Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62603911
111 comments
So, everybody knows that almost certainly the crew killed him, and the crew and their company and their vessel just walks?
And that keeps happening...
I'd propose in any subsequent event of a missing observer captain does time, ship seized, company closed and that's done even before police starting asking questions. I bet there wouldn't be any missing observer after that.
And that keeps happening...
I'd propose in any subsequent event of a missing observer captain does time, ship seized, company closed and that's done even before police starting asking questions. I bet there wouldn't be any missing observer after that.
I’ll never understand how passionately people will argue for a society without any form of civic justice, just because they’re angry about something they read on the internet.
Just lock random people up without due process! That’ll teach them!
Just lock random people up without due process! That’ll teach them!
Does what happened seem just to you?
That form of passion that you disapprove comes from failing to serve justice in the first place. Do you have any better proposal than to just keep going like this and be sorry for the observers that end up at the bottom of the sea? If yes I'm eager to hear about it.
Also, unless I'm very rusty with the legal system, if you're the captain, by definition you're responsible for anyone on board. Coming back to port with anyone missing should be a HUGE problem for you. I don't get that impression here.
Also, unless I'm very rusty with the legal system, if you're the captain, by definition you're responsible for anyone on board. Coming back to port with anyone missing should be a HUGE problem for you. I don't get that impression here.
>"Coming back to port with anyone missing should be a HUGE problem for you."
After proving ( in the court of law) that it was because captain's neglect. If sailor A kills sailor B just for the fuck of it (and this happens or the true reason might be unknown) do you propose preventively punish a captain before establishing causation and guilt?
And most of injustice happens because our laws are constructed in fucked up ways and almost never punish politicians that are the ultimate reasons for such system. The example - asymmetric laws when it is easy to declare person dead by mistake with all the consequences and then it takes years for a person to get their rights back. And many other laws are like this. You want justice - go after politicians first. Here is the idea - if any person is harmed as the result of such asymmetric laws every politician immediately gets 10% salary cut until the law is fixed. Suddenly you'll find politicians busy doing nothing but fixing law system. This of course will be a problem on its own.
After proving ( in the court of law) that it was because captain's neglect. If sailor A kills sailor B just for the fuck of it (and this happens or the true reason might be unknown) do you propose preventively punish a captain before establishing causation and guilt?
And most of injustice happens because our laws are constructed in fucked up ways and almost never punish politicians that are the ultimate reasons for such system. The example - asymmetric laws when it is easy to declare person dead by mistake with all the consequences and then it takes years for a person to get their rights back. And many other laws are like this. You want justice - go after politicians first. Here is the idea - if any person is harmed as the result of such asymmetric laws every politician immediately gets 10% salary cut until the law is fixed. Suddenly you'll find politicians busy doing nothing but fixing law system. This of course will be a problem on its own.
No need to sensationalize. Seizing a ship and other investigative steps sounds more like securing a crime scene and due process than anything else. If someone's a suspect in a serious crime it's probably best to not let them cross into international waters.
"Captain does time" and "company closed", all "done even before police starts asking questions" doesn't sound like "due process" to me.
You could stop eating tuna today. For good measure, other fish too. Consumers are part of this story and have choices to make.
Agree. There's plenty to be said for simply choosing to not engage/employ bad actors. The fishing industry is full of pretty terrible stuff. I stopped eating meat in 2016.
>"I'd propose in any subsequent event of a missing observer captain does time, ship seized, company closed and that's done even before police starting asking questions."
I have better idea. Imprison POTUS or whomever else goes for a similar role in other countries. After all they're the ones ultimately responsible. And do it for any injustice that has lead to a death/s or anything stronger then mere inconvenience.
I have better idea. Imprison POTUS or whomever else goes for a similar role in other countries. After all they're the ones ultimately responsible. And do it for any injustice that has lead to a death/s or anything stronger then mere inconvenience.
Hopefully the availability of fast IP networks at sea will help with observers disappearing without a trace in the future.
Perhaps live streaming mics and cams designed to be affixed inside quarters and to one's person. Local relays designed to be hidden to facilitate both buffering and redundancy in cases of transmission difficulties due to inclement weather or tampering. The whole thing could be issued as a standard kit for a few thousand dollars.
Maybe add some picture booklets for the crew explaining how fucked they are if they try anything, and include a copy of Captain Phillips for good measure.
