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

241–250 of 394 posts

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#241

Post by nogabebop23 »

all_usernames wrote: post #224
_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but in many cases the politicians who are statistically able to win office are about as likely to do something meaningful (and not just symbolic) about these issues as the tech billionaires are.

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

can't reply to the sibling but they are not voting "they don't care", they just plain don't care. If you do care but can't pick among the bad choices, you go through the actions and spoil your ballot or where applicable write in your choice. This is a lot of work for nothing beyond showing you care.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#242

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

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…

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 am not certain we have it now. Maybe we need to reconsider kings ( today's billionaires ) and hope they are not into torture..

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#243

Post by typeformer »

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…

Billionaire will not save anyone they are too busy enriching themselves.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#244

Post by bmurphy1976 »

tzs wrote: post #170
neckardt wrote: post #36

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…

Due to COVID, I put most of my food at home in a spreadsheet to track inventory so I could figure out how much I had to buy on each shopping trip to last for a week or two. At the moment I have 54938 calories of food on hand (not counting tomatoes, lettuce, and onions that I do not track because I only use them as sandwich toppings or for small salads where they contribute negligible calories). This cost $171.44. Tha…

>It turns out I'm spending somewhere between 1/2 to 1/3 of what I spent on food pre-COVID. The interesting thing is that it is not a hassle. I always knew I could eat a lot cheaper if I cooked at home, but that also took a lot more time. But for most of what I'm keeping now, cooking is really just putting it in the microwave or in a frying pan for a while. That doesn't really take much time at all.

I always cook more than I need and always have leftovers. This is a great way to cut down on the amount of time spent in the kitchen (I care more about the time lost than the money saved). You don't have to immediately eat the leftovers, you can freeze most of it and rotate what you made a week or two ago to keep some variety.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#245

Post by oivey »

firebaze wrote: post #201
mping wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why a tech billionaire? We as humans just need to eat less animal food, and reduce our emissions as low as possible.

We need to start to understand as humankind that we're a pest to other life on this planet, be it animals, plants, naval lifeforms or anything else, us included (maybe except tardigrades, extremophiles and deep-sea creatures). We need to reduce our numbers, and sustain that. Or embrace Musk's ideas.

Population isn’t the problem, first world consumption and the expansion of the first world are. This isn’t an abstract problem where people in developing countries need to have less children. This is a problem where we need to personally reduce our carbon footprints.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#246

Post by [deleted] »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #198
88840-8855 wrote: post #76

250 new humans are born every single minute. This is the biggest issue we are facing. This problem must be solve immediately. Once the population stops growing efficiency measures become effective.

Most of them will have a reasonable footprint on their environment for their lifetime. The actual issue is with all the people who consume as if there were 5 to 10 habitable planets within reach. For some reasons, those who complain about population growth tend to consume the most.

[deleted]

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#247

Post by dredmorbius »

youareostriches wrote: post #93
pstuart wrote: post #2

The tragedy of the commons writ large.

The “Tragedy of the Commons” is a straw man fallacy. The commons have historically always been collectively managed by the villagers grazing their animals on it. What you should be complaining about is the tragedy of an unmanaged (or in other words unregulated ) commons. http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2008/angus250808.html That the oceans, a common resource, are not sufficiently regulated, suggests we need better gl…

Reading ToTC itself you'll find that this is specifically what Hardin advocates for: Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon. Unmanaged commons lead to ruin. The question is how to suitably manage them.

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_...

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#248

Post by [deleted] »

all_usernames wrote: post #240
danhak wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vegetarians are a minority. Most omnivores would consider it a sacrifice to shift to a vegetarian diet. Changing the world's mind on this is a losing strategy for sustainability.

I think this is a cynical attitude. Until 1990, the majority of people driving cars did not wear a seatbelt. An even better analogy is tobacco use. In the 1950s and 1960s America, you'd hear the same kind of things about cigarettes as you do these days about meat-eating: it's red-blooded, it's manly, it's good for you! Meanwhile the incredibly high impact to health of people and populations was becoming more clear al…

[deleted]

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#249

Post by animal_spirits »

wonderwonder wrote: post #126
manishsharan wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> We need more efficient farming, which means GMOs and advanced farming method Considering the fact that so much of the farmlands are devoted to producing animal feed -- how about we as a species start eating less meats ? Make meats more expensive all around the world by imposing ... dare I say it .. caps on Carbon emission.

Issue is that we are not going to. Just like we are not going to solve global warming by individuals making better carbon choices or even nations as other nations will just do whatever they want. We are only going to win these battles by creating cheaper better alternatives. India and China are not going just stop using coal in the middle of their economic expansion. People are just not going to stop eating meat, esp…

Yeah but what about YOU? Are YOU going to choose to not eat meat? Or are YOU going to wait to see what everyone ELSE does first? Its a game theory problem.
Post reply on HN