Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

news.ubc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 394 posts

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#301

Post by mistermann »

vkou wrote: post #179
sharkmerry wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> that "the billionaires", in their infinite wisdom and generosity, will pull magical solutions out of their hats and save us all. Like you mention later, yeah, right. I think its more that they have the means. Cant get anything done on a large scale without lots of moolah

> Cant get anything done on a large scale without lots of moolah You can, but it requires collective action. But in order to have collective action, you need to win the propaganda war. I'm not sure that lots of moolah at this point can win the propaganda war against climate denialism.

It might not hurt to try some new approaches instead of just increasing the magnitude of the same message. I don't disagree though, propaganda is the key part of the puzzle that needs solving.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#302

Post by dublin »

zackmorris wrote: post #185
spectrum1234 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I sure wish a tech billionaire would do something about this. Their inaction on countless fronts, in fact their complacency in undermining progress on environmental causes in global politics, is one of the thousand reasons I got out of tech." - Which industries (and organizations) are you still in at this point?

I've come to realize over the course of 20 years pursuing a career in tech, that work itself is the primary impediment standing in the way of ever working on my dreams. Sure, someone can moonlight and try to change the world. But 99 people of out 100 will never even come close. There's nothing more pathetic than a visionary with no access to resources. Right now I am working with a guy in the solar industry, doing ha…

Solar is no savior. VERY few people understand solar and how it works enough to even understand that power output on hot summer days like we're having now is one of the worst environments for PV performance. (PV cell voltage is inversely proportional to temperature because God said so - you make many times more power on a clear, cold day.). Don't forget that cheap Chinese $#!+ solar panels (virtually all you can get, now) only last about 10-15 years, even though PV breakeven is at about 22 yrs out of quality panels 25 year life. We will be waste-deep in toxic solar panel carcasses in another few years, and there is no economical way to recycle them. I joined the solar industry wanting to see it succeed, but it never will, except on islands or similarly remote areas where you have to ship in generator fuel otherwise.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#303

Post by eli_gottlieb »

twblalock wrote: post #254
xoa wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I sure wish a tech billionaire would do something about this. I sure wish VOTERS would "do something" about this, where "something" = vote for the party/parties that actually champion or at least acknowledge the importance of dealing with AGW/CO2 increasing vs actively denying and supporting continuing the current anti-free market policies destroying so much future beauty and potential. This should have been so str…

The voters won't be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to solve the problem, once they realize how much it would impact them. They won't be willing to dramatically lower their quality of life to save some Pacific islanders who live thousands of miles away. One of the biggest problems is that the damage caused by reducing emissions falls disproportionately on the poor voters in developed countries. Look at what…

>fighting climate change will make that inequality worse.

That's weird, because it's the very rich and industrial processes that actually emit most of the greenhouse gasses.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#304

Post by dharma1 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #159
dharma1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some farmed fish (like tilapia) can live on a variety of things, including soy and corn pellets. Algae, which can be used for many things - human consumption, farmed animal/fish feed and even fuel - can also be farmed sustainably. I think we urgently need global legislation and enforcement of rules, as well as satellite monitoring to stop overfishing. World leaders need to work together on this. Marine ecosystems may…

"I think we urgently need global legislation" That would require a world government. Not likely to happen and not something I would want to happen for the various potential negative side effects. It is already very hard to control our national governments. International treaties and boycotting and embargos of violaters, maybe yes, but currently the trend is into more confrontation and not collaboration.

Yes treaties is what I meant. Hopefully more collaboration after November with the new guy in charge!

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#305

Post by e40 »

ajmurmann wrote: post #300
all_usernames wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the ~50% of Americans who choose not to vote, actually did, that would by definition change the politicians who are "able to win."

How many people aren't voting because they feel their vote doesn't count. I'm not a US citizen, but my wife is. She usually doesn't vote or only votes because I talk her into it. Her reasoning is that our state will be carried by a democrat anyways. It doesn't matter if they win by 51% or 100%. Between electoral college and first-past-the-post it's no wonder few people vote.

That is sad beyond words and is the cause of the current state of things.

