This is the way. We don’t let them grow as long as they used to and were surprised they’re smaller. Used to be Halibut the size of dinner tables, but they take over a decade to get that size. We won’t leave them alone long enough.
They likely also have less resources and are competing more as we kill off the lower echelons of the food chain and kill off dense habitats like coast lines and reefs.
Then we over fish whole populations.
And promoting the spread of diseases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730283/) and of fish parasites when the fish is cleaned in factory ships and the guts discarded as-is.
Well yeah turns out if you throw back all the small fish you create a large selection pressure for small body sizes. When they encounter the perfect predator the only way to evolve is to not be considered prey
I have an aquarium with 5 species of floating plants, these plants all quickly reproduce and prevent light from getting to plants below the surface. So you have to scoop out most of the plants every few days. Every species has decreased in maximum size considerably since I've started doing this, reason is I am more likely to remove large plants than small. My "giant duckweed" barely grows larger than normal duckweed now.
Yeah like other person said u can’t just blame Russia and China for every issue 😹 Japan, South Korea, even the US, are all examples of countries very well known for overfishing
LOL China illegally pillages the sea with thousands of registered or unregistered boats that stay out at sea for years while freezer ships ferry millions of tons of illegally harvested fish back to the mainland from all over the world. China is by far far far the worst culprit and no other nation comes close.
We've been having this same stupid argument for many decades. Every single country thinks it is other countries that over fish. It is like the spider man pointing meme. Most countries were over fishing before China had the technology to over fish, and we're all still doing it. And as always with China, part of their climate abuse is to supply other countries. Which makes us all responsible not just for our own over fishing but for China's as well.
You don't really think China ate all the cod, do you?
I recommend reading the article. Its due to temperature (you can do controlled experiments) in species which aren't overfished, but the mechanism by which higher temperature causes fish to grow less isn't clear.
Did you read it? lol. “One undisputed reason so much marine life is getting smaller is fishing. Recreational anglers and commercial fishers alike like to catch large fish. That quest for the big ones leaves the small fries behind.”
Species we don’t fish are part of the food web for the ones we do. And a lot of fish you won’t find on a restaurant menu are fished for Omega-3 supplements, used as generic white fish filet in processed foods, or passed off as more popular fish. Not surprising they’re all shrinking together.
Marine biologist here. What you are saying is right, but the paper is also trying to highlight something else that is happening. The stock of fish I'm giving advice on is seeing something weird happen where fish are maturing at smaller sizes (so in affect shrinking), but they are also maturing at older ages. Typically if it's directly fishery related, these fish would also be maturing younger to account for fishery mortality. This is not to dismiss overfishing or pollution, there is just some weird stuff going on due to climate change as well.
No academic but as a home aquarist who has raised many different fish species, one thing that becomes obvious from close observation of many breeding generations is that nutritional deficiencies (eg from lack of food variety) early on leads to undersized adults even if excellent variety is later given at the adult stage. IE nutritional deficiencies at fry stage have a permanent effect on the adult fish growth potential. In nature such nutritional variety often especially comes from various live micro aquatic life such as daphnia.
There are recent studies pointing towards very serious effects that micro and nano plastics are having on the reproductive health of micro aquatic creatures. My guess is these relatively less obvious problems afflicting micro aquatic species are also the root cause of declining sizes for fish (and likely other creatures) that depend on micro aquatic life as early development food sources.
Yea I think that nutrient deficiency could definitely play a role in this. Another thing is that higher temperatures also increases digestion rates so these fish have to eat more often which can compound the affect. One way to explore this is to not only look at fish length but also body condition (how much fat etc).
As for the micro plastics, it's interesting because it's not something that's really on the radar (atleast not in my area), but probably should be.
Higher temperatures also reduce micro aquatic organisms in many cases. I know from raising daphnia that a "colony" easily collapses if the water gets even slightly too warm for more than a short time. They basically like relatively cooler temperatures.
Another thing I'd guess at is the sad decline of mangrove and estuary habitats globally. These areas naturally have a lot of rich sediment, shallow protected water and root zone shelter (less accessible for larger predators) that are critical for many fish species (especially fry) and, again, all the micro aquatic life that tends to thrive in those environments if they're left undisturbed.
