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

131–140 of 394 posts

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#131

Post by flerchin »

saddlerustle wrote: post #116
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…

> 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?

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#132

Post by dougmwne »

saddlerustle wrote: post #116
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…

> 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.

Indonesia and the Philippines are island nations. Their population is 273 million and 110 million respectively.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#133

Post by kickout »

readarticle wrote: post #110
wonderwonder wrote: post #19

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…

The human population isn’t expanding much at all. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion humans, today there are 7.7 billion, but by the end of the century there will only be ~11 billion. And at that point, most humans alive will be working age or older (approximately ~3.5 working age adults for every U15). A lack of human population growth will be one of the defining economic issues this century, with a chance at unfortunat…

That might be true, but the caloric consumption of the population is changing. People are transitioning from staple based diets (rice, wheat, etc.) to more complex diets (non native fruits/vegetables, meat). As poor countries gain wealth they want the food to match.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#134

Post by breakingcups »

vzidex wrote: post #121
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've noticed in tech that a common hope that people in tech hold is 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. > one of the thousand reasons I got out of tech Not an option I've considered much, but it's almost tempting.

I think the only reason tech billionaires stay tech billionaires is because they don't act out of compassion.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#135

Post by twic »

nanna wrote: post #107
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…

I'd be interested in an EU or UK version of this if anyone can link?

This is for the UK:

https://www.mcsuk.org/goodfishguide/search

The app page has links to Android and iOS apps, and a PDF (although the latter is dense and highly coloured, not ideal to print).

This being for the UK, they also have a fish finger guide.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#136

Post by rdtwo »

SmirthsDAC wrote: post #84
coldpie wrote: post #29

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...

Organic and sustainable methods are more efficient, even without GMOs [1]. It is a myth that GMOs or high-tech is the answer to food production/land scarcity concerns, as simply managing a farm properly can lead to yield increases multiple times over conventional, unsustainable methods (annual tillage, broad spectrum pesticides, etc). This is in part because GMOs that are in wide use are little more than ways to deal…

No they aren’t. Organic for the most part is a myth. What they do is either spray with a pesticide that can be classified as organic (often nicotine derived) or create an island of organic surrounded by a conventional buffer. Often both.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#137

Post by wonderwonder »

boo_boo wrote: post #112
wongarsu wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though we could feed many more people with current farming capacity if we ate all the corn we grow ourself instead of feeding it to cows that we eat. Meat production is incredibly inefficient. If we eventually manage to produce most of our meat demand from lab-grown meat this will likely free up enormous amounts of agriculture capacity.

In what world is lab-grown meat production more efficient than cattle farming?

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.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#138

Post by tempsolution »

duhuh wrote: post #103
blix wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once meat is eradicated in the name of agricultural efficiency, non-grain, non-bean vegetables will probably be next on the chopping block.

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.

Yeah an interesting way of looking at things... Let's just multiply into the trillions and see what's left. I mean once you get to a trillion, you need to ration your food and cut the ones that are not sustainable, right?

Ever thought about cutting the amount of people living on the planet to reasonable levels? But that would be obviously immoral, right? (Note: You wouldn't even have to kill anyone, the human lifespan will do that for you if you prevent people having more than one child on average)

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#139

Post by rdtwo »

gen220 wrote: post #74
jadler999 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any good studies estimating the carrying capacity of Earth with current ag tech?

It's worth noting that every time there's been estimations on carrying capacity applied to humans, it's eventually turned out to be wrong. The reality is that we are not very efficient at agriculture in all of the places where agriculture is practiced. Most carrying capacity models make the assumption that we are at or near peak agricultural output, but this simply isn't true, so the models' predictive powers fall ap…

Exactly if Americans spent more resources on food there would be more innovative approaches in this sector. Currently food is too cheap and there is barely any opportunity for innovation.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#140

Post by ido66667 »

duhuh wrote: post #103
blix wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once meat is eradicated in the name of agricultural efficiency, non-grain, non-bean vegetables will probably be next on the chopping block.

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.
Post reply on HN