Seafood will be unavailable by 2048, says a group of scientists. Seafood will be available at fine restaurants everywhere in 2048, says a blogger who got a C and a B in the two science courses he took in college. Who, really, are "anti-science"? Degreed propagandists who discredit science by attaching it to wild scare scenarios that never pan out? Or, the skeptics who laugh at them?
Why do these stories often have a spokesperson w/ an oddly appropriate name which make it seem like the whole story is an Onion hoax? Talking to a "Boris WORM" about too much fishing going on almost goes beyond a curious coincidence.
More anti-science propaganda.
I suppose the Sun revloves around the Earth too huh?
Most likely, like the vast majority of "scienfitic" doomsday scenario, this makes the most unrealistic of all assumptions: That trands will not change.
The issue here, HeHe, is not science but economics. As the fish population depletes the price of fish will rise. As price rises, demand will go down.
As demand goes down, the market incentive to fish will go down.
As that happens, the fish population will grow.
Simply, there is no coming doomsday for our sushi. Just a few more dollars at the cash register.
Perfect explanation Ben-T.
It wasn't too long ago, when alligators in Fla. were an endangered species. Now, people want the laws to change so that they can be exterminated by homeowners when the reptiles end up in a backyard eating the family dog.
A majority of humans (at least in this country) understand the importance of conservation with regards to maintaining endangered species. Especially the ones that will help us in the long run.
This is another "nature good, humans bad" story.
The Deadliest Catch will still be on the air in 2048. In fact, one out of every three tv shows will be a reality show based on fishing by 2012. All of our vitamin E intake will be from fishing reality shows by 2022 and not from fish themselves.
It comes down to credibility. We’ve seen enough doomsday scenario’s come and go to be skeptical when a new one comes out. It’s called critical thinking, certain people on this blog should try it. Common sense should tell most people that yes, we should be concerned about what happens with the environment but it should also tell us to take these apocalyptic predictions with a huge grain of salt and base our actions on fact and careful reflection.
For someone who ridicules people of faith, The Troll reminds me of these religious zealots with their crazy predictions of Armageddon. Ironic, huh?
Good point, Ancient Mariner. The irony and hypocrisy of expressly antireligious science reek. What's behind that mockery of religion is nothing more than a simpleminded faith in the exclusively materialistic, atheistic, etc. order of the universe.
In 2022 we're all going to be eating Soylent Green anyway. So in 16 years, the world will be an overpopulated, depleted mess void of food and water. And later, when the Polar Ice Caps melt, people will be forced to navigate a world covered by water. I think they'll call it Water World. They should use those absolute scenarios to make movies and tip everybody off to the inevitable.
ASDF: Everyone knows an asteroid will kill us long before 2022.
True True. It'll be something like Armageddon.
Buzz,
I'm an agnostic myself but I agree people should not be ridiculed for their faith (or lack thereof). That’s the American way. Just as I think some religious leaders who say they have all life’s answers in one book are being arrogant and deceitful, so do I think that the people in the scientific community who claim to know all the mysteries of life and the universe are being arrogant and deceitful. In any open minded society there should be room for both religion and science at the table. But I personally have an immense distrust of anyone who comes unglued whenever someone challenges their viewpoint, be it in religion or science. I also believe mockery is one of the biggest forms of ignorance and self-righteousness. We all know who I’m talking about.
Funny how some people who speak of open-mindedness are the most close minded people imaginable. But as Dan brought up in “Morons”, these people consider themselves above everyone who doesn’t believe what they believe and therefore not subject to the same standard of conduct.
You guys are all wrong.
Its obviously going to be the Jew-run Martian CIA Moon conspiracy that finishes us off. Open your minds!
Ben-T the study says the stocks will collapse IF the trends do not change.
They don't assume they won't, they're telling us what would happen if we don't change.
If current trends continue, the sun will remain up forever, and it will never be night ever again.
Just saying something will happen "if current trends continue" is often silly and useless.
And irresponsible. And dishonest. And an easy way out when the predictions don't come to pass.
the obvious difference ben-t is that we are capable of stopping the stock's decline, because we are causing it.
