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

One in three fish caught never makes it to the plate – UN report

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 154 posts

Re: One in three fish caught never makes it to the plate – UN report

#111

Post by sametmax »

swebs wrote: post #108
sametmax wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equally terrible is the same comparison about bugs, but it's easier to make people flip because it happened in our lifetime (recent and so fast!): When I was young, I was driving a small bike. Having mosquitoes or flies clouds was a common occurrence on the road and the best motivator to wear a helmet for a youngster not bothered by security. Nowadays, I'm still driving a bike, although a bigger one. But I encounter…

Don't forget "solving world hunger" which means causing a human population boom, exasperating the above problems.

We never really had a technological problem about world hunger. It was political. Social. But humanity has been able to produce food for everybody for centuries.

It just happens we don't share it and we waste it.

I think energy, peace and hygiene are a better factor in baby booming. They contribute to a better food distribution as well.

Re: One in three fish caught never makes it to the plate – UN report

#112

Post by sten »

marliechiller wrote: post #97
mratzloff wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clear, there are about 3500 or 4000 species of mosquitoes, and if we eradicated the tiny handful that carry malaria, Zika, etc. it would only have positive results. That would leave thousands to continue pollinating and serving as food for fish, frogs, and other wildlife.

> and if we eradicated the tiny handful that carry malaria, Zika, etc. it would only have positive results. for humans yes - which was his point. looking at this from a human perspective is a problem. there are likely unknown consequences elsewhere in the food chain if we completely eradicate a species for our own gain

Isn't it the case that we just need to wipe out mosquitoes in an area long enough for malaria to die off? Didn't that happen in the US with DDT, the mosquitoes came back but the malaria stayed away. Or am I mistaken?

Though frankly I'd be willing to risk them gone for good.

Re: One in three fish caught never makes it to the plate – UN report

#115

Post by emodendroket »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #5

One of the more depressing things to read, is how back in the early days of America, one could just reach into the river/sea and grab a fish. E.g. lobsters were once so plentiful that native americans used them as fertilizer[0]. And there's photographic evidence of overfishing too. [1] is a nice NPR piece about how the largest catch of the year at a particular spot in Florida has been dwindling. [0] - http://www.gma.…

Lobsters would just like wash up in big waves on the beach. Prisoners complained about having to eat lobsters too often. It's grim stuff.

Re: One in three fish caught never makes it to the plate – UN report

#116

Post by mratzloff »

marliechiller wrote: post #97
mratzloff wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clear, there are about 3500 or 4000 species of mosquitoes, and if we eradicated the tiny handful that carry malaria, Zika, etc. it would only have positive results. That would leave thousands to continue pollinating and serving as food for fish, frogs, and other wildlife.

> and if we eradicated the tiny handful that carry malaria, Zika, etc. it would only have positive results. for humans yes - which was his point. looking at this from a human perspective is a problem. there are likely unknown consequences elsewhere in the food chain if we completely eradicate a species for our own gain

No, in this case. That was my point. Those individual species would have no impact on the overall ecosystem.

Re: One in three fish caught never makes it to the plate – UN report

#117

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #24
rollulus wrote: post #23

If news like this upsets you, there's an easy solution: just stop eating fish.

Which solves exactly nothing, until a significant chunk of the world's population does the same too. And then we'll have depressing articles about poor fishermen who found themselves unemployed and unemployable. The problem is unfortunately very complex and in need of some large-scale, targeted effort.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world.

Or to put it another way: try not to contribute to creating a world you don't want to live in.

Re: One in three fish caught never makes it to the plate – UN report

#118

Post by emodendroket »

swebs wrote: post #108
sametmax wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equally terrible is the same comparison about bugs, but it's easier to make people flip because it happened in our lifetime (recent and so fast!): When I was young, I was driving a small bike. Having mosquitoes or flies clouds was a common occurrence on the road and the best motivator to wear a helmet for a youngster not bothered by security. Nowadays, I'm still driving a bike, although a bigger one. But I encounter…

Don't forget "solving world hunger" which means causing a human population boom, exasperating the above problems.

I'm not sure about that; higher birth rates are associated with poverty, not wealth.

Also, I feel that these appeals often suggest that we should be OK with letting some unspecified Other die for the cause of environmentalism when we would clearly not accept this for ourselves.

Re: One in three fish caught never makes it to the plate – UN report

#119

Post by emodendroket »

belorn wrote: post #76
purephase wrote: post #2

> The FAO reports that 35% of global catches are wasted. About a quarter of these losses are bycatch or discards, mostly from trawlers, where unwanted fish are thrown back dead because they are too small or an unwanted species. But most of the losses are due to a lack of knowledge or equipment, such as refrigeration or ice-makers, needed to keep fish fresh. This is so depressing...

It get worse when one consider that wanted species is only a tiny fraction of the fish population, while invasive or overpopulated species continue to cause problems because they are so unwanted that the most economical thing a fisherman can do is to dump them back into the water.

As I understand it it's pretty controversial to promote fishing invasive species, because the concern is it could motivate people to deliberately cause the invasive species to spread.

Re: One in three fish caught never makes it to the plate – UN report

#120

Post by TeMPOraL »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #117
TeMPOraL wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which solves exactly nothing, until a significant chunk of the world's population does the same too. And then we'll have depressing articles about poor fishermen who found themselves unemployed and unemployable. The problem is unfortunately very complex and in need of some large-scale, targeted effort.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world. Or to put it another way: try not to contribute to creating a world you don't want to live in.

Sure. My point is that just "being the change you wish to see in the world" is nowhere near enough for actual change to happen.
Post reply on HN