Of course, such a scheme would just increase the need for observers to have their own tamper-proof food and water rations as well. At that point, industrial "accidents" are about the only thing remaining.
Maybe add some picture booklets for the crew explaining how fucked they are if they try anything, and include a copy of Captain Phillips for good measure.
Of course, such a scheme would just increase the need for observers to have their own tamper-proof food and water rations as well. At that point, industrial "accidents" are about the only thing remaining.
Dang that’s sad, I’m not intimate with the industry but commercial fishing just seems like (no pun intended) a net negative on the world. I do love watching deadliest catch though
What’s the fatality rate of those monitors vs. the rest of the crew?
Bad I would imagine. Not only can the watchman be killed, but also slavery as well. https://thecounter.org/new-technology-helping-identify-human...
Is anybody here working on remote sensing applications for identifying illegal fishing?
Yep, I work for and there are several companies working on this problem. I specifically work for a company creating USVs to fight the issue on the water but there are others working on solutions from the air and space.
A bit jealous here! Care to share a bit about how you got into this field?
Cool! Have you deployed any USVs near Cocos Island?
USVs
unmanned submarine vehicle?
unmanned submarine vehicle?
Or, you know, you could just open a tab and type in USV, right?
It's kind of amazing how many people have the option to do that and find something new out, but will instead make up shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_surface_vehicle
It's kind of amazing how many people have the option to do that and find something new out, but will instead make up shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_surface_vehicle
Also interested. What company?
Time to pass a law to force these ships to carry starlink with cctv cameras whose footage is processed by AI. Of course, although possible, this won’t happen any time soon.
It isn't possible, you're talking about hundreds of countries, across international waters, and some level of complicity from various authorities. Technology can only help when it has cooperation. The human factor is often the hardest part of technology solutions.
This could be easily scanned by satellites, although I have no idea what's more cost-effective.
It takes a long time to bring back those lines and to load up the catch.
It takes a long time to bring back those lines and to load up the catch.
Time to pass a law to force simplydt to wear a stiff leather collar that administers a painful electric shock every 30 seconds. Of course, although possible, this won't happen any time soon.
Here is some more detail about the ongoing human slavery that Keith spoke of and which phantomathkg linked to as well.
https://www.ap.org/explore/seafood-from-slaves/fishing-slave...
Fucking sad. I can't believe literal chattel slavery is this widespread.
If you're considering becoming vegetarian or at least eating less meat and fish, maybe this is another reason to consider it. Either way, I hope we can find ways to crack down on abhorrent crimes like these in food supply chains.
> The men left their impoverished homes years ago full of hope and headed to neighboring Thailand, promising to send money back from good-paying jobs. Instead, they were tricked, sold or even kidnapped and put onto boats that became floating prisons. They then were trafficked thousands of miles away to the isolated Indonesian island village of Benjina, where the AP first found hundreds of captive fishermen, including some locked in a cage simply because they asked to go home. They were beaten and routinely forced to work up to 22 hours a day. The unluckiest ones ended up in the sea or buried in a company graveyard under fake names — their bodies will likely never be recovered.
> The AP story prompted the Indonesian government to initiate a rescue. It also traced fish tainted by forced labor back to the supply chains of many major U.S. companies and pet food brands, including Wal-Mart, Sysco, Kroger, Fancy Feast and Iams.
> Once, after coming ashore, Prasert asked his captain for more money. As punishment, he says he was tossed into a tiny, muggy cell with about 20 other men.
> Myint’s freshly shaved head reveals two large scars he received during his years in Indonesia. One is from a motorbike helmet, the other from an iron rod — both blows from angry fishing captains.
> The memories are still raw of Myint collapsing into his wailing mother’s arms on the same dusty road just feet away from where they sit now in southern Myanmar. That day was tinged with both joy and sorrow for all the time lost — ending 22 years of separation after Myint was taken to Indonesia and nearly beaten to death by a captain who refused to let him go home.
> The AP story prompted the Indonesian government to initiate a rescue. It also traced fish tainted by forced labor back to the supply chains of many major U.S. companies and pet food brands, including Wal-Mart, Sysco, Kroger, Fancy Feast and Iams.
> Once, after coming ashore, Prasert asked his captain for more money. As punishment, he says he was tossed into a tiny, muggy cell with about 20 other men.
