Tuna is Becoming Extinct

[Skykid]

The dole dossing cun* who lives a few doors opposite from our house has 7 kids and all he does is sit at home all day drinking stella.....

Welcome to England, proud sponsor of the Olympic Games 2012.

[Ed Oscuro]

I mentioned that earlier: It's been said a few times that there is a world-wide phenomenon where the better off you feel, the fewer children you have (maybe there is a hard limit at 1-2 children); the worse off, the more children you have. Why this is I could only guess at, though it may be possible to make some more charitable guesses.

[Smraedis]

I've been saying this for about half of my life, but then people only start to do something when it's almost too late.
People are stupid, and we all know it.

[EllertMichael]

Anyway... Tuna is gross. Good riddance.

[Vyxx]

Just as long as we don't run out of Salmon >_>

[Blackbird]

Yeah, it would be really great if we could slow or even reverse population growth for a little while, but trying to actually do something about that will make you really unpopular.

Look how well population management has worked in China =/...

A big part of it is families having dozens of children in underdeveloped countries, because there is a very real possibility that several of those kids will die of disease or other causes before reaching adulthood. Even in developed nations, there will always be that voice in the back of your subconscious telling you to have another kid "just in case" when you don't really need one.

[Ed Oscuro]

A big part of it is families having dozens of children in underdeveloped countries, because there is a very real possibility that several of those kids will die of disease or other causes before reaching adulthood. Even in developed nations, there will always be that voice in the back of your subconscious telling you to have another kid "just in case" when you don't really need one.

Well, attitudes can change. In mid-century (about 1960) rural China there was a huge emphasis on not letting a family name die out - although that could be fixed by adopting names and naming children after one of the grandparents, for example. In any case I don't think it's all a superstition (and one need look no farther than China to see examples of "the fight against superstition" taken to an extreme).

[hzt]

If we would just kill and eat all the really shitty uncool people it would solve the too many people problem and the not enough animals problem, I don't get why this isn't a thing??? Are people hard to cook or do they just plain taste bad or something?

[Ed Oscuro]

Shit and uncoolness taste pretty bad even without using the tongue to taste. That you didn't notice this is a sign that all your taste is located in your mouth, something to work on! (Memories of Kepler talking about eyes being the "only means of sight" of stupid people, we don't want to be in that group.)

[evil_ash_xero]

hunt extinct animals

lolwut

Yeah, just noticed that myself.

Well, I'd better get to hunting some dodo...

[Ed Oscuro]

If you don't hunt 'em, they ain't gonna show up.

[BulletMagnet]

Yeah, it would be really great if we could slow or even reverse population growth for a little while, but trying to actually do something about that will make you really unpopular.

*insert comment about birth control that gets people all riled up here*

[Ex-Cyber]

A big part of it is families having dozens of children in underdeveloped countries, because there is a very real possibility that several of those kids will die of disease or other causes before reaching adulthood. Even in developed nations, there will always be that voice in the back of your subconscious telling you to have another kid "just in case" when you don't really need one.

I wish I knew the citation off the top of my head, but I know there was a study on this that analyzed it from an economic / game theory perspective and concluded that many people having "too many" kids actually did approximate the outcome of most people following a rational strategy with a goal of "virtually certain to have enough kids for the family to not die out" (i.e. they tend to overshoot the ideal number in exchange for greater certainty).

[Mischief Maker]

It's said that the real downfall of humanity isn't our instincts at all, but agriculture. They say that before the dawn of agriculture, the human population on the planet never exceeded the present day population of Chicago, and that was anatomically modern humans with tools and fire. Agriculture was a game-changer by allowing a huge number of humans to be supported by a tiny amount of land as opposed to ranging around in search of migratory animals and ripe plants. Now some would argue that our species is no longer evolving because instead of physically adapting to environmental pressures, we adapt our environment to suit us.

Take ANY species of any animal or plant on Earth, move it to an environment where it has no natural predators, it will wreak environmental disaster. Freaking RABBITS are laying waste to Australia's environment. The only difference with Humans is that we can choose not to, but you sure as hell aren't going to convince people to do the right thing by quoting Agent Smith from the Matrix at them.

[CMoon]

Tragedy of the commons dude.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Yeah, it would be really great if we could slow or even reverse population growth for a little while, but trying to actually do something about that will make you really unpopular.

http://vhemt.org/

[DEL]

Overfishing has been at ridiculous levels for many years.
To top it off, the fish in the Pacific.....well I certainly wouldn't risk eating them -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-HlHyygEGY

[Ed Oscuro]

It's said that the real downfall of humanity isn't our instincts at all, but agriculture. They say that before the dawn of agriculture, the human population on the planet never exceeded the present day population of Chicago, and that was anatomically modern humans with tools and fire.

No promise, no payoff. I for one am happy we moved beyond that merely subsistence world. For whose sake wouldn't we? The animals? They would just do the same shit but maybe a million years later, when even less is possible than today (entropy of the universe means that you takes your chances now).

[CIT]

How did a thread about overfishing become a thread about overpopulation? The two are not necessarily related.

[kid aphex]

Our food supply, our environment, and ourselves... we're inseparable.
Understanding this... I couldn't fathom eating seafood at this point.
Our oceans are our dumping grounds: Out of sight, out of mind.
Following the process of the FDA re: the situation is laughable; they're continually updating the safety guidelines concerning the amount of mercury you can safely (ha) ingest. It's all at the behest of industry.

