We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Part of me really wants to agree with the presentation, but falling back on carbon production as a valid reason to change just rubs me the wrong way. Same with the focus on Omega-3 fatty acids, as it's only a matter of time before the nutrition boffins tell us they were wrong about that one, too.
What he ought to be doing is explaining why it makes economic sense to follow his recommendations, as opposed to just claiming he knows what's best for us and proposing a global solution, yet ignoring all the coercion that solution will involve.
He's right. The U.S. does a fair job of preventing over fishing but China, Russia, Korea and Japan (and others) do not. In a few years the ocean fish will be in real trouble. It really boils down to over population and technology advances in catching fish. Without world wide agreement on quotas and conservation exhausting the oceans fish supply is inevitable.
Tilapia and catfish are two great alternatives, easy to raise and tasty.
A couple of good points and many rhetorical tricks and misleading analogies.
Yes, fish markets are the result of the choices of our appetites - tuna or seaweed? That's why they are called "markets." And people in the aggregate are better fed than they've ever been - is that bad or should it be the goal?
Interesting point about the narrowing of market choices though. Just try to get ling cod or abalone or even sand dabs in a San Francisco restaurant anymore.
Besides the carbon diversion, the worst "argument" is the fish biomass vs. human biomass comparison. I think it really shows how FEW humans there are in comparison to other species.
This a classic example of eco-nonsense. Dams are bad. All of them prevent migration of salmon, yet salmon are successfully farmed? Collective behavior to be governed by the enlightened few - and this guy found it traumatic that he's not catching the same fish as an adult that he did as a youth - it drives him to make us better. The ocean is huge and to pretend that can measure fish populations with any accuracy is not believable to me.
The whole thing is just a swipe at mankind's ability to control the planet for its benefit. I fail to see where that is wrong.
I agree. In Oregon every river with a dam had a fish hatchery at the lowest dam and salmon and other species were hatched and released with huge success; large dependable runs. With the eco-terrorists demands a lot of the hatcheries were simply closed so that the 'natural' process could proceed. But of course it didn't work well at all. In spite of expensive and less than successful dam mitigation techniques the fish runs declined and became more unpredictable. We willingly and knowingly throw away the best solution to the problem in favor of the false god of 'natural'. Bring back the fish hatcheries. We could literally flood our streams with salmon if we wanted to. We simply do not want to.