Passenger pigeons were hunted by Native Americans, but hunting intensified after the
arrival of Europeans, particularly in the 19th century. Pigeon meat was commercialized
as cheap food, resulting in hunting on a massive scale for many decades. There were
several other factors contributing to the decline and subsequent extinction of the
species, including shrinking of the large breeding populations necessary for
preservation of the species and widespread deforestation, which destroyed its habitat.
A slow decline between about 1800 and 1870 was followed by a rapid decline between 1870
and 1890. In 1900, the last confirmed wild bird was shot in southern Ohio.
So too shall go the tuna. The size of a single tuna is already 50% to 70% smaller than normal. Soon their populations will go into freefall once there's not enough mature ones to spawn. The fishing will continue until there's no more. Even if legal limits are imposed, fishing will just continue illegally as it already does today.
1491 (or is it the sequel, 1493? I could see this topic ending up in either) makes the case that there's nowhere near as much evidence of Native Americans eating passenger pigeons as one might expect given the vast populations (and incredible ease of hunting) reported in later decades. Instead, the vast numbers may have been a sign of a badly screwed-up ecosystem, with huge swaths of native-managed agriculture and land suddenly going unmanaged, freeing up tons of cheap calories of exactly the kind the birds could use, leading to a gigantic boom in species perfectly-situated to take advantage of it, which would include the Passenger. All this, on account of the continent experiencing an apocalyptic drop in population after European disease arrived (and for other reasons, of course, but the diseases did a great deal of it).
That's not why it went extinct, of course, but does put in perspective what may have been a more "natural" population level for the bird, previously—the shocking decline may have been from an aberrant many-times-larger-than-normal population, not from the range in which the population had tended to stay before extensive contact with Europe. It may also explain why it was possible for it to go extinct so seemingly-easily—they weren't truly thriving as much as one might suppose from the numbers, and in fact were quite vulnerable, especially if people got accustomed to eating lots of them and their population was already destined to rubber-band back to something under its ordinary level.
The worlds fisheries are almost universally mismanaged.
Which reminds me of a conversation with a relative of mine from the Eastern shore of Va. He worked for a company that caught Horseshoe Crabs. These crabs were then ground up and used for bait to catch Conch. I pointed out to him that down the street from his company was another company that caught and released Horseshoe Crabs. They used their blood to produce medicine at great profit. Since that time Va has sadly had to place restrictions on harvesting Horseshoe Crabs. So not only did we over fish Horseshoe Crabs - we did it to over fish Conch.
Cod benefited by a moratorium on fishing in the areas with the most stock (eastern Canada). Without it there would have been a complete disappearing of cod.
Probably a dumb question but why hasn't cod rebound on the east coast? The fishing moratorium has been in place for decades now, shouldn't the population have increased exponentially since then?
This paper [1] (PDF) indicates it is likely a complex interaction between multiple parts of the ecosystem. One example is that large cod are apex predators, competing with seals and when those cod were removed, seal populations increased, and predation on small cod increased correspondingly.
To speak in simple terms: Cods were let go. The dynamics of the team changed. Ecosystem hired lobsters to fill the gap. Cods will not return because the former positions aren't available anymore.
Because of the laws of international waters etc it’s essentially impossible to police, short of aircraft/naval patrols being willing to fire on violators on sight. There is no legal basis to keep another nation from overfishing as long as it happens in international waters, and china largely just does what they want even in territorial waters. Unless you’re willing to start an international incident the best you can do is get one boat while the other 49 slip by with their haul.
We set up the laws of the sea basically on the same model as the United Nations. They’re there to keep the peace between international powers, not produce good governance.
> Because of the laws of international waters etc it’s essentially impossible to police, short of aircraft/naval patrols being willing to fire on violators on sight.
That's not how fishing works. After some threshold growing fish in aquaculture becomes cheaper than fishing, and things get back in balance. Otherwise, salmon would've been extinct by now.
Tuna and herring are not grown en masse in aquaculture... yet. That will change.
Sadly that is how fishing works. Wild Salmon is endangered in many locations including the US [1] and UK [2], for example.
It does also occur that popluations become so low that they can't recover. Atlantic Northwest Cod are the most obvious example, still not having recovered from overfishing in the latter half of last century [3].
Most prized variety - the bluefin tuna - is now widely farmed already (although farmed one still makes a very small proportion of tuna consumed). But it's possible and is already viable commercially.
Salmon are similarly on the road to extinction due to habitat loss, climate change and over fishing, along with the Resident Orcas that exclusively eat them.
I watched a documentary years ago about jellyfish invading Japan. Basically, the jellyfish population was exploding because the fish didn't exist to eat the baby jellyfish and keep them under control. The Japanese fishermen were furious that they kept catching jellyfish, rather than the fish that they wanted. They were the cause of their own suffering. Sounds like things haven't changed...
