Fish, A.I. & Doomsday

Asia and Russia aside, even Canada is taking more fish than makes sense, and we do this even though few Canadian fishermen could make commercial fishing economically viable within the short fishing season, without the generous government income benefits called "Employment Insurance".

The Canadian government pays big Employment Insurance benefits that allow Canadian fishermen to sit around for the better portion of the year waiting for the short time their license allows them to fish.

What this means is that Canadian fishermen don't really care if they make money catching fish, as much as they care about keeping their fishing license and making a show of continuing to fish. Thus even if the fish stocks were very low (as they in fact are) Canadian fisherman would still go out to fish so as to collect the generous Employment Insurance benefits.

The fact of the matter is that the two main benefits for Canadian fisherman are the generous government income benefits for sitting around most of the year, and the money they can get for selling their fishing license when they sell out.

So my Canadian tax payer dollars go to support the destruction of both west and east coast fish stock, up to and including the point of removing all fish!

Farm subsidies in the US are absolutely no better as is the case with the Canadian farm subsidies. There is nothing scared or holy or essential about farming when it's uneconomic and environmentally destructive.

Animal farming being the worse of plant faming in general, given that there is rarely good enough reason to consume cattle, and pigs, chicken when plants can provide similarly with much less environmental devastation and much higher efficiencies.

But even the above arguments pale in comparison to the essential one:

Everyone on earth could live like royally, own a 100 acres of prime land, have a private jet and yacht, eat fillet and steelhead at every meal, own a gas guzzling V8 SUV etc, with nary a long term eco-footprint problem!

How you ask? It's really very simple, keep the global population at no more than 10 million. Thus I (rhetorically) ask: what is the net advantage of having billions of people?

We appear bound for a sizable global level of self-destruction because of our own sexual success!

It is in essence our blinding drive to have children that is our downfall and not over-fishing, or destroying bees, or animal farming per se.

That people still celebrate birth when it implies the doom of mankind on earth is stunningly ignorant. No personal offence meant to any and all but that facts are undeniable that the burgeoning population is the underlying cause of our present eco-global problems and not misuse of resources per se.

My main point: benign evolutionary and/or social structures that can moderate the types of extreme imbalances we now experience are exceedingly rare (if it can be agued they exist at all).