51–60 of 394 posts
"The orange roughy is notable for its extraordinary lifespan, attaining over 200 years."
"Orange roughy is fished almost exclusively by bottom trawling. This fishing method has been heavily criticized by environmentalists for its destructive nature."
With the way the human population is expanding and the rising income of 3rd world nations we are really going to look at a major increase in both genetically engineering food stock to be larger and more nutritious as well as ramping up lab grown meat. Conservation is clearly not going to work as so many nations ignore it anyway and quite often regulations lack teeth due to the fear of killing an industry. Its difficu…
> Society just wont change to support it. Maybe this is just me, but I would happily change my diet to be around 50% Soylent or other meal replacement if the cost was cheaper. Currently I eat around 2400 calories a day, with Soylent that costs me $20 a day. I can get Chipotle for ~$15 per day, and between the two Chipotle clearly wins on taste. From what I can tell meal replacements are often far more environmentally…
I really wish there was a way to stop all fishing at a commercial level for 10 years. Not that you can’t eat a fish just that if you want that luxury you have to go catch it yourself. I know this will never happen.
There is, but the duration might be longer than 10 years. We grab a bunch of what's endangered, sequence their genomes, construct plans for future repopulation, and be prepared for a future when we're more responsible with these natural resources. The fisheries will exhaust, and demand will shift elsewhere in the short term. There is no other path to success, as attempting cooperation with those who will fish relentl…
Mighty bold of you to assume we're not on the Idiocracy timeline :)
I really wish there was a way to stop all fishing at a commercial level for 10 years. Not that you can’t eat a fish just that if you want that luxury you have to go catch it yourself. I know this will never happen.
But can't I pay a thousand dollars to a friend to catch the fish for me? I'm afraid of the sea.
So if the population collapses, the fishermen will go out of business until the population recovers? Or is it not as simple as that?
If we wanted to really solve this issue, which most people, not just here, don't really want to; we would set definitive measures like allocating to every society an equal, fixed amount of consumption (e.g., x tons of fish, grain, etc.) regardless of population size, so that the incentives would prioritized sustainable human populations too; at the very least for the out of control African and Asian continents. I would say that regardless of "color" or culture of people; even if every human looked exactly the same … it's simply not sustainable that the Asian and African populations are net increasing by at least 2 people (if one believes the questionable numbers) every single second of every single day. Meaning that by the time you have read this, there will be roughly 120 net more Asians and Africans than when you started reading this. That's simply not sustainable when they all require feeding and are increasingly demanding more and more "diverse" foods.
Personally, I actually have a theory that some of this whole "pandemic" response is part of a response to that reality, the ruling class using the opportunity to at least hit the pause button to assess where to go with this, because no matter what, the path we were heading down fast was simply not sustainable.
> Of the populations analyzed, 82 per cent were found to be below levels that can produce maximum sustainable yields, due to being caught at rates exceeding what can be regrown. Of these, 87 populations were found to be in the “very bad” category, with biomass levels at less than 20 per cent of what is needed to maximize sustainable fishery catches. It seems to me that we don't have a clear concept of sustainable com…
According to the article, we know the optimal sustainable take down to the percent. The failure is in getting any nation to adhere to limits.
With the way the human population is expanding and the rising income of 3rd world nations we are really going to look at a major increase in both genetically engineering food stock to be larger and more nutritious as well as ramping up lab grown meat. Conservation is clearly not going to work as so many nations ignore it anyway and quite often regulations lack teeth due to the fear of killing an industry. Its difficu…
> A science fiction style solution is going to be the only way to feed the world. What about plant-based diets? That doesn't seem too SF to me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Society just wont change to support it. Maybe this is just me, but I would happily change my diet to be around 50% Soylent or other meal replacement if the cost was cheaper. Currently I eat around 2400 calories a day, with Soylent that costs me $20 a day. I can get Chipotle for ~$15 per day, and between the two Chipotle clearly wins on taste. From what I can tell meal replacements are often far more environmentally…
What about people who enjoy eating? Cheese, meat, vegetables, wine, etc? Let's not forget eating is a pleasurable activity, not only a source of energy and protein.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. We're already pretty much at capacity in terms of using arable farming land[1]. We need more efficient farming, which means GMOs and advanced farming methods; we don't need less efficient farming like organic and anti-GMO. [1] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-much-arabl...
Any good studies estimating the carrying capacity of Earth with current ag tech?