I hesitate to think that Japan could do something about it though. If they stopped over-fishing, that would just attract Chinese fishermen who would fill the gaps. Just can't win without global cooperation.
Fish management doesn't really require global cooperation. It does require some sacrifice. Where I live 100 years ago herring spawn covered nearly every shoreline. I live in an archipelago so there is a lot of coastline. Now there are sporadic patches of herring spawn. The herring fishery is a multi million dollar industry. Herring is also the base of the larger fin-fish population. We can't harvest all the food for larger species and harvest larger species and expect everything to just be fine. If there is an abundance of food for a species they will spawn in greater numbers (well known predator-prey dynamic). Sacrificing the herring fishery would allow larger species a path to build populations.
That is something that can be done at a local level without global cooperation. Don't harvest all the food for the larger fish we like to eat.
>That is something that can be done at a local level without global cooperation.
You're assuming some foreign operator won't come to your local waters to illegally fish. China has shown they will fish literally anywhere they can get away with it.
Read that article again closer, paying attention to separate the examples of illegal behavior from simply fishing.
"Much of what China does, however, is legal — or, on the open seas at least, largely unregulated." -- quote from your link.
Fishing "right up to the exclusive economic zone", means you're in international waters and can fish freely. They continue their activities because there are no legal means to stop their behavior. It's completely legal to fish in international waters.. just as it's legal for the US military to conduct freedom of movement operations in international waters. Countries can complain, but it doesn't give them the right to stop the behavior.
Aren't there international treaties regulating fishing in international waters? I know they exist but not sure if they're weak and vague. That is what we need but not realistic to happen in today's geopolitical climate
High seas is global commons. Any meaningful regulation / quota for potential enforcement is going to be on per capita basis (like emissions), in which case PRC significantly _underfishes_ relative to other top IUU violators. PRC would need to have distant fishing fleet of 60,000-120,000, or 20-40x times larger than current (3000-6000) to match per capita fleet of Taiwan (2000). Even if you take high end estimate of PRC DWF at 16000 that motivated actors use to bundle PRC fishing in their near shores (east/south seas, most of which are maritime militia that doesn't actually fish), they would still be "entitled" to 4x current fleet size. The reality is PRC has 20% of worlds population and limited EEZs so they're going to have to fish more in high seas / international waters for consumption and commerce. Unless one thinks PRC citizens aren't entitled to seafood or PRC fishers aren't entitled to a living.
Top fishing countries aren't going to agree to that (most of whom are US allies that media doesn't report on despite having comparable suspicious activities in same distant regions PRC operates in). The only reason PRC fishing got media play / propaganda push in the last few years is US wanted to beef up influence of pacific nations playing up PRC fishing so they can drive the issue to forward deploy coast guard and build influence. It's geopolitical lawfare, and it's unlikely to do anything substantive because any agreement by PRC on curtailing distant fishing would be on per capita basis which would first involve everyone else (JP,SKR,TW etc) to essentially kill their entire fishing industry before PRC would even need to make any cuts. Someone else pointed out the SUV analogy when it comes to global warmning which is apt.
>It's worth noting that Korea and Taiwan are right behind China in illegal fishing (#3 and #6, respectively).
You should really include a citation when you claim countries are "on a list". For all I know they are #3 and #6 on "vkou's list of least favorite countries".
Korea doesn't appear on the NOAA's list at all for 2023. Taiwan's impact is a tiny fraction of China's. While that's still not OK, we're comparing apples and atomic bombs.
>Angola, Grenada, Mexico, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan,
The Gambia, and Vanuatu were identified for reported or alleged IUU fishing
that occurred between 2020 and 2022. PRC and Taiwan’s identifications
include information related to seafood-related goods produced through forced
labor.
#1 China - 3.86
#2 Russia - 3.04
#3 South Korea - 2.91
#4 Somalia - 2.90
#5 Yemen - 2.89
#6 Taiwan - 2.88
Neck and neck with two states undergoing decades of civil war, and one that's a bit of an international pariah at the moment. A truly glowing endorsement.
> Taiwan's impact is a tiny fraction of China's.
Do you have any citation for this? The reports you cited do not give any numbers, and only put blame on both countries for use of forced labour, and for catching sharks (on the basis that both violate a US shark fishing ban, that was only passed by Congress in 2021[1]).
Taiwan also received a positive citation for closing some loopholes in its laws (With no evaluation for whether it enforces them.)
[1] Which is a good thing, but it is not an international shark fin ban. It's not entirely clear to me why either Taiwan or China have to follow domestic American law...
There's a very, very big difference between "we're exhausting the fish supplies off our coastal waters" and "we have an entire dark fleet we send to South America to pillage their waters because they can't defend themselves".
The question wasn't about whether Japan is appropriately managing their fish stocks, the question was whether or not they had massive illegal fleets gutting the ocean around the world (which China is currently doing).