We don't control the sun.
Idiot.
This is what happens when you have The World Is Flat religious types trying to comment on science.
Jesus ain't gonna put more fish in the sea Ben-T.
Thank the Lord that one of the most ardent anti-science Reicher has just been taken down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkUi6dhwWx0
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html
"the obvious difference ben-t is that we are capable of stopping the stock's decline, because we are causing it.
We don't control the sun.
Idiot." -HeHe
You're a very stupid individual HeHe. The point flew well over your head.
"Jesus ain't gonna put more fish in the sea Ben-T." -HeHe
A staggering example of economic genius. I concede.
Ok so you've conceded that Jesus will not save the fisheries.
So why don't we?
What's your argument for allowing the fisheries to collapse?
Slashdot has picked up the empty oceans story. Great place to go and read comments:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/04/0311214
"Ok so you've conceded that Jesus will not save the fisheries.
So why don't we?
What's your argument for allowing the fisheries to collapse?" -HeHe
You are shockingly stupid.
Who on this blog said Jesus would save the fisheries? Looks to me like the troll is making up his own argument and then tendering his own concession ( not for the first time). Schizophrenia or crystal meth may be at play here.
Ben, don’t be shocked yet, this was one of his more lucid weeks.
Yes, that is what he is doing. It is called the strawman fallacy.
My point is that in the greater debate between science and religion, y'all seem to favour religion.
I favour science.
I'm right.
Peace.
It's always something.
"My point is that in the greater debate between science and religion, y'all seem to favour religion.
I favour science.
I'm right.
Peace." -HeHe
Not relevant.
I really don't unserstand your critisim here.
Dan posted an entry skeptial of a scientific conclusion.
I defending the conclusion, saying that your skeptisism is most likley born out of the religious delusion most of you seem to have.
How is this not relevent to the post?
Because the explanation offered for why the skepticism is valid has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and you are using the strawman fallacy.
Who on this blog is stating they favor religion over science anyway? Correct me if I’m wrong but I honestly don’t remember anyone taking that position. I think a lot of people here do challenge conclusions that seem far-fetched. What’s wrong with that? If you didn't have such a one-size-fits-all attitude toward people maybe you would see there are people of varying political and religious ideologies that post on this site and they’re not all religious zealots. As a matter of fact I never came away with the impression that anyone on this site is a fire and brimstone zealot. How can you have missed that? The only zealot on this site is you, troll boy. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and actually read what’s being said, instead of coming unglued and insulting everyone who challenges you. Are you so narrow minded that you can’t accept that sometimes people will disagree with you?
One other thing: If you’re a man of science that I’m one of those alligators ASDF referred to earlier in the thread.
I've read it all.
Excuse me for connecting your vigourous defence of religion on other threads with your skepticism about science on this one.
I think there is a connection.
This is making me hungry...
(to the kitchen...)
“Vigorous defense of religion”
What are you talking about? I’m agnostic, I don’t like organized religion. I’m a man of science and as such recognize you as the poser that you are. Excuse me if I keep an open mind but I’ll take one each Ben-T, ASDF, Ralph, Opus, Homer and Bruce for one thousand of you any day.
By the way: Still waiting for examples of anyone on this site who has stated they favor religion over science.
p.s. There are some on this blog I omitted for the sake of expediency in my response. Please don’t feel slighted, guys.
HeHe, is economics a science?
There are endless examples of incorrect predictions made by politically-minded scientists. (I see that you haven't taken the advice I offered in that recent thread.) As T said, the root of the problem is often ignorance of economic principles.
Steven Landsburg mentions in "The Armchair Economist" that there is evidence to suggest recycling paper lowers the supply of trees on the planet. But I thought people who recycle care about trees! They do (though perhaps not as much as cultivating their eco-warrior image), but this counterintuitive result is still possible because the demand for new paper is reduced. New paper comes from new trees. It is no coincidence that forestland in our continent has expanded millions of acres in the last decade, in order to keep up with rising demand.