I imagine that if you could quantify the damage being done to our species via the ingestion of our own wastes, it'd suggest a mortality crisis on the horizon
In that way, I'm sure the situation will balance itself out

[CMoon]

How did a thread about overfishing become a thread about overpopulation? The two are not necessarily related.

I actually agree with this. The cod of cape cod were wiped out long before the human population had gotten seriously out of hand.

[Ed Oscuro]

How did a thread about overfishing become a thread about overpopulation? The two are not necessarily related.

You're welcome to make that distinction. What greater good does that serve, though? (People who hate tuna but love fucking, I guess?) For everybody else, there's the point that both share some similar causes and responses.

[TLB]

How did a thread about overfishing become a thread about overpopulation? The two are not necessarily related.

You're welcome to make that distinction. What greater good does that serve, though? (People who hate tuna but love fucking, I guess?) For everybody else, there's the point that both share some similar causes and responses.

They're altogether similar situations. Little food, lots of people.

[R79]

How did a thread about overfishing become a thread about overpopulation? The two are not necessarily related.

Tuna is said to raise the sperm count

[Ed Oscuro]

How did a thread about overfishing become a thread about overpopulation? The two are not necessarily related.

Tuna is said to raise the sperm count

mang you terrible, I already make that joke

[CMoon]

How did a thread about overfishing become a thread about overpopulation? The two are not necessarily related.

You're welcome to make that distinction. What greater good does that serve, though? (People who hate tuna but love fucking, I guess?) For everybody else, there's the point that both share some similar causes and responses.

They're altogether similar situations. Little food, lots of people.

The point is that even before the overpopulation problem, wild populations of animals were being driven to extinction by people. I agree that overpopulation compounds the problem, but it itself is not the actual problem.

The 'tragedy of the commons' is the problem.

[CMoon]

As an addendum to my last post. I was watching a video on TED which talked about the idea of how such a great deal of natural services are still not factored into the costs of business, and if they were, businesses would be required to change their models. The way wild fish are caught still reflect an 18th century mentality and are a perfect illustration of the tragedy of the commons. There is no point, even when we are eating orange roughy which have a life span up to 150 years, that fishing of wild fishing will stop until it becomes less profitable than farmed fish. Even armed with knowledge of permanent environmental damage will not (at least according to the model) change the way people treat a public resource. It is time that all businesses acknowledge that natural services have an estimated cost, and to act irresponsibly, ignoring these costs and the consequences, is no different than hunting the American Buffalo to extinction. It is just a way of thinking that belongs in the past and doesn't make any sense in today's world.

[maxlords]

As an addendum to my last post. I was watching a video on TED which talked about the idea of how such a great deal of natural services are still not factored into the costs of business, and if they were, businesses would be required to change their models. The way wild fish are caught still reflect an 18th century mentality and are a perfect illustration of the tragedy of the commons. There is no point, even when we are eating orange roughy which have a life span up to 150 years, that fishing of wild fishing will stop until it becomes less profitable than farmed fish. Even armed with knowledge of permanent environmental damage will not (at least according to the model) change the way people treat a public resource. It is time that all businesses acknowledge that natural services have an estimated cost, and to act irresponsibly, ignoring these costs and the consequences, is no different than hunting the American Buffalo to extinction. It is just a way of thinking that belongs in the past and doesn't make any sense in today's world.

This is quite possibly the most disturbing thing I've heard in a while. I'm not surprised at all. I'm still of the firm belief that the wold would be better off without most of the filthy humans in it. Just makes me sad that people are unable to process anything that doesn't benefit them immediately. Having grown up living at a fish hatchery that compensated for this kind of BS, it makes me even sadder

[system11]

How did a thread about overfishing become a thread about overpopulation? The two are not necessarily related.

The two are inseperable.

Humans destroy and consume any resource until it is all gone, if there were far fewer humans, there would be far less fishing. It's not that hard to understand. You can't just go with 'the tragedy of the commons', because that describes a model of overconsumption of a limited resource. A resource is limited when demand outstrips supply - hence there is too much demand for the partiular part of our ecosystem in question to support.

Here's some more of our handiwork:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17488447

Honestly a serious pandemic would make a lot of people unhappy for a bit, but it would be for the greater good at this point. This about this for a second - consider your school or workplace, or just when you're out and about. If 1 in 3 people simply stayed at home, would you even notice? I honestly don't think I would. You could magic away 1 in 3 people tomorrow and the human race would barely skip a beat, that's how big the surplus is.

[maxlords]

I am in favor of a serious pandemic. Dibs on the "Get Out of Pandemic Free" card tho!

Seriously though....this is an issue that should be addressed BEFORE that shit happens. We're just too dumb to do it.

In regards to resources being limited and stripped bare by demand, look at farming. It's all corporate now. Most people don't even know HOW to fend for themselves anymore. In the wake of a serious pandemic or crisis which causes the semi-collapse of our infrastructure even, food will be a very real issue for everyone. We literally can't make our own now. I can't even grow enough food to support my pet rabbit year round. I buy that shit because I don't have the resources to grow it. And that's one 4.5 lb. rabbit. We consume SO much food at this point and waste even more of it that there's no WAY we could support ourselves on our own.