I guess it's technically not illegal, but they fish just outside those boundaries everywhere, they also buy up massive amounts of legally caught fish elsewhere, leading to over fishing in those areas as well. Fisherman elsewhere get paid, but it's the same end result.
I know China-bashing is popular on this website, but a quite search of market data reveals that China isn't even in the top 10 of tuna producers NOR consumers.
Basic economics would suggest that a country with low nominal GDP/capita would not be the final destination for a global commodity (with relatively high production cost) like deep sea fish. Given that your production site is in the Pacific Ocean, why would you sell in Shanghai when you can sell in San Francisco where the average person spends ~10x or more USD on food?
TFA even says the West Pacific (i.e. China, Japan, Korea) is the region suffering the least, due to local conservation measures.
Maybe their population size explains a difference. Say 10% of a billion people can afford expensive fish - 100 million people. 1/3 the population of the US. One might also notice the preponderance of Chinese fishing vessels in areas far from China. [1] And just maybe those vessel are not properly identifying themselves so the true numbers are unknown. [2]
Just maybe the fishing grounds close to Chine are all fished out.
It's global market data, not political propaganda. If people get these numbers wildly wrong, they lose money. The "Chinese numbers can never be trusted" canard can only be stretched so far when it comes to global economic data that is materially validated on a daily basis by countless non-Chinese stakeholders.
moreso, "why should the government [because private industry would anyway with the prices] invest in solar and wind instead of coal, China will burn the coal anyway"
SUVs/Trucks -> Midsize by individuals driving 95% < 30 miles is less meaningful change than many other changes. (especially considering the future of the SUV is hybrid/electric). The math changes if the question becomes, instead of size of car, reducing the car/household for walking, biking, or carpooling.
> If they stopped over-fishing, that would just attract Chinese fishermen who would fill the gaps. Just can't win without global cooperation.
There's a way to deal with intruders (or, let's call it by its name, pirates) into maritime space: stop their ships, seize them or torpedo them. It's only a question of time IMHO until this happens, China has been making enemies at sea in its neighborhood, even up to Africa, for years now.
Yes, that is the second half of the documentary. They were trying to come up with delicious recipes to take advantage of the situation. I don't imagine I would like to eat jellyfish either, but I would certainly give it a try.
> They were trying to come up with delicious recipes to take advantage of the situation
And this plan will be a failure from the start. The pool of edible species is just a very small part of the total.
Leatherback turtles eat jellyfishes. What if we stop killing them instead? or increase the ludicrous amount of resources allocated to protect turtle nests?
95% water. The economics just don't work. Is spending dollars in fuel to move tons of water from the sea, trow the 90% again to the sea and sell the remains for pennies.
As someone who eats almost exclusively vegan I think it would be great as the whole world faces these issues, we see lots of switches to eating tofu or plant based foods.
Way cheaper. Can’t get so fat and unhealthy. And far healthier since most vegans and vegetarians live long and healthy lives compared to other groups.
Poke tastes great with tofu btw. We shouldn’t destroy the oceans.
Anyway I’m bracing for the inevitable downvote to oblivion
Nah you can eat just as bad vegan food. Most vegan burgers are just fat patties much worse than those made of lean beef.
As with any type of food it depends on the choices you make within the class and the amount of it.
I think the reason vegans and vegetarians are healthier is mainly because they are more conscious of what they're eating in the first place.
And depending on where you are it can take a lot of effort so it rules out "comfort food" people. I'm not sure about the US but here in Spain it's actually quite difficult to be vegetarian, there's not many local restaurants that serve veg options. More so when it comes to touristy places but still.. In Holland in comparison the supermarkets and restaurants are full of them.
There was a recent twin study (and Netflix show) done that makes for compelling evidence that a healthy vegan diet leads to better cardiovascular health than a healthy omnivorous diet:
That being said, I think that an unhealthy vegan diet can be worse than an unhealthy omnivorous diet, because you really do have to be careful to eat a variety of foods and supplement in order to get everything that your body needs. This is especially true for children.
I follow a vegan Youtuber who regularly points out how unhealthy the advice that other vegan influencers give can be. Here's her video on beginner tips for becoming vegan:
Fortunately most people don't eat burgers - vegan or beef - every day. A bowl of sugar is also vegan and also terrible for your health. Most people don't eat that either.
With regards to the point about health, I disagree. The culprit is not meat vs veggies, as processed foods and the ilk of hydrogenated fats and fructose based syrups and added sugars are by far the indicators of poor health. We see this in countless recent studies today. Some prior links such as meat = cancer are not seen as correct now.
Good health is achieved by regular physical exercise, and clear choices of unprocessed raw foods without added sugars. Being vegan can get you there, certainly, provided you don't indulge daily in pastries and deep fried seed oils.
But the reason I bother to reply is to point out that the same goes for high protein keto based diets, and even the carnivore diet, which has a growing body of support. We should all be striving to keep healthy bodies and healthy minds. There is plenty of information out there for all of us to live long and healthy lives.