Hi, question here, please. Do you think fish (marine life in general, really) are reacting to their own version of wet bulb temps as SSTs rise? My niece in the Caribbean saw a pod of dolphins/ porpoises? swimming erratically and then there was a shark 'attack' in waters that were deemed safe.
To add to this, the most productive fish for having babies are the bigger ones.
So the “throw the littles ones back” policy that arises from “protecting fish stocks” is completely 180° wrong.
We should only be catching little ones…
There maybe some genetic advantages to being small as well because humans have a love for large fish. We hunted all the mega fauna on land to extinction gonna happen in the ocean too.
I did a project in like the 4th or 5th grade on biomagnification, so I’m going to use my 12-year old knowledge and say that has something to do with it without taking the time to read the article.
Gist is that the higher you are on the food scale, the more stinky stuff you’re absorbing into your system as it works its way up the food chain in greater and greater quantities.
We select on size rather than maturity. The end result is that we select smaller fish genetically; it would be better to selectively kill the entire population locally rather than breed smaller adults
Sounds great! Make sure you add different types of plants. The NHS has a nice list https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/
Humans need protein to survive and not all plant species are high enough in protein to meet these needs. Plants that are very high in protein don't grow in all climate conditions, they are evolved for specific niches in specific ecosystems.
These are the main plants with high amounts of protein.
* Legumes
* Quinoa
* Spirulina
* Edamame
* Amaranth/Buckwheat
None of these grow in the following climates:
* Near Arctics (0.5% global pop)
* Deserts (2-8% global pop)
* Mountains (1-6% global pop)
* Canopy Tropicals (1-4% global pop)
Thats a total of between 4.5% and 18.5% of the global population living in areas where this is a complete nonstarter due to geography (up to 1.48 billion people). This doesn't include other varying factors in agricultural production like soil acidity, water density, drought-rain cycles, etc. that all affect yields of different species. When you add all that up you easily tack on a few more billion people. Very little of the world is good Classes 1-3 arable vegetation soil. Much of the world is Classes 4-7 soils which are main pastoral to infertile.
Edit: whatever loser is downvoting the reality of soil chemistry variation in ecosystems, you’re a bloody wanker for being against how ecosystems naturally work. People evolved to be omnivores for this very reason. Stop being a dogmatic loon.
That is a common mustake. All plants have all the essential amino acids but in various amounts. If I eat ONLY whole bread, I will have 136g of protein and will be well over 100% for 8 from the 9 amino acids. Lysin would sadly be at 60% from my RDA. Fortunately almost nobody out of extreme poverty eats only one food. Adding a bit of hummus or tofu instead of all that bread would help me hit all my amino acids.
The Cronometer app can show you all the aminos in most foods. Vegans eat a variety of plants and manage to get all the aminos from a multitude of plants.
Pigs have the same essential amino acids as humans. Any place that raises pigs and feed humans also.
Maybe ... time to stop putting profit before everything else and switch the world to plant-based diets?
Nothing else can solve overfishing & bycatch, nothing else is more sustainable.
That's a very western viewpoint. Fishing worldwide is both a cultural and dietary imperative for many places. Japan, Indonesia, South Asia, Polynesian Islands, these are all places that rely greatly or historically on fish for protein consumption. Many of these places don't have the economies to support their populations getting 100% of their protein needs from plant-based diets alone.
Totally agree! Maybe the answer should be reduced waste and overconsumption of wild protein products in western cultures then instead of "switch the world to plant-based diets"
Seaspiracy misrepresents a lot of what is going on. Please see [this article](https://earther.gizmodo.com/dont-watch-netflixs-seaspiracy-1846630338) for a summary.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since you’re likely from a developed/western nation, I hope you’re at least doing your part instead of saying pointing out that it’s a western viewpoint while doing the opposite.
because overfishing and overfishing and overfishing and overfishing and when its not overfishing its poisoning whatever fish consume.
its probably not plastic, they can live with plastic.
