem. After all, nearly half of our total consumed energy comes from oil, and replacing it with cleaner sources would save a lot of CO2.

The outlook is grim. not only will millions starve for lack of food, but our planet's biosphere will be dealt a serious blow.



Alright people, start writing those wills. Not that anyone will be around to recieve your "God Save the Tsar" record collection.

We may not see the sunrise.

Yea and in 1970s scientists armed with huge study conclusions said we would run out of the worlds oil reserves by the year 2000. Take the fish study with a grain of salt. And tartar sauce.

There was a great show on this subject on NPR. Basically, what this is is a projection which is different from a prediction. Nobody is claiming to know what will happen in 2050, they are just saying that current trends indicate that something like this could happen by then.

http://www.here-now.org/shows/2006/11/20061103_9.asp

Aye, I agree with Desperate Measures. Assuming that no technological advancements are made, the figures for our current economy don't change, we keep the EXACT same lifestyle we have right now, the world doesn't blow up and no-one on the planet dies, the future doesn't look very smiley and sun shiney. But of course by then, in 2048 I mean to say, stuff will have happened and views will change, and of couse we will have the technology to prevent stuff like this happening. Provided we all get off our asses and MAKE that technology...:( :( :confused: :rolleyes:

And now for a bit more political satire, because it amuses me:

DIE DAVID CAMERON DIE!!!! AGAIN!!!:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:

Good! Then they can show something good on the sports channel in the afternoon and not two idiots in a boat.