In the United States when you eat meat it's a lot harder to know what you're getting thanks to the tireless efforts of the meat industry to lobby against any change to food labeling.
Why can't someone get as fat and unhealthy with a vegan diet? I'm friends with vegans who eat a LOT of processed foods - Gardein crispy tenders, Carl's Jr. for Beyond Burgers, etc.
> And far healthier since most vegans and vegetarians live long and healthy lives compared to other groups.
How much of this is attributable to a specific diet vs highlighting that those who care about what they eat generally perform better?
> Why can't someone get as fat and unhealthy with a vegan diet?
Don’t know about “unhealthy”, but “fat” is actually less likely, according to a research:
“our results suggest that self-identified semivegetarian, lactovegetarian, and vegan women have a lower risk of overweight and obesity than do omnivorous women. The advice to consume more plant foods and less animal products may help individuals control their weight.”
In a society where these diets buck the norm, I expect some of this effect is just from paying more attention to what one eats. It's a major mechanism behind lots of restrictive diets working for weight loss—paying more attention to food helps all on its own.
I bet there are people out there who eat semi-vegetarian diets basically by accident, who wouldn't think to label themselves semi-vegetarian, and that the beneficial effect is less pronounced among them.
Pescatarian diets are as healthy or more healthy than vegetarian or vegan ones, and much easier to adhere to in terms of getting the required proteins and amino acids.
Can you point out any vegan/vegatarian suffering from an amino acid imbalance (while eating an isocaloric amount of food; i.e., not starving)? Even a case study would do to demonstrate your point.
“In conclusion, our study showed that many vegan diets in the present survey failed to meet the daily protein intake requirements, both on single days and on all three days. Furthermore, the diets were particularly limited by the essential amino acids lysine, the sulphur-containing amino acids, leucine and valine.”
Already covered by my previous comment: the people in this study simply did not eat enough food.
> the recommended energy intake was not met on any of the days by more than half of the participants (55%) (Table 3), and only 10% met the recommended energy intake on all three days.
For a vegan who has a sedentary lifestyle, the problem is not getting appropriate amounts of amino-acids from the food, but getting them without eating so much as to cause a rapid gain of weight.
Lean meat provides proteins with very little of anything else, so it is extremely easy to choose a menu providing enough proteins but not too much energy.
Among vegetable products, only the seeds contain decent amount of proteins (this includes the cereals and the legumes), but all seeds contain much more of either carbohydrates or fats than proteins.
There are vegetable protein extracts aimed at vegans, but I do not consider those as an acceptable solution, because they are several times more expensive than meat, so it is likely that their environmental impact, due to the consumption of energy and chemicals for the protein extraction is greater than that of meat. Chicken meat is only about twice more expensive than legumes like peas, lentils or beans, so it is not easy to find a method of protein extraction from vegetables that can compete with that.
In Europe, where I live, there exists only one method that I am aware of that can be used to obtain enough proteins in a vegan diet with no more than 2000 kcal/day, when paying no more than for a chicken meat-based diet, which is to get more than half of the proteins from wheat flour from which the starch is removed at home by washing the dough made of it.
Any vegan diet that does not use some method of protein extraction would lead to a daily intake of around 3000 kcal when providing enough proteins for a healthy male, which is acceptable only for someone who does heavy physical work, but not for someone who works by sitting in the front of a computer.
Regarding the amino-acid balance, 167 g/day of lentils can provide enough of each essential amino-acid for a 75-kg human, with the exception of methionine. Similarly 500 g/day of wheat flour can provide enough of each essential amino-acid for a 75-kg human, with the exception of lysine.
If only wheat flour would be the source of proteins 1000 g per day would be needed to provide all essential amino-acids, but that alone would provide about 3500 kcal. If only lentils would be the source of proteins, about 600 g per day would be needed to provide all essential amino-acids, but that alone would provide about 1900 kcal (and eating so much lentils per day would be more expensive than eating chicken meat).
Combining wheat flour with lentils can satisfy the amino-acid requirements with much more reasonable quantities, but the daily intake of calories remains too high, unless most of the starch (i.e. about 75% of the starch) is removed from the wheat flour.
Eating a variety of plant based foods on a daily basis meets all amino acid requirements. If you're not sure, you can use a site like Cronometer to validate it. It seems the more a person is worried about protein, the less they know about it and nutrition generally.
I clicked on a few at random. I saw vegetarianism "with comprehensive lifestyle changes" in one case. "Well-planned" vegan meals compared to a standard (less planned) omnivore diet in another.
Obviously, physically active vegetarians who carefully consider their diet (and eat specifically balanced non-ultraprocessed food) compares well to 100% fast food eating couch potatoes. Also obviously, it's far easier to have a nutritional deficit with vegetarian food.
I have yet to see a study where vegetarianism is just imposed with no other guidance. If you have one, I would love to see it.
