41–50 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because blowing up a boat crewed by poor third world sailors trying to make some money to feed their families back home is a truly proportionate response.
You should remove the people aboard before blowing up the fishing vessel :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning is just setting a quota of zero, which you've already agreed is effectively unenforceable. Obviously control has to be on the demand and not the supply side. Banning the sale of fish, or punitively taxing it, would be two options to make commercial fishing economically unattractive.
I think indoor/raceway farmed fish is the future, once we work out sustainable food sources, eg insects. I'm not sure how credible that is for marine species, but I'm sure it's possible for some, and we don't have to completely cut fish from our diets. In the meantime, I agree, we should be banning the sale/import of some species of fish.
The above is the combo I think would be the path to support such a raceway system. One of many crazy dreams I have is to start a trout farm based on that.
Hopefully the availability of fast IP networks at sea will help with observers disappearing without a trace in the future.
Maybe add some picture booklets for the crew explaining how fucked they are if they try anything, and include a copy of Captain Phillips for good measure.
Of course, such a scheme would just increase the need for observers to have their own tamper-proof food and water rations as well. At that point, industrial "accidents" are about the only thing remaining.
Time to pass a law to force these ships to carry starlink with cctv cameras whose footage is processed by AI. Of course, although possible, this won’t happen any time soon.
Time to pass a law to force these ships to carry starlink with cctv cameras whose footage is processed by AI. Of course, although possible, this won’t happen any time soon.
It takes a long time to bring back those lines and to load up the catch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Commercial chicken is not hunted in the wild, so I'm not sure how that comparison makes any sense. The oceans are already being depleted of fish in a highly unsustainable way so if you care about that protein source, shutting down large-scale fishing altogether is exactly what you should do.
The logistics of what you are proposing is just not there, unless you're cool with committing another man made famine like the Holodomor. I actually find it disturbing with the ease you're willing to starve the poor of the world. Ocean fishing requires very little energy input, but provides huge amounts of ready to eat food output. You can't replace that in many parts of the world. Not every place has good farm land…
So all of those studies pointing out that most ocean fishing only happens because of subsidized fuel are wrong?
Here is some more detail about the ongoing human slavery that Keith spoke of and which phantomathkg linked to as well. https://www.ap.org/explore/seafood-from-slaves/fishing-slave... Fucking sad. I can't believe literal chattel slavery is this widespread. If you're considering becoming vegetarian or at least eating less meat and fish, maybe this is another reason to consider it. Either way, I hope we can find ways to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then when we get together as a global community to ban fishing, let's also agree to pay for the transition to aquaculture and other sustainable forms of acquiring protein (according to the renewable resources available in a given region). If "take away their livelihood without giving them an alternative" isn't acceptable - and of course it isn't - "let's do nothing" isn't the only alternative we should consider.
Oh you so benevolent, force people at gun point to abide by your will, right?
Just as I reject that our only options are to either screw over fishing communities or do nothing, I reject that our only alternatives are violence or doing nothing. I don't believe there is a single solution which can be applied in all situations that would resolve this, it would need to be worked out on a case by case basis and in cooperation with those communities. But just because it is complex and difficult does not mean it doesn't exist, and the alternative is an ecological collapse which we are unlikely to survive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A full ban would be much much easier to enforce. You see a fishing boat? It gets a military escort out of your national waters. You see the same boat again? It gets blown up. Compare with having to board a random sample of boats (and there'd be a lot, because a lot of them would be legitimate), check documents, check catch totals etc.
Yes, because blowing up a boat crewed by poor third world sailors trying to make some money to feed their families back home is a truly proportionate response.
Time to pass a law to force these ships to carry starlink with cctv cameras whose footage is processed by AI. Of course, although possible, this won’t happen any time soon.