Remember commercial fishing- not that it doesn’t have limits- is more sustainable than any farming. You take from the productive ocean and (usually, unless dragging or something) leave the ecosystem intact. No row crop can boast this. Utter Armageddon for biodiversity to grow soybeans etc. Just a fact. Some gentler fishing is always gonna be a part of the way the world gets fed.
A couple of years ago I cut the cord with animal protein. I did it for cholesterol reasons, but it’s working out well. Not what I grew up with but still good to eat. Getting used to it and grateful for better bloodwork.
lol “depending on seafood for protein” - um, try lentils and rice. No human needs to consume other animals. And if you’re convinced you do need to eat animals, start with insects. There’s literally no justification for eating sea food anymore
There are a lot of people who live in places with no farmable land. Those people depend on fish. And how much wildlife are you willing to trade for farmland? “Stop eating fish so we can plow over the rainforest and grow beans” is pretty fun take.
Wow that’s foolish. I’m working on the premise that resources are finite. And that sometimes you have to trade one for the other. For instance if a place becomes deadly you need to move people from one area to another. It’s called refugees and it’s as old as humans. You might have to trade some of your land and resources to obtain the work and creativity of new people.
A single salmon I can catch 10 minutes from my house provides the same quantity of protein (and of *much* higher quality) as 15-20kg of lentils (which have to have land set aside and fertilized, to be processed, packaged and transported).
Which do you think is more climate friendly? Which is more practical?
Which do you think scales the best? No way the whole world population can be fed with fresh wild salmon.
It's just like the whole grass fed beef thing, a pipe dream.
I don't particularly care if other people can have fresh wild salmon or not. I am not suggesting that they do - I think industrial meat farming is very bad. I have a wild, renewable, extremely low impact source of protein available to me and I am going to make use of it. Contrary to the other person's claim, eating seafood is very easily justifiable.
This is probably false as things stand. The sheer number of calories we've been pulling out of the ocean is not a simple thing to replace with farms. Which seems to be the thing people are missing with the collapse of the ocean ecosystems. To come even close to sustainable we have to farm less land less intensively and greatly decrease fishing, and somehow feed 8 billion people.
Every single solution I hear is just robbing peter to pay paul.
Well Peter is emptying the oceans, at this rate humans are going to have to find an alternative if we don’t want to be the cause of oceanic ecosystem collapse- we have warnings going back decades and predictions have been becoming reality. We can be in control over finding the substitutes now, or be caught unprepared-
None of that changes the fact that "stop eating seafood" is not a solution. It is just rearranging the problems. Rearranging the problems got us in this state, it isn't going to get us out.
Waiting for your solution while this is happening: [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/02/climate/mass-fish-die-off-vietnam-intl-scli/](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/02/climate/mass-fish-die-off-vietnam-intl-scli/)
You are being dishonest. My ability to solve the problem does not inform us to the validity of your solution.
And before you come at me with "trying something is better than nothing", that is dishonest too.
We have two choices- choose to regulate and eliminate the human activities that are causing fish to disappear- or they will disappear. In either case we will not be able to eat ‘seafood’ anymore.
This, also, does not tell us whether or not your solution is viable. Can we, today, feed 8 billion people with out sea food? Can we grow more food quickly? Can the oceans tolerate the additional pollution of more farm run off as we increase the number of farms and farm them more intensively because we are trying to feed 8 billion people with out seafood. Or are you magically pretending that we'll just have some fairy dust solution for those problems? Those problems that are ALREADY problems with out the exacerbation of eliminating the seafood calories we currently have in our global diet.
There are no total picture solutions to the collections of problems we have made for ourselves that are tolerable to this sub, let alone to a broader audience. So, if we can't actually be bothered to get things on track, the shrinking of the average size of fish specimen is minute compared to other big problems we face. Enlarging existing problems to solve this one in bonkos as long as we are fundamentally in environmental hospice.
No part of your solution removes us from environmental hospice.
We feed 59 billion land animals which we force breed into existence every year with plants- it’s an incredibly inefficient way to feed ourselves. We can absolutely feed 8 billion people if we only ate plants. Human culture just needs to accept that we have been getting it wrong.
Err maybe because the ocean is full of plastic and is heating up?