There's also the Stanford twins experiment where the omnivore diet is also very healthy.[1]
There's plenty of Harvard studies too.
There's an abundance of literature that meat causes cancer, cardiovascular diseases, etc, but people aren't different to 50s smokers.
Seriously. It's so obvious that cattle farming is among the most earth destroying activities but people prefer not to see, because it impacts their life. Easier to she'll 50k on a Tesla to feel good.
Also, just to point out, I'm not a vegan, all I'm saying is that meat should be heavily limited, which is what I do myself.
Comparisons have been made with both diets being healthy, extremely low meat diets consistently come on top for anything but caloric intake and lean mass preservation, which aren't the primary health concerns for people following the average diet anyway.
> Besides that, I haven't seen any studies that show a vegan or vegetarian diet makes someone healthier.
You must not have looked. Almost all (except for commercially funded) studies prove plant-based diets are much healthier; it's literally the scientific consensus in nutrition.
Plant-based diets are much healthier, but only for those who are careful to also take a relatively large number of supplements containing the minerals that do not exist in plants or which exist in too small quantities (iodine, selenium, calcium) and the vitamins, fatty acids and amino-acid derivatives that do not exist in plants and which either are not made by humans, or are made in insufficient quantities, especially at old age and especially in males (vitamins B12, D3, K2, DHA, EPA, creatine, taurine, choline).
Otherwise, there are plenty of studies that show that those vegans who neglect to take appropriate supplements have various health problems, e.g. osteoporosis or anemia.
I also have heard of many (and I know personally someone) who were forced to abandon the vegan diet after some time due to health problems, but it is very likely that all such problems have been caused by not taking a complete set of supplements, because most have heard only about B12, and that is not the only substance missing from plants.
That has less to do with being vegan and all to do with being aware of what micronutrients your body needs to thrive. Everyone benefits from B12 supplementation as it's no longer possible to derive it from the natural environment; even farm animals are routinely injected with B12 and a cocktail of other vitamins.
Non-vegans have just as many nutritional deficiencies, if not more, like a total lack in fiber. And for every neglectful vegan, there are ten unhealthy animal product-eating individuals with even more debilitating diseases, like diabetes, for example.
Also, DHA/EPA is synthesized in the body; it's not necessary to supplement them, nor any other vitamins you had listed, other than B12 and possibly D3 (depending on your latitude).
Society overall is in a level of denial towards the very negative impact of cattle farming on the planet like it was in the 50s towards tobacco.
People will bitch about a cigarette being smoked 10 meters from them, but will shove sausages and stakes down their throats every other day pretending it doesn't have a gigantic cost in terms of earth's resources or the many studies pointing about how unhealthy it is.
Mind you, I don't advocate for people to cut off meat entirely, I myself have no intention to do so, but if we globally halved this crazy meat culture the impact on the planet would be huge.
We eat unhealthy and we're killing the planet while pretending to be green with Tesla SUVs. We're doomed to keep making this planet worse.
Not going to downvote you because I appreciate your position. It seems really unlikely that tuna consumption is driving obesity or detrimental health effects though.
Sushi lovers (and meat eaters) such as myself do need to make educated choices about their consumption though, I agree. Which is why basically any tuna species is (and has been) at the bottom of my list.
We'll probably just figure out a way to switch to farming these fish or something very similar to them once we finish destroying the wild ones in the ocean.
> Way cheaper. Can’t get so fat and unhealthy. And far healthier since most vegans and vegetarians live long and healthy lives compared to other groups.
Japan, where tuna sashimi is popular (apparently they eat more tuna by far than any other country), has the lowest obesity rate of the OECD countries, and one of the highest life expectancies.
There is no science to backup the vegan diet is "far healthier". Also, if the entire world stopped eating meat, we'd have a series of other problems to deal with.
Just make intellectually honest arguments and try and win that way. It's a much better way to "convert" people to your cause.
What problems do you think would result? The only ones I can think of are job losses in agriculture and healthcare. And the entire world wouldn't stop eating meat anyway so it's a made up problem.
You're right, it's the way forward, but I don't think you're helping by making it seem like the easy path. You have to pay more attention to your nutrition if you want to stay healthy as a vegan, and attention is under attack these days.
[UPDATE] Why all the hate? I thought I was making a serious point: food is not just about health, it's also about enjoyment. You can survive on beans and rice, but there are people, myself included, who would happily give up a few years of life expectancy for a more diverse diet.
Humans deterministically deplete ingenious populations of megafauna to extinction
The counter to this to date was megafauna herding via property boundary permanence. aka fencing for cattle
So the only solution would be to figure out how to do ocean megafauna herding because reducing consumption is unlikely. Which would require massive scale 3 or 4 dimensional fencing.
Sounds like a technical problem that can be solved if extremely difficult
Also the externalities would be bonkers most likely
Eating marine animals can be beneficial for the oceans. Eating sea urchins can help save the kelp forests off of California, eating Lion fish can help save the reef fish in the Caribbean.