It is not in the interest of fishermen to wipe out the fish population while selling fish is still profitable. If you think they will behave in this manner, let me give you a strategy: buy a small body of water and allow fish to mate freely. It may be a costly move today, but in 42 years when you're the only supplier of seafood in the world, you'll be an incredibly rich man! That is, as long as the Federal Trade Commission doesn't crush you.
As Mariner said, the folks here are not anti-science. The general viewpoint is merely that science does not supersede religion. That's pretty damn uncontroversial -- and I believe it's correct.
Look Ben, economics is a science.
Yes it is in the fisherman's interest to keep fish stocks well-supplied.
In thier lifetimes.
If the problem doesn't reach critical potency until 2048, they have no interest in reducing thier catch.
These intergenerational problems are one example of what economists call a market failure.
Free markets do not provide the best outcome in this case.
I'm all for free market policies, even for enviromnmental protection. Cap and trade systems are excellent tools in polution control, for example.
But the theory that individuals pursuing their rational self-interest produce the higest level of welfare for mankind is one that is virtually always true- except when its not.
Things like this fish story are one of those realitivly rare exceptions.
Tragedy of the Commons.
"Free markets do not provide the best outcome in this case." -HeHe
Yes, they do. Care to offer a rebuttal instead of babbling about Jesus?
How will lowering the population of fish affect the price of fish?
How will that effect consumption of fish?
How will that effect the fish population?
OH BUT I DO DECLAH, I AM JUST SO SUH THAT TAH GOOD LAWD WILL PUT THOSE FISH RIGHT THERE BACK IN THAT SEA FOR US, OW THANK YA JAY-SUS!
Oh Ben-T. Unfortunatly the breeding habits of fish do not follow the laws of supply and demand.
If they did what you just said might make sense.
If their populations fall below a certain threshold there isn't enough genentic diversity in their gene pools to ensure the survival of their species.
Price, might I add, is not the only determinant of demand. Many, many, many rich people eat fish nowadays because of their impressive health benefits. Do you really think these people will stop just cuz the price goes from $3 to $10?
Eating fatty fish twice a week does prevent heart attacks after all.
One might say that any price is a small price to pay for that.
The market does not do pollution well, and it does not do conservation well.
I'm supposing you didn't read the report because if you had you'd have seen that it reccomened the lifting of government sanctioned caps on how many fish the fishermen can catch, and replace those caps with a system where certain areas would have no-limit fishing and certain areas would have no fishing at all.
This is a more efficent way of ensuring the stability of the populations, and allowing the fishermen to fish as they please.
"Oh Ben-T. Unfortunatly the breeding habits of fish do not follow the laws of supply and demand.
If they did what you just said might make sense. " -HeHe
Oh HeHe, you're an idiot.
If people are consuming less fish there is less incentive to take fish from the ocean, leading to an increase in breeding.
Most third graders could understand that.
"If their populations fall below a certain threshold there isn't enough genentic diversity in their gene pools to ensure the survival of their species." -HeHe
Fish farms, thanks.
"Price, might I add, is not the only determinant of demand. Many, many, many rich people eat fish nowadays because of their impressive health benefits. Do you really think these people will stop just cuz the price goes from $3 to $10?" -HeHe
Less people will consume less fish as price rises, yes.
"This is a more efficent way of ensuring the stability of the populations, and allowing the fishermen to fish as they please." -HeHe
Oh hey notice how thats not relevant to your claims, but you're a clown so you're going to act like it is.
It's no wonder liberals have a problem with God. Have you ever heard more doom and gloom from any one group of individuals?
Apparently, there is no hope. We are all doomed and the only way that our small minds can handle that impending doom is by blindly believing in a supreme deity. It’s clear that we need intellectual relief as we don’t have the capacity to understand things on a scientific level. God and science cancel each other out I guess and, to some on this page, therein lies our downfall.
It’s amazing we humans have lasted this long, eh?
I thought rule by fear and eradication of religion was pretty much gone with communism. Welcome to the liberals’ new world.
Science is not doom and gloom.
Its just the truth.
Ben-T not every fish can be farmed, especially not the big edibile species.
you're no skeptic, you're just plain ignorant and hostile to science.
