Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world • Hacker News Board

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#71

Post by blix » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:22 PM UTC

Isamu wrote: post #35

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…

>A science fiction style solution is going to be the only way to feed the world. I get what you are saying, I just want to clarify: we can feed everybody now, but mostly with vegetables. But yes, shared resources like ocean fish are under too much pressure right now. I feel as though it will take a major worldwide collapse of the fishing industry before there is better enforcement and treaties.

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

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#72

Post by palae » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

ianleeclark wrote: post #58

palae wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A science fiction style solution is going to be the only way to feed the world. What about plant-based diets? That doesn't seem too SF to me

It doesn't seem that most people are willing to give up meat/certain animal products.

While not giving up entirely, I feel like many people, if presented with facts, would be willing to greatly reduce their consumption.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#73

Post by user5994461 » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

neckardt wrote: post #36

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…

> 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…

$20 a day is shocking.

Eat rice, beans, potato, tomato, cereals. That will be an order of magnitude cheaper while tastier.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#74

Post by gen220 » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

jadler999 wrote: post #47

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...

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 apart.

For an example from another industry, where people have been similarly predicting capacity-related doom since the 80s, look at oil. In the 80s, people thought we were going to run out of oil, because "proven accessible reserves" were dwindling. Between the innovations of low-cost fracking and more effective "proving" tools, this problem evaporated.

The moral of the story is that, where demand is high, capitalistic pressures means that, given enough time, we will always finds a way to open up more supply.

All this to say, be very critical of the assumptions made by whatever models you find, or doomsday claims you may come across. If agriculturalists are not concerned about this, the burden of evidence for us to be concerned should be rather high.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#75

Post by KerrickStaley » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

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-recommendations/consume...

Here's the main site where you can search for a fish by name: https://www.seafoodwatch.org/

This is geared towards the USA but I think the guides are at least somewhat useful in other countries.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#76

Post by 88840-8855 » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

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.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#77

Post by rjsw » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #42

I buy canned sardines regularly. I've noticed for the last year that the size of the sardines are increasing, and many that are canned now have eggs. It makes me wonder if pressure is making them age and try to reproduce sooner than before, or if the fishing season is being expanded to meet demand. I've cut back on buying them as much. I may quit after this.

Where are you buying them ? Some countries call the younger fish "sardines" and older ones of the same species "pilchards", both have been sold for food for a long time. Maybe this is just a change in how they are labelled.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#78

Post by achenatx » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

palae wrote: post #72

ianleeclark wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem that most people are willing to give up meat/certain animal products.

While not giving up entirely, I feel like many people, if presented with facts, would be willing to greatly reduce their consumption.

oh the naïveté of youth...

The easiest way to reduce meat/fish consumption is to make the cost reflect all the externalities.

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#79

Post by ping_pong » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:29 PM UTC

dharma1 wrote: post #41

BucketsMcG wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is the farmed fish are fed on wild fish, so it's several times less efficient than just eating whatever you would have fed them.

Some farmed fish (like tilapia) can live on a variety of things, including soy and corn pellets. Algae, which can be used for many things - human consumption, farmed animal/fish feed and even fuel - can also be farmed sustainably. I think we urgently need global legislation and enforcement of rules, as well as satellite monitoring to stop overfishing. World leaders need to work together on this. Marine ecosystems may…

In fact, tilapia from Vietnam and China are fed pig feces and packed in ice made from polluted water, which is why it's so dangerous to eat them.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/consumers-eating-feces-taint...

Re: Popular seafood species in sharp decline around the world

#80

Post by dragontamer » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:29 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #33

dragontamer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure hunters of the Passenger pigeon thought the same too. Many fish and bird species have shear reprodutive ability as their only defense. In the case of Passenger Pigeons, they had very little defenses against predators, but migrated in huge flocks of hundreds of thousands at a time. No predator could really harm the flock as a whole. Well, until Humans became too good at hunting anyway. (Also, USA used to be c…

I recently read this book which suggests that the abundance of passenger pigeons in America was itself a result of human interference with the ecosystem. The general point of the book is that current people have no idea what a natural landscape looked like, and the places we think of as natural or pristine were themselves already severely degraded by prehistoric people. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Once_a…

Well, I never liked naturalism as an argument anyway.

But with that being said: I like Talapia. I like Salmon. I like various fish. They're all quite tasty, and I'd like to keep eating them throughout my life (and possibly let my children have a chance at it too).

For people who liked one food: the passenger pigeon, that opportunity is now gone, because the species has gone entirely extinct. And overhunting of that species is cited as a potential cause for extinction.

---------

It has nothing to do with naturalism or the state of things. Just from a purely selfish point of view: if you like a certain food source, you have to take care of it, lest it goes extinct and disappears forever.