Is the world being destroyed?

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

No, there's no "ideology" involved and I'm not "opposed to every practicable way to feed people",

There’s plenty of ideology and it’s all on Max’s side. He is ideologically opposed to any criticism of capitalism.

0 Replies

@hightor,

I'm not sure if living in harmony with nature is really an "ideology". But if - it's what made us humans.

The classic carp ponds and trout farming in flow-through systems have a century-old tradition. And their environmental footprint was and still is significantly smaller than that of prawns from Thailand or salmon from Norway.
Extensive pond-farming contributes to preservation of the countryside and to nature conservation and biodiversity, because it provides habitat not only for the farmed fish but also for many plants and aquatic animals.

But the most critical issue is the fish food, because feedstuffs often contain fish meal and fish oil from wild sources.
Sustainable aquaculture requires fish food in which these constituents are replaced wherever possible by microalgae, oil seeds and insect protein.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter, the term we should be using is sustainable. You used this term, and I like it. It means that it uses plentiful resource that are preferably renewable to produce the supplies that we need.

I think a food supply system that is productive is also important. We have 8 billion people who need nutritious (and attractive) food. We need to produce the most food possible with our limited resources.

We also have a demand for pineapples and oranges here in Massachusetts where neither fruit grow and people in Egypt probably want corn. Trade is a part of this.

These are the important parts of a global food policy. The fact is that we are doing this fantastically well. We have eliminated famines (once common)... there is one country facing famine conditions, and that is Somalia (which is facing political breakdown). This is because of modern agricultural progress.

If we are going to have a rational discussion about global food supply, we need to discuss productivity, shipping and sustainability.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Hightor and Izzy are pushing an ideological narrative.

Izzy wants to talk about "criticism of capitalism". Hightor is talking about "commercial fishing" and "industrial practices". Words like "commercial" and "industrial" are manipulative... they don't add anything to a rational discussion who cares if sustainable fishing is "commercial".

They are using trigger words designed to support an political ideology.

How does Hightor propose to feed people without "commercial fishing". Do we all need to catch our own fish?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

How does Hightor propose to feed people without "commercial fishing".

I know people who work in commercial fishing. Some are friends of mine. They obey the laws and fish responsibly. I know people who work in aquaculture. They run sustainable operations (they grow shellfish, which are filter feeders.) Nowhere have I suggested that "commercial fishing" be banned. I posted an article which, once again, points to the difficult time we have when we try to develop alternative ways of supplying food, whether in industrial-scaled agriculture or, in this case, innovative methods of aquaculture. The article points out how in order to produce this farmed fish, stocks of wild fish are still being depleted. You could have learned something if you read Walter Hinteler's reply carefully instead of just using it as a chance to peddle your "ideological narrative©".

Walter Hinteler wrote:

But the most critical issue is the fish food, because feedstuffs often contain fish meal and fish oil from wild sources.
Sustainable aquaculture requires fish food in which these constituents are replaced wherever possible by microalgae, oil seeds and insect protein.

You apparently know nothing about the destructive methods of industrial fishing that are being used.

How China’s Expanding Fishing Fleet Is Depleting the World’s Oceans

China’s Massive Fishing Fleet Is Transforming the World’s Oceans

The global fishing fleet has exploded and that could be bad for the planet

Quote:

(...) who cares if sustainable fishing is "commercial".

Commercial fishermen do.

Quote:

Do we all need to catch our own fish?

What a stupid question. The point is, if we don't get this right, there won't be enough fish left to catch commercially or enough to supply the needs of aquaculture.

1 Reply

@hightor,

You are playing an ideological game here.

Why don't you just say "Fishing should be done responsibly". We should all pay attention to fish stocks and ecological consequences while providing the necessary nutrition to the global population?

If you said something like this, we would all be in agreement. I certainly agree that fish (whether farmed or wild) should be managed and harvested responsibly.

But we are talking about "commercial" and "industrial" fishing... as if these terms even have a defined difference. The word "industrial" is a trigger word, you use it to sound ominous. Of course there is nothing wrong with talking about the "fishing industry". I don't think your use of the word "industrial" has any purpose other than as an ideological scare tactice.

If fishing is being done responsibly by some commercial industrial fisherman... do you support it or not?

I have no problem condemning irresponsible fishing whether it is being done by big scary China, or your next door neighbor or by Gorton's(TM) industrial fish emporium.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Why don't you just say "Fishing should be done responsibly".

Because environmental responsibility's been a consistent point throughout these past 25 pages. I'm not talking about what "should" be done, I'm talking about some of the real things that are being done.

Quote:

But we are talking about "commercial" and "industrial" fishing... as if these terms even have a defined difference.

They do have defined difference and if you don't know what it is why are you even participating in this conversation? I have friends who fish for a living. It's their business. They are commercial fishermen.

Industrial fishing refers to fishing fleets owned by corporations which deploy factory ships to fish far away from their home ports and process/freeze their catch onboard. They also deploy large boats which use destructive and irresponsible techniques such as bottom dredging (which ruins habitat), longlining (which kills and wastes untargeted species –"bycatch"), and purse seining (which catches and kills undersized immature fish). Longlining and purse seining can be used responsibly but the cost of operating industrial fishing fleets means that bycatch and undersized fish are ignored because of the need for a rapid return on investment.