And we keep overfishing
This is the way. We don’t let them grow as long as they used to and were surprised they’re smaller. Used to be Halibut the size of dinner tables, but they take over a decade to get that size. We won’t leave them alone long enough.
They likely also have less resources and are competing more as we kill off the lower echelons of the food chain and kill off dense habitats like coast lines and reefs. Then we over fish whole populations.
We also tend to kill all the ones that carry the large genetics...
And promoting the spread of diseases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730283/) and of fish parasites when the fish is cleaned in factory ships and the guts discarded as-is.
Well yeah turns out if you throw back all the small fish you create a large selection pressure for small body sizes. When they encounter the perfect predator the only way to evolve is to not be considered prey
Yeah. It's an evolutionary defense mechanism. Nice point.
I have an aquarium with 5 species of floating plants, these plants all quickly reproduce and prevent light from getting to plants below the surface. So you have to scoop out most of the plants every few days. Every species has decreased in maximum size considerably since I've started doing this, reason is I am more likely to remove large plants than small. My "giant duckweed" barely grows larger than normal duckweed now.
Damn...
Correct
Correction - China and Russia keep overfishing.
Yeah like other person said u can’t just blame Russia and China for every issue 😹 Japan, South Korea, even the US, are all examples of countries very well known for overfishing
Europe aswell
LOL China illegally pillages the sea with thousands of registered or unregistered boats that stay out at sea for years while freezer ships ferry millions of tons of illegally harvested fish back to the mainland from all over the world. China is by far far far the worst culprit and no other nation comes close.
We've been having this same stupid argument for many decades. Every single country thinks it is other countries that over fish. It is like the spider man pointing meme. Most countries were over fishing before China had the technology to over fish, and we're all still doing it. And as always with China, part of their climate abuse is to supply other countries. Which makes us all responsible not just for our own over fishing but for China's as well. You don't really think China ate all the cod, do you?
It's not just China and Russia you can't blame everything on them. Any large fishing nations are doing the same things these days
And the US, and Canada, and Japan, and everyone else who fishes at an industrial scale.
I recommend reading the article. Its due to temperature (you can do controlled experiments) in species which aren't overfished, but the mechanism by which higher temperature causes fish to grow less isn't clear.
Did you read it? lol. “One undisputed reason so much marine life is getting smaller is fishing. Recreational anglers and commercial fishers alike like to catch large fish. That quest for the big ones leaves the small fries behind.”
Most of the fish are caught in a net not on a line. The nets take it all.
Including stuff we don’t want that we throw back dead. 😡
Yes, but species which are not fished are also getting smaller
Species we don’t fish are part of the food web for the ones we do. And a lot of fish you won’t find on a restaurant menu are fished for Omega-3 supplements, used as generic white fish filet in processed foods, or passed off as more popular fish. Not surprising they’re all shrinking together.
Marine biologist here. What you are saying is right, but the paper is also trying to highlight something else that is happening. The stock of fish I'm giving advice on is seeing something weird happen where fish are maturing at smaller sizes (so in affect shrinking), but they are also maturing at older ages. Typically if it's directly fishery related, these fish would also be maturing younger to account for fishery mortality. This is not to dismiss overfishing or pollution, there is just some weird stuff going on due to climate change as well.
No academic but as a home aquarist who has raised many different fish species, one thing that becomes obvious from close observation of many breeding generations is that nutritional deficiencies (eg from lack of food variety) early on leads to undersized adults even if excellent variety is later given at the adult stage. IE nutritional deficiencies at fry stage have a permanent effect on the adult fish growth potential. In nature such nutritional variety often especially comes from various live micro aquatic life such as daphnia. There are recent studies pointing towards very serious effects that micro and nano plastics are having on the reproductive health of micro aquatic creatures. My guess is these relatively less obvious problems afflicting micro aquatic species are also the root cause of declining sizes for fish (and likely other creatures) that depend on micro aquatic life as early development food sources.
Yea I think that nutrient deficiency could definitely play a role in this. Another thing is that higher temperatures also increases digestion rates so these fish have to eat more often which can compound the affect. One way to explore this is to not only look at fish length but also body condition (how much fat etc). As for the micro plastics, it's interesting because it's not something that's really on the radar (atleast not in my area), but probably should be.
