Can Eco-Ag Feed The World

Originally Posted by HillsideDigger

"lowering fishing numbers across the board is NO answer."

Eating next year's planting seed now because you don't have anything else is a bad answer.

When overfishing is occurring, that's the ONLY answer but it's not going to happen until the relative costs to catch the last few fish is exceeded by the costs of catching them

unless the 'dictator' you mentioned

or something like 'public awareness' prompts people to harvest fewer fish.

Of course, politicians are reluctant to make decisions based on the longterm good if it costs some important people money in the short-term.

There's far more money to be made quickly from extinction than from preservation efforts.

It would have to be a dictator. no amount of public awareness in the world is going to make many people choose the death of their family over even the last fish. No probably never 100 percent extinction, but close enough that people all over the world will be starving to death. Why go down this road at all? we sure dont have to. These oceans rivers and waters are still here, and still support life.

You still didnt tell me what you think we should eat until the fish replenish themselves on their own, as you suggested. Or how we would stop many other countries from not caring AT ALL. luckily for us many fish populations are somewhat regional, so that makes this much easier.

seriously though, whats the alternative? one of those death to all humans scenarios you post? uh sorry im not down with that...... So in your mind all roads really DO end up in some trippy mad max world???? (Im not putting words in your mouth Im asking) because for us to right our wrongs, is wrong, we cant do it as well as nature? So after most of us die, THEN nature will have a rebirth? sorry but in that scenario the cycle would just start right over.... most likely. we could readily change it though.

[HillsideDigger]

"You still didnt tell me what you think we should eat until the fish replenish themselves on their own, as you suggested."

Soybeans, other beans and corn for starters (which many can grow themselves without a large diesel gulping trawler and a 5,000 mile pipeline for food delivery). You nor no other person can replenish ocean seafood stocks. They can replenish themselves if given the chance and then a large sustainable yield can once again be taken.

Originally Posted by HillsideDigger

"You still didnt tell me what you think we should eat until the fish replenish themselves on their own, as you suggested."

Soybeans for starters. You nor no other person can replenish ocean seafood stocks. They can replenish themselves if given the chance and then a sustainable yield can once again be taken.

Okay where do we get our b12? also.... How do we fund the global government to enforce this soybean diet? (non fermented soy really isnt a food)

and of course we could replenish ocean stocks.... you admit they can replenish on their own, but if we added a few million or more babies, then we harvest yearly it wouldnt work huh?????

your "solution", not only is it not a solution, it would never work in the real world. Mine actually would work, and we wouldnt have to live like paupers. We dont have to fight wars over the last of the world resources..... and what if soybeans fail?

fish farming IS going to happen either way. It IS profitable, BUT could be more so, not having to raise them their whole lives, and instead free ranging them so to speak, while backing off on harder to breed fish. meaning we could get the job done cheaper, using the natural world. following the patterns of the world. Its win win win..... your idea, is lose lose, and possibly lose it all in some crazy race downwards, with our soy curd. and soylent green..... hmmm or wait is human the source of b12 in soylent green? its making sense now.....

[HillsideDigger]

OK, I see your logic. By continually drawing down the stock of seafood, we will increase it. Sounds fine.

Originally Posted by HillsideDigger

OK, I see your logic. By continually drawing down the stock of seafood, we will increase it. Sounds fine.

who said that? wed have to increase the numbers above and beyond what we harvest. the best way to do it, is to shift as much of the commercial fishing harvests to the more easily and cheaply bred fish. As other types of harder to breed fish rise in numbers, due to lower numbers having been taken. Utilizing the natural ecosystem as we feed ourselves, and let other things come back to better numbers....

[bunkie]

a couple of good articles with solutions to the fish dilemma that some other countries are doing...

As a tiny island nation makes a big sacrifice, will the rest of the world follow suit?