It's probably how a lot of democrats think in red states.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#306

Post by twblalock »

xhrpost wrote: post #274
twblalock wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The voters won't be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to solve the problem, once they realize how much it would impact them. They won't be willing to dramatically lower their quality of life to save some Pacific islanders who live thousands of miles away. One of the biggest problems is that the damage caused by reducing emissions falls disproportionately on the poor voters in developed countries. Look at what…

I think this is a fair point, but are there perhaps compromises where quality of life doesn't have to go down? Solar panels on homes with government subsidies where fossil fuels are still heavily used for electricity. Investments (BIG ones) in public/metro transportation. I agree with human psychology being a limiting factor here, but I think there are also ways we can work with it, by saying that life quality doesn'…

I don't see a way to halt, much less reverse, global climate change without making massive sacrifices to the quality of life people enjoy in developed countries.

We will pay the money it takes to protect our cities from floods and cool our buildings and deal with the other impacts, and people in poor countries will be left to deal with the problem on their own. That's not what should happen, but that's what will happen.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#307

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

mythrwy wrote: post #292
zackmorris wrote: post #100

I'm shocked that the article didn't mention this, but the mass die-offs we're seeing are because the world's coral reefs will be dead by 2050: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-90-per... https://www.businessinsider.com/great-barrier-reef-could-dis... https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2020/02/24/70-90-per... The effect of this is that 500 million pacific islanders will be forced to flee to So…

"but the mass die-offs we're seeing are because the world's coral reefs will be dead by 2050" I've argued this point before here but I don't believe that will happen by 2050 at all. For several reasons, not the least of which is there are fossilized reefs from epochs with much much higher C02 levels (and temperatures) then we will see any time in the near future. I was in Mexico last year. On the reefs. Diving. They…

I mean, the internet is here if you'd like to learn the actual science. This is a topic we understand and have ample empirical evidence on. I'd start by considering that most species were also quite different during the high CO2 era.

And while I'm glad you had fun in Mexico and what you saw there looked healthy, that doesn't somehow erase the bleaching we see on reefs globally. That the coral is dying, rapidly, is not under contention. It's a clearly known fact.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#308

Post by saiya-jin »

munk-a wrote: post #284
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but have you talked to some of the voters? Last pre-covid party I was to I had a conversation with a global warming "skeptic". In an attempt to understand better, I listened more than I talked and it is .. illuminating, scary, annoying and a whole lot of other emotions that are difficult to put into words here. Point is, voting relies heavily on educated populace. I a…

When you have a bad president you're going to be put through four years of hell - when you have a bad king you're going to be put through four decades of hell. Additionally kingship, no matter how well designed before hand, degenerates into nepotism since part of the assumption with kings is near absolute power. The dreamt of "Philosopher King" will never happen. Putting the power into few hands is extremely dangerou…

Power corrupts even the best of the minds, and ultimate power corrupts... ultimately. Those kings would be in danger of ending up as another North Korea - evil dynasties ruling forever.

One big problem is, if you are on top, life can be relatively great even in utter catastrophe, at least when looked through optic of usual sociopath/psychopath that usually end up on top. It can actually help if your goals are perverted enough. No real motivation to fight for the environment.

On other hand, wishing for corruption to be magically removed 'because it would be great and we really need it now' is so naive its painful. We're steadily heading in opposite direction, there is regulatory capture, US foreign policies are run by war equipment manufacturers, and current president is a topic on its own.

To sum it up, we're fucked, our kids are fucked so much more - this hurts pretty badly. Enlightened AI might be solution, but I would expect it wouldn't be done neutral, and anyway that's a pipe dream currently.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#309

Post by sadfklsjlkjwt »

nogabebop23 wrote: post #251
mikepurvis wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more pertinent question is how much of Indonesia's diet depends on the reefs. It seems like the answer is "a lot", though it's hard to get a sense of it as a proportion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_cuisine#Fish

eat fish != depend on reefs for fish. They have very developed commercial fishing not subsistence reef fishing.

The question is where the food chain starts.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#310

Post by WaltPurvis »

flerchin wrote: post #131
saddlerustle wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 500 million pacific islanders will be forced to flee to Southeast Asia How the heck did you come up with this number? The entire population of Oceania excluding Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea is 3 million.

What do you consider Indonesia and the Philippines?

Not "Pacific Islanders" — the term Pacific Islanders refers to residents of Oceania, and does not include Indonesia or the Philippines.
Post reply on HN