Where I live (Finland) salmon is most likely the most commonly used sushi/sashini fish. It tastes absolutely great, IMHO better than tuna.
Hopefully other countries can also start using more commonly available fishes for sushi/sashimi and don't just stick to tuna because of historical reasons.
I'm afraid salmon fisheries aren't doing great either, and are facing similar levels of decline and risk.
> Atlantic salmon (pictured) is placed in the “near threatened” category. New evidence says that globally, the population has declined by 23% between 2006 and 2020.
(And actually when I try to look it up, it does not look like Yellowfin Tuna is actually on the "near threatened" or worse list officially? So atlantic salmon may be more threatened than yellowfin tuna according to IUCN?)
The salmon we are using is mostly from fish farms, not from wild salmon. Wild salmon is wildly expensive here so I don't think it is ever used for sushi.
People will downvote you but I see nothing wrong with your comment.
Chick'n or other meat alternatives are a way to alternate your fish or meat consumption to reduce it (notice I didn't even say eliminate completely).
Why not replace a few meals with alternatives. People's blood will boil when you tell them their beloved fish will not be an option one day. At this rate factory farmed fish will be your only option and we all know how ethical this process is. Oh I keep forgetting how most people don't care how they produce it as long as they can go out for Sushi.
What kind of definition or distinction do you apply for deciding what is meat?
Because I personally struggle to find a reason for why fish should be an exception, and at least Wikipedia also defines meat as "animal flesh that is eaten as food".
Usually cost and availability. Poultry and (if near water) fish are a fairly regular part of the diet, whereas meat, due to its cost is something for the well-off, or special occasions.
Fish-hunting on an industrial scale should be banned, it's completely unsustainable, regardless of quotas, international agreements, conservation efforts, etc, and it's just backward - we don't wild-hunt anything else for food at such scale, we farm it.
They really do need to just figure out how to farm all marine species and stop this madness of depleting up to 90% or more of natural stock. It's absurd, they're causing ecological collapse globally.
I started casually watching the reality TV series "Deadliest Catch" about 15 years ago, and became a regular viewer since then. In that time span:
- the amount of Bering Sea ice has dropped significantly
- the amount of 100-year storms has increased
- crab numbers have decreased
- crab seasons have been outright canceled due to major population collapses
- crab that remain are seeking deeper/colder water
As much dissembling as people want to do about climate change, you can see with your own two eyes the difference between season 1 and now. They almost never mention climate change on the show. They complain a lot about how "regulations" are destroying the fishermen's livelihood.
People negatively affect by regulation complain about regulation. Say it ain't so!
Any regulation of this type has a pointy end poking into someones back, regardless of the overall goal or intent of the regulation. Doesn't mean the regulation is bad, simply that it impacts someone.
While climate change is certainly having an impact on the crab fisheries in Alaska, none of the population changes have been attributed to over fishing. While, like everyone, the fleet contributes to systemic climate change, it's certainly not "their fault". They're just another microcosm showing impact of the climate dynamic. The Alaska fisheries are some of the best managed fisheries in the world, and the fishermen comply and work with the regulations.
The change to a quota system over the free-for-all derby system impacted a lot of fishermen. No doubt those whose livelihood were disrupted probably have a low opinion of it. The survivors probably enjoy it more, as its a more deterministic and safer system without the racing aspects of derby fishing, and the fishery is better managed because of it.
Arguably an overall win. But not for those who dropped off the bottom, they were forced to find something else.
sure, there was a somewhat large media frenzy focused on them in Italy last summer, with literal titles such as "what are blue crabs, why are they dangerous but delicious"[0]
I have family working as a UN advisor on sustainable food chains and she says the entire ecosystem in the oceans could potentially collapse in 10 to 20 years if we don't stop large scale fishing entirely, especially trawl and unreported fishing destroying the seafloor and acidity going haywire.
I have no idea if this is correct but i'm pretty sure around 1 billion rely on this food and can't imagine what would happen if this somehow got removed from the system.
I read a lot about these sort of bleak predictions from people very in the weeds on the topics, but rarely see it being surfaced in a way that's easily citeable. I've seen second hand reports that the Amazon rain forest will experience it's tipping point within the next 3-5 years no matter what happens and even that it's already tipped, but we haven't figured it out yet. Frustrating that such dire claims aren't widely reported and made more aware. I fear that everything climate/earth system related is stuck in with the view that we should only say how bad things are when it's already over and measurable beyond any sort of doubt. That obviously leaves the public with no time to act
They have already collapsed some places in the world. Like the Baltic sea where a keystone specie like the cod is in so much trouble that it seems irreversible.
I'd be in favour of removing meat subsidies. If the 'true' price of steak or a burger was ten times higher people would eat it for special occasions and not every day with every meal. It's telling and hypocritical how many meat eating 'libertarians' are in favour of government handouts to preserve their food eating habits rather than letting the market do it's work. I'm a meat eater but I'll concede that those subsidies would have to be slowly removed -- otherwise it would result in the collapse of certain industries.