> Myint’s freshly shaved head reveals two large scars he received during his years in Indonesia. One is from a motorbike helmet, the other from an iron rod — both blows from angry fishing captains.
> The memories are still raw of Myint collapsing into his wailing mother’s arms on the same dusty road just feet away from where they sit now in southern Myanmar. That day was tinged with both joy and sorrow for all the time lost — ending 22 years of separation after Myint was taken to Indonesia and nearly beaten to death by a captain who refused to let him go home.
Not trying to normalize, just adding to the horror: Slavery is huge in South East Asia for all kinds of industries.
In Cambodia it's well known that people from neighboring countries (especially Vietnam and Philippines) are lured in with promises of good jobs and then have their passports taken and aren't allowed to leave. It's like a combination of slavery and ransom. Or worse up to and including organ harvesting.
In Cambodia it's well known that people from neighboring countries (especially Vietnam and Philippines) are lured in with promises of good jobs and then have their passports taken and aren't allowed to leave. It's like a combination of slavery and ransom. Or worse up to and including organ harvesting.
I’m a lifelong vegetarian, I think many crop industries might have similar abuse? What is it about meat/fish that makes it more prone to abuse?
A big aspect is that much fishing takes place in international waters, where abuses are hard to document and it's possible to get away with murder (as in Keith's case).
That said, you are 100% right that the palm oil industry specifically is ripe with abuse including chattel slavery. :( Please avoid palm oil if you can.
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/slavery-palm-oil-indus...
That said, you are 100% right that the palm oil industry specifically is ripe with abuse including chattel slavery. :( Please avoid palm oil if you can.
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/slavery-palm-oil-indus...
Yeah, even here in Australia, some of the closest we have to slave labour is temporary migrants picking fruit and vegetables... Going vegetarian would do very little I think if you care about this issue.
The same thing happens here in Romania when it comes to potato harvesting, of all things. The people doing it are taking advantage of poor people from a few counties away, desperate to find jobs, oftentimes this desperate people bringing their kids with them.
Here's [1] an example from a few years ago, article in Romanian but that photo of the "accommodation" provided should be enough. Eight kids were also caught up in it all.
[1] https://click.ro/actualitate/national/ei-tineau-opt-copii-ca...
Here's [1] an example from a few years ago, article in Romanian but that photo of the "accommodation" provided should be enough. Eight kids were also caught up in it all.
[1] https://click.ro/actualitate/national/ei-tineau-opt-copii-ca...
Generally, vegetarian/vegan requires less raw inputs, so less labor and less chance for slavery.
Buying produced food from sources that have rule of law is more direct, but harder.
Buying produced food from sources that have rule of law is more direct, but harder.
This has nothing to do with vegetarians, and responding will only bring woe.
I believe the parent comment agree with you and is mentioning he is vegetarians so that answers focus on why fishing makes it's easy for slavery given there are abuses in agricultures as well.
Thank to this, he was able to ask a question that was uneasy to ask, and get the answer about international waters, making it an interesting addition to the whole thread.
Thank to this, he was able to ask a question that was uneasy to ask, and get the answer about international waters, making it an interesting addition to the whole thread.
@upwardbound appears to be mentioning vegetarians as flamebait, so if you want to engage with that, be my guest.
I don't read it that way. Quite the opposite, upwardbound is offering an opinion that is not against meat, and therefore, being vegetarien just signals it is rooted is thinking and not dogmatism.
Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO.
It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.
It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.
I used to live in a lobster/crab fishing town near the Atlantic.
Crab fishermen would meet First Nations people halfway to sell them the crabs that were over quota at a cheaper price since they don't have a quota, and they would sell it bootleg at the reserves.
We used to go down and buy 12 lobsters for $40 when I was a kid (20 years ago). It was the best deal ever.
When I left town, the fishermen started attacking First Nations boat because they realized they(FN) could just do it themselves and just cry colonizer oppression if they got caught. Crab supply got extremely scarce and the gov started cutting down licenses and lowering quotas. Many fishermen lost their 1-2M/y for 3 month of work businesses. There's still violence to this day, some FNs and some fishermen get killed every once in a while, and boats get burned.
Crab fishermen would meet First Nations people halfway to sell them the crabs that were over quota at a cheaper price since they don't have a quota, and they would sell it bootleg at the reserves.