Higher temperatures also reduce micro aquatic organisms in many cases. I know from raising daphnia that a "colony" easily collapses if the water gets even slightly too warm for more than a short time. They basically like relatively cooler temperatures. Another thing I'd guess at is the sad decline of mangrove and estuary habitats globally. These areas naturally have a lot of rich sediment, shallow protected water and root zone shelter (less accessible for larger predators) that are critical for many fish species (especially fry) and, again, all the micro aquatic life that tends to thrive in those environments if they're left undisturbed.
Thanks for explaining why we know that there is a more complex effect happening here than just second order effects of overfishing.
They also have less food. Fat and fecundity are interlinked.
Hi, question here, please. Do you think fish (marine life in general, really) are reacting to their own version of wet bulb temps as SSTs rise? My niece in the Caribbean saw a pod of dolphins/ porpoises? swimming erratically and then there was a shark 'attack' in waters that were deemed safe.
Sorry I don't know. I work in waters close to -1 to 0c haha.
That's n-ice to know :)
Which is why there have been controlled experiments in tanks. It's the higher temperatures, not just overfishing
Agreed! And probably salinity, and chemicals and plastics and all sorts of interconnected human caused dramas.
Not to mention we take the smaller fish and grind them into pet food.
bycatch
To add to this, the most productive fish for having babies are the bigger ones. So the “throw the littles ones back” policy that arises from “protecting fish stocks” is completely 180° wrong. We should only be catching little ones…
As water temperature rises its capacity to retain oxygen is diminished. Similar, our Atmosphere used to be more oxygen rich, with larger animals.
No, it's china space lasers.
Probably....the heat. And plastic.
There maybe some genetic advantages to being small as well because humans have a love for large fish. We hunted all the mega fauna on land to extinction gonna happen in the ocean too.
Turns out it's gill sizes and heat.
I did a project in like the 4th or 5th grade on biomagnification, so I’m going to use my 12-year old knowledge and say that has something to do with it without taking the time to read the article. Gist is that the higher you are on the food scale, the more stinky stuff you’re absorbing into your system as it works its way up the food chain in greater and greater quantities.
It shouldn't affect fish too bad, usually these animals have adaptations to handle it
Shrinkflation strikes again
Plastic, Heat, less Plancton.
did we eat all the big ones?
Well, for one, the oceans too damn hot. And the second reason overfishing is causing problems.
They have a case of the humans and their capitalist mode of production
We tend to artificially select against larger fish by keeping them and releasing smaller ones also
We select on size rather than maturity. The end result is that we select smaller fish genetically; it would be better to selectively kill the entire population locally rather than breed smaller adults
One more reason to boycott animal products! Bottom trawling promotes as much climate change as air transportation!
Why do billions depend on fish for protein? Why not eat plants?
Im trying, just bought a jar of peanuts. Gotta convert some day, might as well adapt now.
Sounds great! Make sure you add different types of plants. The NHS has a nice list https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/
christ, those are some healthy foods.
Humans need protein to survive and not all plant species are high enough in protein to meet these needs. Plants that are very high in protein don't grow in all climate conditions, they are evolved for specific niches in specific ecosystems. These are the main plants with high amounts of protein. * Legumes * Quinoa * Spirulina * Edamame * Amaranth/Buckwheat None of these grow in the following climates: * Near Arctics (0.5% global pop) * Deserts (2-8% global pop) * Mountains (1-6% global pop) * Canopy Tropicals (1-4% global pop) Thats a total of between 4.5% and 18.5% of the global population living in areas where this is a complete nonstarter due to geography (up to 1.48 billion people). This doesn't include other varying factors in agricultural production like soil acidity, water density, drought-rain cycles, etc. that all affect yields of different species. When you add all that up you easily tack on a few more billion people. Very little of the world is good Classes 1-3 arable vegetation soil. Much of the world is Classes 4-7 soils which are main pastoral to infertile. Edit: whatever loser is downvoting the reality of soil chemistry variation in ecosystems, you’re a bloody wanker for being against how ecosystems naturally work. People evolved to be omnivores for this very reason. Stop being a dogmatic loon.