Quote:

I don't think your use of the word "industrial" has any purpose other than as an ideological scare tactice.

Well, you're wrong.

Quote:

If fishing is being done responsibly by some commercial industrial fisherman... do you support it or not?

I'm not answering your stupid question so you can then say we "agree". What I support or don't support is immaterial. I'm not the issue, industrial fishing and aquaculture practices are.

Quote:

If we are going to have a rational discussion about global food supply, we need to discuss productivity, shipping and sustainability.

No one's stopping you.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

But we are talking about "commercial" and "industrial" fishing... as if these terms even have a defined difference.

In some parts of the world they have: all EU-countries with fisheries have "Fisheries Acts" where recreational fishing and commercial fishing is defined ... and delimited to industrial fishing ("large-scale commercial fishing, industrial fishing").

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Large scale commercial fishing (or "industrial fishing") is not inherently bad. The question is whether fishing is being done responsibly in a sustainable way.

I support a call for responsible sustainable fishing. This includes limits, laws, enforcement and international treaties. All of this should be backed up by science (rather than ideological concerns). The focus should be on "sustainable" rather than on political objections to commerce.

A knee-jerk ideological rejection of large-scale commercial fishing doesn't make sense. We need large-scale production of food... to have an ideological rejection of large-scale commercial production of food is absurd.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

You didn't believe that the terms 'commercial fishery' and 'industrial fishery' these terms have a defined difference.
I responded to that. (The EU-Parliament's Committee on Fisheries deals a lot with both, since decades.)

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Large scale commercial fishing (or "industrial fishing") is not inherently bad.

That's why I specifically referred to "destructive methods of industrial fishing that are being used" instead of simply saying "industrial fishing".

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Hightor wrote:

Farming fish will feed the world and eliminate the environmental problems caused by commercial fishing!

This is from an article in The Maritime Executive which illustrates one of the all-too-typical paradoxes which always seem to show up when industrial solutions are proposed to address environmental problems.

Look at the context, Walter.

I was responding to Hightor's ideological rant against fish farming and what he calls "industrial solutions".

"Industrial solutions" often work (actually, I would call them economic solutions). When they do work they are fine. We now have refrigerants that don't hurt the ozone and industrial solar cells that are providing renewable energy.

I don't even see fish farming as a paradox. It needs to be done responsibly, but it is perfectly good way to provide nutrition to humans.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

fish farming has been a nice source of pollution in upper Maine, where these huge cages of salmon are kept on set tracts an all the poopy waste matrial collects and causes RED TIDES.
I usd to hunt scallop and mussels in the Passamaquoddy bay and now, I wouldn't risk it

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Maryland and Delaware have set up requirement for oyster nd scallop farming in the Chesapake and Delaware Bays.
1First rule: Must determine the flow cross section in terms of dilution and O2 retention
2 Grasses invntory needs to be done as well as benthic survys and crab counts.
3 water chemistry involving poo pollution needs to be monitord nd reported

farmed oysters and scallops have been bringing back a food source but there is a limit and costs are high to maintain clean bays

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I have no problem with balanced policy discussions that look at the costs and benefits of food production. If the authorities have decided that a certain amount of farming is good for the economy and that the ecology can support it... then allowing this just makes sense.

There is a big difference between balanced discussions and ideological rants. This thread features ideological about "industrial solutions" without even considering the benefits or possible alternatives.

Solar panels are an "industrial solution to an environmental problem". These broad labels are designed to provoke outrage rather than thought.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

When I identify a particular industrial solution which has resulted in unforeseen and unintended negative consequences I have the right to point that out. I am under no obligation in this thread to list every instance where activities on an industrial scale have worked more successfully.

Quote:

This thread features ideological about "industrial solutions" without even considering the benefits or possible alternatives.

So what? That's not the point of this thread. I've told you that repeatedly.

Quote:

These broad labels are designed to provoke outrage rather than thought.

Interestingly, you're the only one who's "outraged". You show up here to rant, rave, and to attack people for posting topical third-party articles and stories, simply because they post them.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

"Industrial solutions" often work (actually, I would call them economic solutions). When they do work they are fine. We now have refrigerants that don't hurt the ozone and industrial solar cells that are providing renewable energy.

Perfect example of the phenomenon I mentioned earlier. Industrial refrigeration (as opposed to cutting and distributing natural ice) was a great thing...until we discovered the effects of hydrofluorocarbons on the upper atmosphere. That was an unintended consequence which had to be addressed. Twice, I believe.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Ive given two xamples above. One is an environmental problem creator an the following was an example of trying to solve ame. What are you blaming me of doing? Aint I balanced enough for you.

All opinions are equal i guess that some opinions are more equal than others

0 Replies

@hightor,

Do you have air conditioning, Hightor? If so, I aasume you have the new industrial refrigerants designed to save the ozone.

If not, then you can afford to be smug, at least on this issue.

1 Reply

Do we all agree then that "Industrial solutions" can successfully "address environmental problems"?

That is the question we have been arguing. If we all agree now that they can... then we can move on.

1 Reply

Is the world being destroyed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know