We used to go down and buy 12 lobsters for $40 when I was a kid (20 years ago). It was the best deal ever.
When I left town, the fishermen started attacking First Nations boat because they realized they(FN) could just do it themselves and just cry colonizer oppression if they got caught. Crab supply got extremely scarce and the gov started cutting down licenses and lowering quotas. Many fishermen lost their 1-2M/y for 3 month of work businesses. There's still violence to this day, some FNs and some fishermen get killed every once in a while, and boats get burned.
Huh never heard the precolonial societies on the Atlantic side referred to as First Nations
Does all of Canada use that terminology now?
I think that term only bleeds over across the border into the US in the Pacific Northwest, since some tribes there overlap borders and have a special cross border ID that allows employment (some cross border tribes in New England but theyre just split in two)
Does all of Canada use that terminology now?
I think that term only bleeds over across the border into the US in the Pacific Northwest, since some tribes there overlap borders and have a special cross border ID that allows employment (some cross border tribes in New England but theyre just split in two)
"First nations" is the common term in Canada to refer to the people living in the area now known as Canada before Europeans arrived, similar to "Native American" in the US.
I think we’re saying the same thing, just had not confirmed it was all of Canada saying this for all pre-european civilizations within Canada.
Yeah, looking that way. Biggest contributor to plastic in the ocean, directly killing it too.
There's no sustainable amount of large scale commercial fishing. Quotas are a joke. Labels are a joke.
It's already slowing going away anyway, being replaced by fish farms: https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-aquaculture
I can't seem to find any source with data past 2015.
Aquaculture is already cheaper than wild caught. In stores (judging by labels) wild caught is already becoming marketed as a "premium" product, with prices to match, which will reduce demand.
I can't seem to find any source with data past 2015.
Aquaculture is already cheaper than wild caught. In stores (judging by labels) wild caught is already becoming marketed as a "premium" product, with prices to match, which will reduce demand.
Fish farms have their own problems. The amount of waste it generates, sea lice issues and the fact they feed their ‘premium’ fish tons of ‘fish meal’ as a source of omega 3 which still needs to be caught. It’s a step up from fishing at an industrial scale but not sustainable in the end.
I would never eat Norwegian farmed salmon. Norwegian fish farming is on par with US pig farming.
Most Americans eat farmed pigs, so I guess they can eat Norwegian farmed salmon! Problem solved :)
I wasn’t defending it. I’m just saying (short term) converting the median eater, who doesn’t care about pig welfare, to factory farmed salmon will be easier and more environmentally impactful than trying to make them vegetarian.
Is it any different from other farmed fish? And what is the danger here?
https://youtu.be/RYYf8cLUV5E
Many documentaries and stories about it.
In singapore my daughter LOVED salmon so we only bought NZ King Salmon.
Many documentaries and stories about it.
In singapore my daughter LOVED salmon so we only bought NZ King Salmon.
This guy has made wild claims forever, never backed up with actual reproducible science.
I'm not going to pretend that farmed fish isn't without its problems, especially for the environment, but dangerous to eat, no.
I'm not going to pretend that farmed fish isn't without its problems, especially for the environment, but dangerous to eat, no.
There was a report in the EU in 2017 or 2018 which suggested reducing intake of farmed salmon as a result of the study.
It isn't 1 guys claim.
Not only that there's a noticble taste difference between NZ King Salmon and Norwegian Farmed Salmon.
It isn't 1 guys claim.
Not only that there's a noticble taste difference between NZ King Salmon and Norwegian Farmed Salmon.
I don't doubt that there are differences in taste. There are tons of different types of salmon. That said, I somehow question why you think farmed fish would be that much different in NZ or Norway. Both countries have a huge fishing industry.
I can only comment on the sources that you actually provide. The last time this guy was in the news was because he attacked mobile senders with an axe because of some idea about electromagnetic radiation was causing all kinds of health issues.
I can only comment on the sources that you actually provide. The last time this guy was in the news was because he attacked mobile senders with an axe because of some idea about electromagnetic radiation was causing all kinds of health issues.
Oceans have been terribly overfished, but people need to eat. Many poorer countries rely on fishing to help then feed their populations. Banning commercial fishing would be like banning commercial chicken. A huge loss of a major cheap source of protein, and nothing to replace it with.