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0915-k...note_tong.html

Marine managed areas help reverse declining fisheries, create sustainable livelihoods

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0916-mmas_ocean.html

Originally Posted by bunkie

a couple of good articles with solutions to the fish dilemma that some other countries are doing...

As a tiny island nation makes a big sacrifice, will the rest of the world follow suit?

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0915-k...note_tong.html

Marine managed areas help reverse declining fisheries, create sustainable livelihoods

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0916-mmas_ocean.html

the solution is not catching as many fish? It is a small country, it was their main source of income. They could take this the other direction entirely. It seems they had some money to invest, since they were looking to buy land elsewhere to escape rising oceans. they could spend the next few decades they have on their islands, and build up huge reefs around it, and among the islands. they could stock fingerlings of profitable fish, and establish ecosystems for such among the islands......

Making sure the area isnt devastated, IS the best route, but if the whole world took this route, what do we eat? Its impossible, unless many more go hungry.

By the time these islands are ever under water, if that even ends up true, it could be a vast eco system supporting much larger populations of fish then ever before..... all while making these people, and their governments more money in the meantime.... which apparently they may need to buy new land elsewhere. As they suggested in the article.

for their island, doing nothing, as long as they can still move if need be, might not be so bad. Taking that stance the world over would be near fatalistic though. stocking many types of fish is amazingly cheap. a series of islands like that, could while still profiting leave behind and eco system way more capable of supporting those fish well into the future, then leaving them be.

Better for the fish, better for the people involved, and an actual workable solution taken on a global scale..... this idea isnt just about feeding ourselves.... Its about feeding ourselves WHILE letting eco systems heal any abuses we caused, by over fishing or other means. we can do both. with things like an underwater eco system, establishing a series of reefs, coral or otherwise, would greatly help the fish. so by the time they are forced to leave they could leave behind a legacy. while better preparing themselves as well.

Look at the numbers of fish consumed in the world. simply not eating as many fish, is not a solution.

[bunkie]

it was what one nation was doing. did you read the other article? it might be more to your thinking.

I was talking to someone online the other day who suggested a way to fund such things as i am talking about....

where he lives when coal is mined they are to replant at similar densities all the species that were there, when they started mining.

Larger fishing companies would likely raise their own. there might be a 10 percent fingerling survival rate. so they harvest 1 million fish, and stock 10. this might not work well with all species. because not all are easily bred. BUT that works out fine because if a company cannot breed them efficiently, they wont be harvesting them, and they will breed on their own.

youd want a group to manage such a thing. keeping numbers of the various niches in line. perhaps having a harvest of a different fish then was stocked, depending on the variables......

smaller rigs could have a whole industry of small businesses spring up selling fingerlings to the smaller companies who cant afford to raise their own. this would work well with many species of fish. Once you have the infrastructure, to raise fingerlings, they are cheap to produce. As long as a knowledgeable hand is guiding it a bit, and genetic diversity is taken into consideration, this is a workable solution.

Originally Posted by bunkie

it was what one nation was doing. did you read the other article? it might be more to your thinking.

Well it was directing you to three reports. the first....

* Living with the Sea examines the role of Marine Managed Areas in helping ocean species adapt, and even bounce back from, the increasing human impacts caused by global climate change and unsustainable development. http://www.science2action.org/index....article&id=140

Is about the importance of diversity, and how they are using various zones. some for nursing, breeding, resiliency, other related issues, some for fishing of course......

this is all fine and dandy.... Its all accurate im sure.... but its not really an "answer"..... We should certainly be protecting breeding grounds, and other types areas for many species. I agree with all that. Especially ones we cant breed readily. But that brings us back to having to NOT eat fish. while populations recover, and have a FINITE source of fish from then on.......

BUT theres an alternative. Many species of fish are easily bred and raised to fingerling size. we raise those fish, release them, and harvest those as abundantly as we need. and as the other species harder to breed re establish, we harvest them only at levels that sustain the population at large.

so we can save and preserve these things AND eat..... I really think we should set our sites on both.