Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world • Hacker News Board

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#361

Post by defnotashton2 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 12:11 AM UTC

jsilence wrote: post #326

RankingMember wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the intent is great, but what is the percentage of the population that would utilize such a thing in their daily life? Not trying to be a downer, but I think most people don't have the bandwidth to be carrying around little cards reminding them to buy this/don't buy that, "oh, and is that tuna line-caught or pole-caught?", etc. If eating a certain kind of fish is causing environmental damage, we need regulati…

Exactly! And that is probably the reason why the majority of us should cut down hard on animal based food consumption, just to be on the safe side.

Oh cool let me change my entire lifestyle just to be safe.. For everyone else..

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#362

Post by defnotashton2 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 12:16 AM UTC

duhuh wrote: post #117

pvaldes wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a point here, yup. Some vegetables are luxury food, and less efficient than cattle. Replacing nature with monocultures is a problem. If we stop eating cattle for that, there is not moral room to keep eating chocolate, for example. Or coffee

If I eat seafood I rob from ocean species, illegal labor, the hungry poor, and the future. Sometimes, farmland represents the same problem, sometimes not. Seafood is an unsolved problem globally. It has no form of ethical consumption.

What impact have your decisions had on unsustainable farming practices? I'll wait

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#363

Post by philipkglass » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 12:22 AM UTC

ajmadesc wrote: post #277

missedthecue wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of seafood is farmed. The majority of shrimp for instance comes from farms.

100 Grams of shrimp has a carbon footprint of 198kg(436lb) https://phys.org/news/2012-02-tiny-shrimp-giant-carbon-footp...

The numbers cited in there don't make sense. Something has to have been garbled from the original research report. The article says:

The farms are inefficient, producing just one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of shrimp for 13.4 square kilometers (five square miles) of mangrove

But Asian shrimp farms produce over a million tons of shrimp per year:

http://www.shrimpnews.com/FreeReportsFolder/NewsReportsFolde...

If it takes 13.4 square kilometers of mangrove per kilogram of shrimp, Asian shrimp farms would occupy more than

13.4 * 1000 * 1000000 = 13,400,000,000

(13.4 billion) square kilometers of mangrove. That's about 26 times the surface area of Earth.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#364

Post by defnotashton2 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 12:29 AM UTC

xoa wrote: post #189

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…

> 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…

Except it's not so black/white but much more nuanced and gray. Assuming and asserting otherwise is disingenuous and distancing an is part of how trump was elected in the first place.

Climate change and policy around it, due to its economic implications, is complex and hard to do without costing lots of middle class people their life styles.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#365

Post by wongarsu » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 12:34 AM UTC

boo_boo wrote: post #320

wonderwonder wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given enough resources to refine the process and a few years, I don't see how in the long run it cant become more efficient than farming.

I don't buy it. You're comparing the energy inputs required to support large-scale tissue engineering operations with those needed for grazing cattle on pasture. It's not even close.

If it was just pastures I would agree. But 30-40% of all corn produced in the US (the largest corn producer in the world) is used to feed lifestock [1]. That's a lot of perfectly good farmland that could directly produce food for human consumption.

Even if the lab process takes more energy, as long as producing the growth medium takes up less farmland that is a win towards the goal of having enough farmland to feed the world.

1: http://www.worldofcorn.com/#corn-usage-by-segment

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#366

Post by michannne » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 12:40 AM UTC

jsilence wrote: post #326

RankingMember wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the intent is great, but what is the percentage of the population that would utilize such a thing in their daily life? Not trying to be a downer, but I think most people don't have the bandwidth to be carrying around little cards reminding them to buy this/don't buy that, "oh, and is that tuna line-caught or pole-caught?", etc. If eating a certain kind of fish is causing environmental damage, we need regulati…

Exactly! And that is probably the reason why the majority of us should cut down hard on animal based food consumption, just to be on the safe side.

Is this satire?

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#367

Post by wonderwonder » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 12:51 AM UTC

ido66667 wrote: post #140

duhuh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted, but yes, as a society if we find that we are over-using resources, we should cut out those foods. We seem to value a human population numbered in the billions. Some foods won’t work for that population.

You know, it seems silly to me that the choice we seem to make is rather than controlling our population, we choose having worse lives for us and all future generations. Lack of self-control will truly be the end of humanity.

Generally as a nation builds wealth its birthrate slows. We cannot allow a state to control it though as the issue becomes how do you control population size, who gets to have kids and who gets to decide. This is pretty much the be all and end all of government power. Do we force sterilize people? Force abortions? If we fine them then the rich have as many kids as they want. Government mandated population control cannot be the answer.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#368

Post by Balgair » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 2:10 AM UTC

KerrickStaley wrote: post #75

If you're interested in adjusting your seafood eating habits towards eating more sustainable seafood, the Monterey Bay Aquarium maintains a guide on which seafood (based on species and location/method of catch) is most sustainable, somewhat sustainable, and not sustainable. My favorite version of the guide is the printable version that you can fold up and put in your wallet: https://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recom…

This is a great tool!

Not just for checking on the fish you are already eating, but for trying out new seafood. I like to think of it as a very well curated recommendation list.

For instance, Barramundi is a very tasty fish that I discovered via this tool. We eat it regularly now. It also gives you the other names that the fish/seafood is known as, so you can shop around or know what your order is like.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#369

Post by legerdemain » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 2:24 AM UTC

michannne wrote: post #366

jsilence wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! And that is probably the reason why the majority of us should cut down hard on animal based food consumption, just to be on the safe side.

Is this satire?

We shit where we eat, and then we get angry at the turds in our cereal bowls. Who put them there? Is this satire?

Yes, fisheries in decline means that, voluntarily or not, we will lose our cedar plank salmon and our sushi-grade tuna. We will instead talk up the pleasures of the sardine, its ennobling humility and its clean taste, but it will be self-delusion covering up an obvious sense of loss, just as celebrating a birthday on Zoom is a pathetic loss no matter how much we try to put a happy face on it.

We are all getting a taste of what it feels to lose things, maybe lose them for good. This is the experience of our parents and grandparents, survivors of war, refugees, people thrown into sudden poverty. It's a common experience around the world, but many of us have forgotten it. It's time to get reacquainted. Families who lose everything in stock market crashes and hurricanes look at the wreckage of their lives and ask, "Is this satire?"

In 40 years, I fully expect to be an out-of-touch antebellum grandma, talking of lost pleasures to people who've never tasted coffee or traveled across the Atlantic, the same way I have never ridden in a phaeton or tasted ortolan.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#370

Post by _jahh » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

legerdemain wrote: post #369

michannne wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this satire?

We shit where we eat, and then we get angry at the turds in our cereal bowls. Who put them there? Is this satire? Yes, fisheries in decline means that, voluntarily or not, we will lose our cedar plank salmon and our sushi-grade tuna. We will instead talk up the pleasures of the sardine, its ennobling humility and its clean taste, but it will be self-delusion covering up an obvious sense of loss, just as celebrating a…

The birds react to the dark by gorging themselves on grain, usually millet seed, until they double their bulk. Reputedly,[weasel words] Roman Emperors stabbed out ortolans’ eyes in order to make the birds think it was night, making them eat even more. The birds are then thrown into a container of Armagnac, which both drowns and marinates the birds.[13][14]

The bird is roasted for eight minutes and then plucked. The consumer then places the bird feet first into their mouth while holding onto the bird's head. The ortolan is then eaten whole, with or without the head, and the consumer spits out the larger bones.

this is awful!

read parent again she is right.