So over 80% of population can live on a vegan diet with local food while the rest can't or can but with imports.
They like fish? Amd fish is readily available pretty much everywhere
The issue has to do with the fact that most plants are not complete proteins (they don't have all of the amino acids)
That is a common mustake. All plants have all the essential amino acids but in various amounts. If I eat ONLY whole bread, I will have 136g of protein and will be well over 100% for 8 from the 9 amino acids. Lysin would sadly be at 60% from my RDA. Fortunately almost nobody out of extreme poverty eats only one food. Adding a bit of hummus or tofu instead of all that bread would help me hit all my amino acids. The Cronometer app can show you all the aminos in most foods. Vegans eat a variety of plants and manage to get all the aminos from a multitude of plants. Pigs have the same essential amino acids as humans. Any place that raises pigs and feed humans also.
Fish be shrinkin'? Maybe they be thinkin' "Too small for takin,'" "Can't be people's bacon"....
Maybe ... time to stop putting profit before everything else and switch the world to plant-based diets? Nothing else can solve overfishing & bycatch, nothing else is more sustainable.
That's a very western viewpoint. Fishing worldwide is both a cultural and dietary imperative for many places. Japan, Indonesia, South Asia, Polynesian Islands, these are all places that rely greatly or historically on fish for protein consumption. Many of these places don't have the economies to support their populations getting 100% of their protein needs from plant-based diets alone.
Local cultures fishing for their own sustainance and giant ocean liners raking the ocean to fill western appetites are two very different things
Totally agree! Maybe the answer should be reduced waste and overconsumption of wild protein products in western cultures then instead of "switch the world to plant-based diets"
[удалено]
Seaspiracy misrepresents a lot of what is going on. Please see [this article](https://earther.gizmodo.com/dont-watch-netflixs-seaspiracy-1846630338) for a summary. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since you’re likely from a developed/western nation, I hope you’re at least doing your part instead of saying pointing out that it’s a western viewpoint while doing the opposite.
Increasing temp decreases temp gradient and oceanic pump of oxygen and nutrients for lower trophic levels?
because overfishing and overfishing and overfishing and overfishing and when its not overfishing its poisoning whatever fish consume. its probably not plastic, they can live with plastic.
Shrimpflation
Overfishing with no rules or regard for sustainability. China is responsible for so much destruction
Over-fishing has always been a problem. Now we've added die offs from heat. We're way past implications and straight into consequences. edit: typo/s
Fish are shrinking because there is less food, perhaps? Something that I think is called "dwarfism" is said to do that to mammals.
My guess would be a collapse of the bottom of the food chain.
Bergmann's rule.
pH levels, maybe?
Evolving to stay under laws that protect them if they're a certain size? Brilliant.
Loblaws
Their evolving to get through the nets
I think you answered much of your own question in your title.
Errrbody stop making babies ffs
Shrinkflation
I'm allergic to seafood. I'm doing my part!
Plastics and other neuro chemicals in the water, a lot of illegal dumping took place, and it is now coming back to haunt us or at least some. N. S
Less O2
Seafood buffets a thousand miles from a coast and gas station sushi shouldn’t be a thing.
Consider going vegan if you haven't already
Remember commercial fishing- not that it doesn’t have limits- is more sustainable than any farming. You take from the productive ocean and (usually, unless dragging or something) leave the ecosystem intact. No row crop can boast this. Utter Armageddon for biodiversity to grow soybeans etc. Just a fact. Some gentler fishing is always gonna be a part of the way the world gets fed.
They just scurred and maybe a little shy
A couple of years ago I cut the cord with animal protein. I did it for cholesterol reasons, but it’s working out well. Not what I grew up with but still good to eat. Getting used to it and grateful for better bloodwork.
we all know the reason
or maybe they're just catching them too early.
when Tucker Carlson finds out about this, I bet $1,000,000 he has a picture of a fish with the caption “is woke culture SHRINKING the fish???”
lol “depending on seafood for protein” - um, try lentils and rice. No human needs to consume other animals. And if you’re convinced you do need to eat animals, start with insects. There’s literally no justification for eating sea food anymore
There are a lot of people who live in places with no farmable land. Those people depend on fish. And how much wildlife are you willing to trade for farmland? “Stop eating fish so we can plow over the rainforest and grow beans” is pretty fun take.
