The Ocean is Broken (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#241

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Feb 08, 2014, 3:01 AM UTC

stretchwithme wrote: post #238

dredmorbius wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wanted to make explicit the distinction between "value" which can denote a range of concepts, and "price" which specifically refers to a sum of money. Since value itself is at question here. Though yes, "market value" generally equates to "market price". And the pedants will note that "price" needn't be strictly limited to monetary assessments, though that's how I'm using the term here.

Thank god you were here.

Why stop there? You can thank my parents, God and Ayn Rand.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#242

Post by calroc » Sat, Feb 08, 2014, 6:45 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #236

calroc wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Derp. My bad.

So what did you mean? And what are you getting at? Advanced species lifespan seems to range from ~1 - 10 million years or so, plus or minus a lot, before genetic drift sets in.

I took a bit of umbrage at the idea that humans surviving longer than, say, the dinosaurs did is "over hyped and misunderstood". That comment was my attempt at an unhyped and easily understood definition of "sustainability".

Three hundred mega-years (what I meant) is a somewhat arbitrary milestone. (I think long-term but 10^15 years is a bit much for even me. But see Stapledon's "Star Maker"...)

(BTW, your thinking seems unusually clear on these matters.)

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#243

Post by alexeisadeski3 » Sat, Feb 08, 2014, 6:59 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #239

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Privatization of food sources is by far the most successful form of food production. All alternatives have provided inferior results, some catastrophically so (Cambodia under Khmer Rouge, etc. Ironically, the current international fishery management regime is not entirely unlike the collective farm practices of the Khmer Rouge!). 2) Due to the international nature of fisheries, they would have to be sold by the UN…

Khmer Rouge comparisons? GMAFB.

It's a parenthetical side note :) Not part of my argument/position.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#244

Post by CalRobert » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 11:48 AM UTC

bananacurve wrote: post #237

CalRobert wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, you discredited your own sentiment with your harshness and poor sentence construction. In addition, you presented a false argument, implying that somebody with my concerns would see murder as the only answer, perhaps revealing more about your own psyche than you'd like.

Sorry. You did not deserve that and I wish I had not posted that comment.

Relax, in a way my own response was too harsh; you needn't feel bad. For the record, murder is not the answer!

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#245

Post by spikels » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 7:54 PM UTC

aestra wrote: post #220

spikels wrote: post #60

If the ocean is really broken and all the fish are gone, how come the amount of fish caught has not declined dramatically? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_fish_production This story is anecdotal. Actual data would be better.

Here's some data https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7190706

Thanks arstra! Lots of good leads there. I'm still wondering where the forecasts come from, like UNEP's "no fish in the ocean in 2050". I can't find any academic paper detailing these kinds of forecasts. The UNEP's published report is not so extreme and seems at odds with continued production rates.

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/3....

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#246

Post by darkarmani » Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 3:51 PM UTC

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #226

darkarmani wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have to privatize the oceans fisheries. It is imperative. It has to happen now. It has to happen yesterday. Fish stocks are collapsing. Fish stocks have collapsed. How does that help non-crop fish? They don't have direct economic value to the private fishing company. What happens when the private fishery comes to the conclusion that it is a lost cause, so their best interest is to fish as fast as possible?

1) Non edible fish don't really apply to this specific discussion. 2) If they decide to fish as fast as possible, then at least it's at least identical to the status quo :) First, do no harm

Both of those premises are wrong. Privatizing policy and enforcement means there wouldn't be any reason to try to work on policing non-edible/non-profitable fish. It's a half-measure the would ensure no further progress.

Secondly, blessing "fish as fast as possible" as being within the rules, makes it an acceptable practice. It's the same way the clean water act protects polluters as long as they are within the acceptable limits. It doesn't matter if the acceptable limits still cause damage -- they are protected.

Finally, I'm not sure how private industry could enforce their policies in their section of the sea. Property right enforcement is one activity that even most libertarians believe the gov't needs to carry out. Some people state that is the only thing gov't should provide.