'Only 50 years left' for sea fish

[Sava]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Pseudoscience indeed. Perhaps you'd like to explain to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada why they've all lost their livelihood.

Because all they do is have sex with each other instead of catch fish?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by VJ
The day when we have 10% of our current supply of fish left in all the world's oceans will be the day when the price of fish is 1000% of what it is now

No, it isn't.

Unlike, say, oil:

a) Putting more money in doesn't mean that you suddenly find more sea fish. Of course some slack is going to be made up by fish farms. But fishing in the ocean is going to remain competitive with that to levels drastically below current levels. That's because:

b) Fishing in the ocean is not regulated by governmental bodies beyond the 200 km exclusion zone. Governments don't get to take royalties from fishing outside that, so the price doesn't increase dramatically with scarcity.

If you can't see the difference between oil and fish then you need to rethink this issue seriously.

Anybody with a boat can go fish in the ocean. I can't drive into Saudi Arabia and start pumping oil without being granted mineral rights.

[KrazyHorse]

Modern fishing methods can economically extract fish down to ridiculously low levels. We managed to fish the Grand banks into virtual oblivion. Cod stocks are at levels like 1% of what they once were.

[Sava]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I can't drive into Saudi Arabia and start pumping oil

Sure you can. You just have to be real inconspicuous.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, the supply of fish on the market will remain at a relatively constant level even as fish stocks plummet. The drop in availability will drive extraction costs up slightly, but not even inversely to supply. A drop to 10% might drive the costs up by a factor of 2, not by a factor of 10. And since nobody gets to put their hand on the faucet and charge royalties or set real limits outside certain zones, the market price will not go up dramatically until a day when stocks are much lower than today. The market mechanism to regulate overfishing doesn't work. Once the stocks are that low it takes decades to build them up again.

[RGBVideo]

a) Putting more money in doesn't mean that you suddenly find more sea fish. Of course some slack is going to be made up by fish farms. But fishing in the ocean is going to remain competitive with that to levels drastically below current levels. That's because:

It's a same failure in logical chain of events which was used by the Club of Rome...

not

It's THE same failure in logical chain of events which was used by the Club of Rome...

there were many illogicalities hidden within the claims made by Club of Rome. I was describing one, here you are describing entirely another one... most of your post is criticizing a strawman which made the first illogicality you could think of.

b) Fishing in the ocean is not regulated by governmental bodies beyond the 200 km exclusion zone. Governments don't get to take royalties from fishing outside that, so the price doesn't increase dramatically with scarcity.

uhh... right here, you're presuming that government royalties are the only factor which alters the price of commodities.

when something becomes scarcer, it becomes harder to get. this means it's price goes up, since the amount of hours used for the harvest of the same amount of commodity as before increases. This means paying more for the manpower and equipment upkeep.

there's also the whole "supply and demand" thing. When demand is far greater than supply, fish becomes so expensive that it becomes economically viable to grow fish in man-made environments. This happens before all the fish species grow extinct, thus the article is lying, thus it's sensationalist. I already explained what warrants the label "pseudo-science" here:

Presuming that the current trend continues means presuming that harvesting fish from the ocean will continue to be as easy as currently even if the amount of fish per ocean km³ will be 10% of what it is now..

[KrazyHorse]

Your chi is weak, your arguments sad and ineffective.

Lets not forget who first mentioned oil:

Yeah, and there is no oil left now if current trends of the 1970s would've continued

I have now described why the trends which led to oil lasting longer than a naive approximation dictated do not apply here. Your job is now to rebut these reasons.

I also explained why this claim:

The day when we have 10% of our current supply of fish left in all the world's oceans will be the day when the price of fish is 1000% of what it is now

Is spurious.

Feel free to actually join in instead of dancing about like a ****ing fairy.

[RGBVideo]

The market mechanism to regulate overfishing doesn't work. Once the stocks are that low it takes decades to build them up again.

we agree: it is very, very inefficient when you think long-term. Something should be done. EU could try to forge a treaty covering all it's sea areas for start. They're not doing anything. Any idea who should?

doesn't change the fact that the original article is sensationalist pseudo-science...

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Pseudoscience indeed. Perhaps you'd like to explain to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada why they've all lost their livelihood.

Because they are pseudoscientists Hence, they lost it all to pseudoscience!

[KrazyHorse]

Presuming that the current trend continues means presuming that harvesting fish from the ocean will continue to be as easy as currently even if the amount of fish per ocean km³ will be 10% of what it is now..

Are you ****ing stupid?

The drop in availability will drive extraction costs up slightly, but not even inversely to supply. A drop to 10% might drive the costs up by a factor of 2, not by a factor of 10. And since nobody gets to put their hand on the faucet and charge royalties or set real limits outside certain zones, the market price will not go up dramatically until a day when stocks are much lower than today

This is from experience. It's not hypothesis.

Fish stocks went down in the Grand Banks, but it continued to be economical to harvest them even as the stocks dropped through the floor. Since density of fish does not drive the extraction price too severely and since government regulations or royalties do not exist over much of the world's oceans, there is no mechanism to effectively translate the drop in fish stocks to a proportional increase in prices.

[KrazyHorse]

Without price sensitivity to fish stocks it becomes a fair first approximation to project current trends at least for a while.

[RGBVideo]

I have now described why the trends which led to oil lasting longer than a naive approximation dictated do not apply here. Your job is now to rebut these reasons.

It's a same failure in logical chain of events which was used by the Club of Rome...

not

It's THE same failure in logical chain of events which was used by the Club of Rome...

there were many reasons why the approximation did not apply... I described one, you're taking entirely another one which was never in dispute... altough I pointed out that there was only one reason for comparison in my original reply... after that, I have repeatedly told you that there never was a disagreement over the another reason you're trying to raise... this begs the question, are you posting her just for an ego trip? if you want to ZOMG WIN TEH DEBATE, go find a brick wall, imagine it saying to you some outrageous claims and then refute them while yelling at it's how he's a ****ing fairy and stupid.

Fish stocks went down in the Grand Banks, but it continued to be economical to harvest them even as the stocks dropped through the floor.

Fish stocks went down in the Grand Banks, but it continued to be economical to harvest them even as the stocks dropped through the floor. Since density of fish does not drive the extraction price too severely and since government regulations or royalties do not exist over much of the world's oceans, there is no mechanism to effectively translate the drop in fish stocks to a proportional increase in prices.

Since the changes in price caused by supply and demand are supposedly included in this, I must presume this was a closed system where the entire supply of (edit: ) this particular fish in all its forms was tied to Grand Banks region?

[Combat Ingrid]

"Only when the last tree has been felt, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, will you know that man cannot eat money"

[Berzerker]

i dont like fish

[Gatekeeper]

*digs into a walleye fillet* This news sucks for the grandchildren, eh?