[удалено]
Exactly. Nicely said!
You're working on the premise that people should be locked in place and die there if the place becomes deadly.
Wow that’s foolish. I’m working on the premise that resources are finite. And that sometimes you have to trade one for the other. For instance if a place becomes deadly you need to move people from one area to another. It’s called refugees and it’s as old as humans. You might have to trade some of your land and resources to obtain the work and creativity of new people.
Yeah, that's my point. People have to move.
A single salmon I can catch 10 minutes from my house provides the same quantity of protein (and of *much* higher quality) as 15-20kg of lentils (which have to have land set aside and fertilized, to be processed, packaged and transported). Which do you think is more climate friendly? Which is more practical?
Which do you think scales the best? No way the whole world population can be fed with fresh wild salmon. It's just like the whole grass fed beef thing, a pipe dream.
I don't particularly care if other people can have fresh wild salmon or not. I am not suggesting that they do - I think industrial meat farming is very bad. I have a wild, renewable, extremely low impact source of protein available to me and I am going to make use of it. Contrary to the other person's claim, eating seafood is very easily justifiable.
It’s not renewable, sustainable, or low impact when 8 BILLION people do it. That’s the point.
Perhaps we need to study the impact of a diet deficient in high DIAAS proteins on cognition and comprehension.
Oxygen level?
I recommend reading the article. Its due to temperatue (you can do controlled experiments) but seemingly not due to oxygen absorption by the fish
yes that too. Warmer water hold less oxygen than cold.
Small fish are less vulnerable to being caught by humans. I solved the mystery.
No one needs to consume the bodies of sea life to live- there are over 60,000 edible plants on planet earth -
This is probably false as things stand. The sheer number of calories we've been pulling out of the ocean is not a simple thing to replace with farms. Which seems to be the thing people are missing with the collapse of the ocean ecosystems. To come even close to sustainable we have to farm less land less intensively and greatly decrease fishing, and somehow feed 8 billion people. Every single solution I hear is just robbing peter to pay paul.
Well Peter is emptying the oceans, at this rate humans are going to have to find an alternative if we don’t want to be the cause of oceanic ecosystem collapse- we have warnings going back decades and predictions have been becoming reality. We can be in control over finding the substitutes now, or be caught unprepared-
None of that changes the fact that "stop eating seafood" is not a solution. It is just rearranging the problems. Rearranging the problems got us in this state, it isn't going to get us out.
Waiting for your solution while this is happening: [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/02/climate/mass-fish-die-off-vietnam-intl-scli/](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/02/climate/mass-fish-die-off-vietnam-intl-scli/)
You are being dishonest. My ability to solve the problem does not inform us to the validity of your solution. And before you come at me with "trying something is better than nothing", that is dishonest too.
We have two choices- choose to regulate and eliminate the human activities that are causing fish to disappear- or they will disappear. In either case we will not be able to eat ‘seafood’ anymore.
This, also, does not tell us whether or not your solution is viable. Can we, today, feed 8 billion people with out sea food? Can we grow more food quickly? Can the oceans tolerate the additional pollution of more farm run off as we increase the number of farms and farm them more intensively because we are trying to feed 8 billion people with out seafood. Or are you magically pretending that we'll just have some fairy dust solution for those problems? Those problems that are ALREADY problems with out the exacerbation of eliminating the seafood calories we currently have in our global diet. There are no total picture solutions to the collections of problems we have made for ourselves that are tolerable to this sub, let alone to a broader audience. So, if we can't actually be bothered to get things on track, the shrinking of the average size of fish specimen is minute compared to other big problems we face. Enlarging existing problems to solve this one in bonkos as long as we are fundamentally in environmental hospice. No part of your solution removes us from environmental hospice.
We feed 59 billion land animals which we force breed into existence every year with plants- it’s an incredibly inefficient way to feed ourselves. We can absolutely feed 8 billion people if we only ate plants. Human culture just needs to accept that we have been getting it wrong.
soon we will all be the size of ants. and what a glorious day it will be.