Here is a source of sustainable cheap protein! It is hard to compete with the commodity price of fish meal but we are very close to doing so. (I know, we are running a maggot farm, don’t judge) Inputs are based on restaurant food waste. Also looking for sources of cheap starch if you know any.
Displacing fish meal is a major priority and motivation for this startup.
Comments welcome:
https://www.getprotyn.com/
Displacing fish meal is a major priority and motivation for this startup.
Comments welcome:
https://www.getprotyn.com/
Sounds like it has lots of benefits and no downsides, which begs more research. The website however seems to have a leftover placeholder text under "Our bugs are bettering the world" > "Disease Free":
That wasn't real text. Just holding some space here. Real text is going to be awesome.
That wasn't real text. Just holding some space here. Real text is going to be awesome.
Let them eat maggots.
That's too bad. Nobody told people to have all those mouths to feed. The oceans are overfished and heavily polluted and people need the ocean to survive. If people rely on fucking up the ocean, we're all in trouble.
Humans > Environment.
In principle, I don't entirely disagree with that, however, humans are part of the environment. We need "the environment" to survive, such as a sustainable marine ecosystem. I mean, if there are no more fish to catch due to overfishing then humans will be in trouble, too.
All well and good until you run out of environment. If the ocean is overfished and its ecosystem collapses, the people who depend on it for food will starve anyway.
This. We either use the little bit of abusing the ocean we have left to flatten out population curves, or the population crashes to a much lower level later on.
We wouldn't need such dramatic changes to combat global warming if the population didn't continually exponentially expand.
We wouldn't need such dramatic changes to combat global warming if the population didn't continually exponentially expand.
I mean we could absolutely replace a lot of this with plant based sources. Why do you say there is nothing to replace it?
Then when we get together as a global community to ban fishing, let's also agree to pay for the transition to aquaculture and other sustainable forms of acquiring protein (according to the renewable resources available in a given region). If "take away their livelihood without giving them an alternative" isn't acceptable - and of course it isn't - "let's do nothing" isn't the only alternative we should consider.
Aquaculture is dependent on ocean fishing
To catch fry right? This is a good point but it does seem like it would be possible to overcome with better aquaculture technology (eg, the ability to breed fry in captivity). I'm certainly not an expert in aquaculture, I've done a small amount of work with aquaponics systems and am more bullish on spirulina and chlorella cultivation (algae cultivation) than aquaculture, but aquaculture seemed more relevant as a drop in replacement for fishing.
Consider it a metanym of for the technology that best meets the needs a given local community, using the resources which are available in that environment, while doing the least harm to the environment which is possible given the constraints. I'm not an absolutist, and my goal is to argue against a false dichotomy rather than to advocate for any particular technology.
Sustainability necessarily means taking into account the resources available in a given local environment, so the question of whether a given technology is useful or sustainable only has meaning if we flesh out that context.
Consider it a metanym of for the technology that best meets the needs a given local community, using the resources which are available in that environment, while doing the least harm to the environment which is possible given the constraints. I'm not an absolutist, and my goal is to argue against a false dichotomy rather than to advocate for any particular technology.
Sustainability necessarily means taking into account the resources available in a given local environment, so the question of whether a given technology is useful or sustainable only has meaning if we flesh out that context.
Oh you so benevolent, force people at gun point to abide by your will, right?
Ignoring the snark, it's an interesting point and I'm not in favor of using violence to achieve any ends. Not interested in waiting around to die because some large fishing interests are structurally incapable of behaving responsibly, either, though.
Just as I reject that our only options are to either screw over fishing communities or do nothing, I reject that our only alternatives are violence or doing nothing. I don't believe there is a single solution which can be applied in all situations that would resolve this, it would need to be worked out on a case by case basis and in cooperation with those communities. But just because it is complex and difficult does not mean it doesn't exist, and the alternative is an ecological collapse which we are unlikely to survive.
Just as I reject that our only options are to either screw over fishing communities or do nothing, I reject that our only alternatives are violence or doing nothing. I don't believe there is a single solution which can be applied in all situations that would resolve this, it would need to be worked out on a case by case basis and in cooperation with those communities. But just because it is complex and difficult does not mean it doesn't exist, and the alternative is an ecological collapse which we are unlikely to survive.
Not you nor anyone else has any proof of any collapse, it is hyperbolic nonsense.