Commercial fishing is just unsustainable. So unless you're a guy with a fishing rod we'll eventually have to just stop the boats heading out to sea.
Meat subsidies? There are programs to support smaller suppliers, increase competition. Not directly make beef cheaper.
It's something like a billion a year? Sounds like a lot; your part was $2.50 in taxes. Not very significant in a trillion-dollar budget.
Removing these programs would probably have the opposite effect: letting competition languish would leave one or two large players, who could set the prices anywhere they liked. Probably not lower.
The point of the comment wasn't the meat prices, but the preservation of the environment. Higher prices will mean less consumption which will mean less production so a environment win, and still room for a small but also expensive producer or two. Unless the duopoly will want higher production and decrease the prices so we will land in the same place, environment-wise. Or am I getting the subsidies point wrong?
I don't see how the money spent by the government to encourage competition (not strictly a 'subsidy' which means 'price support') has any effect on the environment.
I like the motivation, but I don't think it could work in practice. Government never seems to be able to effectively "crack down on commercial X but allow individual to do X". People are too crafty and corporations hire lots of lawyers. They will always find a way to follow the letter of the law and get around the spirit of the law. Suddenly, there's an army of "individuals with fishing rods that are totally not employees" who through a totally legit web of contractor relationships and transactions, all happen to deliver their fish to the commercial fish company for them to sell.
It’s been a while since I brushed up on that question, thank you for the impetus!
The EWG attempts to enumerate the federal subsidies, which, by its count, total some $50bn directly to livestock producers since 1995, plus $160bn to farms that produce mainly feedstock for the meat. [0]
To be fair, EWG’s count includes disaster assistance, COVID subsidies, and direct compensation for losses related to Trump’s trade war-all of which is consistent with what the feds provide for any industry.
But in agriculture particularly, in the US as in most territories, the stated rationale is to protect farmers. The idea being they can’t control the weather, but one bad year can wipe them out through no fault of their own. And these types of failure, from the vicissitudes of nature and of market conditions they couldn’t have foreseen, can be coordinated across a region or market in a way that makes it hard for conventional insurance to handle.
But they also don’t look at subsidy programs beyond those direct payments to meat and dairy producers; skilled (though motivated) observers seem to estimate that larger number at close to $36bn/yr in 2013 terms. [1]
To get to that larger number you’d probably include consumption-side subsidies like school lunch programs, marketing support, and backstopping private crop insurance; and you’d include the major crops like corn and soy that, while not directly bound for the supermarket shelf, will end up feeding humans as well as livestock in some form. Or as ethanol shrug. The kinds of subsidies that the EWG counted toward the 160bn-since-1995 in [0].
Their broader point though was that the latter type of subsidies aren’t subsidizing things you or I would call a fruit or a vegetable and buy at the grocer and eat directly (those are <1% of federal subsidies); instead they’re subsidizing inputs to livestock and processed food producers.
Fair enough... but its not like these numbers are actually that clear.
The EWG say:
> The Department of Agriculture has spent almost $50 billion in subsidies for livestock operators since 1995, according to an EWG analysis.
Analysis is akin to interpretation... and we can read that their mission is an environmental one:
> Since 1993, the Environmental Working Group has shined a spotlight on outdated legislation, harmful agricultural practices and industry loopholes that pose a risk to our health and the health of our environment.
So their analysis would say livestock is over-subsidised, as that is aligned their mission. It doesn't mean that my analysis would be in agreement with theirs.
I would need to go through all these numbers, check the sources, check how each was subsidised, work out what counts as "livestock" - eg is butter purchasing livestock, is bison, is farmed fish, etc. A long boring thankless task.
I suspect that in 50 years, few people will be eating any seafood that isn't cultivated (aquaculture). Not out of choice, and not because of changing cultural values (it is tasty, after all). But because there's just none left. Saw a headline on reddit the other day, $800,000 for a single bluefin tuna. Granted, it was large (over 500 lbs), but you don't hold auctions with winning bids approaching a million dollars on a single fish when they're still in easy supply.
I had assumed that this article would be talking about bluefin, was slightly surprised. It's kind of screwed up, if you ask me.
Not a fan of sushi, and I guess I didn't know what a poke ball, but it's not just the fish favored by Japanese cuisine. I don't even know when the last time I would've eaten real cod at Long John's... in the 1980's as a kid? Now it's all something like Alaskan pollock or whatever. Gulf coast shrimp, shellfish off the east coast, very little of it seems to be in good status.
> $800,000 for a single bluefin tuna. Granted, it was large (over 500 lbs), but you don't hold auctions with winning bids approaching a million dollars on a single fish when they're still in easy supply.
That had nothing to do with supply. It was the first tuna of the season and people bid on it as a status symbol.