The problem is that all and I mean all of these idealogical driven agendas require tyranny because I for one do not agree with your world view.
The problem is that all and I mean all of these idealogical driven agendas require tyranny because I for one do not agree with your world view.
I hope you'll reconsider this approach to conversation. You don't even know my worldview or my ideology, you seem to be reacting to some imagined worst case for what my world view could be. This is pretty gratuitous and makes it difficult to have a conversation with you; you aren't actually having a discussion with me, you're trying to engage with a phenomenon you imagine that I'm a part of. You're taking some views I've expressed and generalizing them to my entire world view, filling in the blanks with the least charitable assumptions you could make.
For that reason, it doesn't seem there's a productive way for me to engage with you.
For that reason, it doesn't seem there's a productive way for me to engage with you.
> Not you nor anyone else has any proof of any collapse, it is hyperbolic nonsense.
I'm surprised that there's any contention at all around the science that shows ocean degradation (historical and on-going), or indeed about the (likely) impending collapse.
In 2014, the living planet report[0] included this dire little snippet:
"Population sizes of vertebrate species—mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish—have declined by 52 percent over the last 40 years."
Fishery exhaustion around the globe is tremendously well documented, with only a tiny handful of isolated success stories where strict regulation has been able to be enforced, and localised recovery has started to occur (New Zealand, f.e.).
I'm wondering how you claim hyperbole in the people studying and reporting these things.
[0] http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/723/files/origi...
I'm surprised that there's any contention at all around the science that shows ocean degradation (historical and on-going), or indeed about the (likely) impending collapse.
In 2014, the living planet report[0] included this dire little snippet:
"Population sizes of vertebrate species—mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish—have declined by 52 percent over the last 40 years."
Fishery exhaustion around the globe is tremendously well documented, with only a tiny handful of isolated success stories where strict regulation has been able to be enforced, and localised recovery has started to occur (New Zealand, f.e.).
I'm wondering how you claim hyperbole in the people studying and reporting these things.
[0] http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/723/files/origi...
I'm guessing anything you don't agree with is considered ideology driven?
You seem unfamiliar with the mathematics of game theory or multi-agent coordination problems. The only way to avoid these traps (overfishing is literally a textbook example) is to grant regulatory authority to some overarching entity, like a government. That's not the same as tyranny.
You seem unfamiliar with the mathematics of game theory or multi-agent coordination problems. The only way to avoid these traps (overfishing is literally a textbook example) is to grant regulatory authority to some overarching entity, like a government. That's not the same as tyranny.
No, the problem is that you are repeating the same nonsense that has been said for literally decades. So at this stage we can't agree there is actually a problem. If species go extinct that is not actually in my mind a problem that justifies a central solution.
I am tired of being robbed blind of my free will and wealth by these huge central planning bureaucracies. None of us are smart enough to have that much control.
I am tired of being robbed blind of my free will and wealth by these huge central planning bureaucracies. None of us are smart enough to have that much control.
> The problem is that all and I mean all of these idealogical driven agendas require tyranny because I for one do not agree with your world view.
There's always someone who disagrees with someone else's world view, that doesn't make it tyranny.
There's always someone who disagrees with someone else's world view, that doesn't make it tyranny.
> Oceans have been terribly overfished, but people need to eat
"but"? That's a non-sequitur. If we run out of fish there's no fish to eat.
"but"? That's a non-sequitur. If we run out of fish there's no fish to eat.
Commercial chicken is not hunted in the wild, so I'm not sure how that comparison makes any sense. The oceans are already being depleted of fish in a highly unsustainable way so if you care about that protein source, shutting down large-scale fishing altogether is exactly what you should do.
The logistics of what you are proposing is just not there, unless you're cool with committing another man made famine like the Holodomor. I actually find it disturbing with the ease you're willing to starve the poor of the world.
Ocean fishing requires very little energy input, but provides huge amounts of ready to eat food output. You can't replace that in many parts of the world. Not every place has good farm land for one, or the technological infrastructure, or even political stability.
Give you and example. Egypt went from a population of 8 million to 80 million in the last century. Do you think they can grow all that food in the desert? or do they rely on fishing and on global imports of food items...like grain from Ukraine. How will the poor do when you take out one of their sources of food. While simultaneously the price of energy is sky rocketing and global trade is under threat do to conflict and as countries begin to hoard fertilizer and food for their own populations, in anticipation of the the coming winter.