These crazy prices are typically bought for the advertising of having paid those prices, they aren’t a reflection of cost of the goods. The 800k fish was the first fish auctioned in the new year, which gets a lot of news cycles given the importance of the auction in Japan.
China and Russia, are major over fishers. They have huge factory ships with swarms of smaller netters grabbing every fish they can. They do not respect size/species limits. Many countries have used armed patrol boats for offenders in their 200 mile economic zone. mid ocean sea mounts are have their fish exterminated by these vessels. Atlantic cod may not return because of over fishing on shallow banks that extend over 200 miles from Canada = where all fish are grabbed and the under 200 mile zone does not create enough young fish to compensate for these losses. Canada need to extend their control to the Grand Banks to add a contiguity zone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Banks_of_Newfoundland
Disruption of the food chain, cultural blow and sighs of disappointed foodies worldwide.
Hilsa, a fish from the Bengali delta (India and Bangladesh), periodically has similar crises, but seemed to be dredging along its cherished existence. Here is hoping that the Tuna fisheries will pick up a thing or two from that brood and execute some good measures.
I'd take a war time like food rationing system over what is most likely going to happen. At least with rationing you get your 5 meals/year and the option to trade/sell them if you don't want. Without rationing you'll get nothing (because you can't afford it) and the wealthy just carry on as usual.
Increasing what fish wholesale pay for caught tuna might serve to make smaller catches more viable.
I mean I expect those dish prices to go up regardless but I don't think that is near enough by itself. Fishing families have to pay their bills and corp fishing execs have to satisfy whoever they're beholden to. Those are powerful motivators and they commonly don't respond to anything less than enforced regulation.
Amusing anecdote - I used to eat octopus whenever I could get my hands on it, but always as an ingredient in a larger dish - e.g. chunks of octopus in a stew or sauce.
One day I ordered octopus tentacle from a tapas bar, and it arrived whole (and beautifully presented as a centerpiece of sorts). This surfaced many memories of nature documentaries demonstrating the wit and resilience of the octopus.
Looking at the delicacy artfully arranged on its plate, all I could think was "Jesus, that's _someone's arm_ we're eating!"
Took a bite, nearly threw up, and haven't eaten octopus since.
Another important candidate are shark fins. Not only are sharks of many kinds endangered, cutting of their fins and tossing the still living shark back in the ocean is especially cruel and wasteful.
But considering that most fish species are endangered and basically all of them are contaminated by plastic, there is good reason to avoid seafood altogether. Unless perhaps if you know that it has been fished sustainably from a local stable population. Which still wouldn't change the issues with the plastic.
Unfortunately, they are still popular in parts of Asia. You don't see them at every corner, but e.g. in Taipeh it was offered in some places. And it is consumed enough to drive several species of sharks into extinction. Which of course, beyond the cruelty, will disrupt the eco systems further.
The speciesism in this comment is profound, as if you have some empirical evidence an octupus is more intelligent than, say, a pig; or whether a creature's lack of ability to reason (versus feel pain and suffer) gives way to treat it cruelly.
Yeah, I think you would have to avoid many mammals, if you have these concerns; it's debatable how much this should even mater.
Alligators may seem "dumb", but they're smarter than us, if you go only by success. We don't know what all those nice sunbathes do for the animal.
Could bring the same joy and nastagia as climbing to the top of the mountain. Who are we to spoil this? How is it different from the joy we experience, or that of an octopus, pig, dog, ect as it frolics in the fields?
I've read many news reports over the years that it's the Chinese fishing vessels encroaching upon the national waters of other nations, and overfishing them. Those vessels tend to obscure themselves by illegal means, whether by fishing at night and with almost no lights, or other means. They're also reported to be very aggressive, and their unsafe fishing techniques are very damaging to the environment.
The drones just travel around the ocean scanning for illegal fishing. When they detect it, they determine who owns the vessel and send them a bill for fines. People respond to fines.
People are free to ignore the fine. The country they live in won't enforce it, especially since the illegal fishing is often occurring in another country's waters. In many cases, it is tacitly encouraged by the home country.
We can already detect illegal fishing, that's not a limitation. Illegal fishing fleets greatly out-scale the ability of naval forces to seize them, so the occasional seizure is just a cost of doing business, like with illegal drugs. There is little that will be effective at stopping illegal fishing short of using naval forces to sink them (which would scale), and that isn't going to happen.
I think we're talking about different scenarios. What I'm considering is a scenario where some type of enforcement authority for illegal fishing is considering whether drones are a good solution. My answer is yes. However, I am aware that no such authority exists at present because the illegal fishing is not actually illegal under any globally recognized laws.
My larger point in the GP is that you don't need to threaten anybody with force to get them to comply with a (hypothetical, future) law or treaty like this. The people doing this fishing are operating businesses, and if you make it costly for them to operate a certain way, they will change how they are operating to become compliant. This occurs all the time in other industries, so I don't see why fishing would be different.