Ocean fishing requires very little energy input, but provides huge amounts of ready to eat food output. You can't replace that in many parts of the world. Not every place has good farm land for one, or the technological infrastructure, or even political stability.
Give you and example. Egypt went from a population of 8 million to 80 million in the last century. Do you think they can grow all that food in the desert? or do they rely on fishing and on global imports of food items...like grain from Ukraine. How will the poor do when you take out one of their sources of food. While simultaneously the price of energy is sky rocketing and global trade is under threat do to conflict and as countries begin to hoard fertilizer and food for their own populations, in anticipation of the the coming winter.
> Ocean fishing requires very little energy input
So all of those studies pointing out that most ocean fishing only happens because of subsidized fuel are wrong?
So all of those studies pointing out that most ocean fishing only happens because of subsidized fuel are wrong?
Anytime someone tries to argue that fossil fuels are being subsidized, it's safe to ignore every argument they will ever make on the subject.
When someone can't even acknowledge reality there's really no point in engaging.
When someone can't even acknowledge reality there's really no point in engaging.
Banning is just setting a quota of zero, which you've already agreed is effectively unenforceable.
Obviously control has to be on the demand and not the supply side. Banning the sale of fish, or punitively taxing it, would be two options to make commercial fishing economically unattractive.
Obviously control has to be on the demand and not the supply side. Banning the sale of fish, or punitively taxing it, would be two options to make commercial fishing economically unattractive.
A full ban, or "a quota of zero" is much more observable and enforcable than keeping track of individuals' permits and catch limits. Not here for enabling more violence on behalf of the enforcer class, but this argument didnt make much sense to me
A full ban would be much much easier to enforce. You see a fishing boat? It gets a military escort out of your national waters. You see the same boat again? It gets blown up.
Compare with having to board a random sample of boats (and there'd be a lot, because a lot of them would be legitimate), check documents, check catch totals etc.
Compare with having to board a random sample of boats (and there'd be a lot, because a lot of them would be legitimate), check documents, check catch totals etc.
Yes, because blowing up a boat crewed by poor third world sailors trying to make some money to feed their families back home is a truly proportionate response.
Yes, it is. Because these people think that destroying the entire ocean is their right, and they're basically cutting throats to get ahead, and they'll never be on the hook for all the nets they cut and dump in the ocean, all the vulnerable fish they ravage and all the other damage they do.
Perhaps a fair comment about the boats owners or the fishing company's shareholders.
Not so much about the poor saps that crew it.
Not so much about the poor saps that crew it.
You should remove the people aboard before blowing up the fishing vessel :)
The comment I was replying to proposed blowing up the boat as an alternative to "having to board a random sample of boats (and there'd be a lot, because a lot of them would be legitimate), check documents"
Bit hard to escort when most illegal fishing happens in international waters.
Most fishing happens in economic Exclusion zones (200 miles out), over which states have souvereignty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone
Yes but I said illegal fishing.
I think indoor/raceway farmed fish is the future, once we work out sustainable food sources, eg insects.
I'm not sure how credible that is for marine species, but I'm sure it's possible for some, and we don't have to completely cut fish from our diets.
In the meantime, I agree, we should be banning the sale/import of some species of fish.
I'm not sure how credible that is for marine species, but I'm sure it's possible for some, and we don't have to completely cut fish from our diets.
In the meantime, I agree, we should be banning the sale/import of some species of fish.
Black soldier flies harvest themselves.
The omega 3 fatty acids in fish come from algae.
Duckweed is one of the fastest growing plants out there and is protein packed.
The above is the combo I think would be the path to support such a raceway system. One of many crazy dreams I have is to start a trout farm based on that.
The above is the combo I think would be the path to support such a raceway system. One of many crazy dreams I have is to start a trout farm based on that.
Why insects? Tilapia eat plants, and other fish eat tilapia.
Then that should work too. I think current practice is often to feed larger carnivorous fish with smaller wild-caught fish, which doesn't really solve the problem.
Are you going to go to war with the Chinese Communist Party to stop them from fishing world seas?
Definitely worth a read if this interests you:
https://www.theoutlawocean.com/the-outlaw-ocean-by-ian-urbin...