Stopping some fishing would increase overall catches
economist.com
economist.com
Same shit with carbon emissions, now fishing and soon water.
Totally different situation.
It very explicitly applies to shared resources like fisheries, and it crops up in much more mundane scenarios too. E.g., when water costs are split between multiple apartments you can pay peanuts for nearly unrestricted personal water use by offloading most of the costs to everyone else.
Is a simplification, but the idea that I wanted to stress is that everybody in a "tragedy of the commons" case has some kind of legal rights to exploit the shared resource.
Pirate fishing doesn't has rights over the resource. Is an illegal activity, parallel to the legal quotes, that boycotts any measures taken for a sustainable management.
I am starting to think that there are big decisions, that have a worldwide impact, that cannot be left just to the local government of turn.
Take for example Bolsonaro's approach to the Amazon. Those are decisions that impact the whole world, possibly for generations to come. We cannot allow a local government to do what they want just because they happen to have this piece of land in their own country. We need a global system to enforce measures to protect the planet.
0 - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics/as-eu-thr...
And not property rights the way water rights sometimes works, where a group of people all have the right to take all they can.
If the same people owned an aquifer but all had to pay for what they used, the water would be more properly priced.
With water, as with fish, people often pay the cost of taking the resource and not a price that reflects the value of the resource.
The value is actually more like the future cost of replacing the resource. Once your aquifer is empty, you must ship water in. Or desalinate. That's more like the real cost.
With a species of fish, the replacement is incalculable. But one thing is clear. The price should increase rapidly as it becomes scarcer, preserving the incentive to keep the population viable.
That can't happen if people just pay the cost of going out there and getting the fish. The price has to reflect the value of the fish too.
If the right too harvest a population were a piece of property that could be bought and sold, the incentive to preserve the population would be stronger.
You might even see technologies that avoid taken pregnant females and that count how many males there are so you have enough of those too.
This is not a hypothetical; it's the reality fishermen have been dealing with for decades.
A ban works if it's enforced. But who's going to call the enforcers when there's a violation?
This is the reason the tragedy of the commons exists.
And it's also easier for those who want to use a resource to respect the law if there's still a legal way to access the resource.
He told them to put it in private hands. He told them it didn't really matter whose hands it ended up in. He told them that provided it was in private hands with property rights well respected then the economy would thrive throughout the 90s.
It ultimately ended up mostly in the hands of the oligarchs or abandoned while the rest of Russia starved. A lot of it got clawed back in the early 2000s and has been better managed since.
I'd love to see how closely I channeled it, especially given my low opinion of that guy.
I would add that property rights don't work as well when rule of law is weak. That doesn't mean they're a bad thing.
companies, with full ownership of the land, are ruining the topsoil of their land because the cost of farming sustainably is greater than the cost of acquiring new land
When explained, he thought immediately the idea sounded great. In their tribe, they got locked into spirals of revenge. He said he wished they could have police in the jungle as well.
Many societies have decided to respect some common rules. Sometimes it means that someone as a person can't quite do what they would like to do. That is the price.
The societies not being able to organize well were overrun by others, more organized ones. Sometimes the rules were changed.
However interestingly, the US has not actually ratified the convention that recognises EEZ’s (along with a few other countries like Iran and Turkmenistan). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_United_...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43345615-the-outlaw-ocea...
Yeah it puts into perspective how daunting the tasks of cleaning up the oceans (pollution, crime, illegal fishery, drilling, etc.) really are.
Pigovian tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
This is slowly starting to change as recreational sports fishing organizations have become more powerful in their lobbying efforts to share the burden across both commercial and recreational, but it is still fairly uneven handed with recreational bearing the brunt of restrictions, closures and taxation.
It's to agree and to implement any common strategy in a classic Prisoner's Dilemma, where it's beneficial for every single participant to break any agreement. Another difficulty is that the partners that would agree (governments) are not themselves fishing. Even with the best intentions, not all of them have the means to sufficiently police every operator of a fishing vessel.
The silver lining is that it's an "iterative Prisoner's Dilemma". The "prisoner"'s decision isn't isolated from everything, because others will respond in the next round. The issue can also be combined with others, tying, for example, trade agreements to sufficient cooperation (c.f. Brexit).
But the sheer number of participants alone makes it a slow slog. Just look at the problems OPEC has, even though that group is a lot smaller and the activity in question is far easier to control.
The strategy should be nice not defect before opponent, Retaliating, forging and non envious. How do you make a tit for tat fishing strategy?
Reference link to prisoners dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
(From the wikipedia link someone posted)
Of course with fishing it all falls apart if there are multiple countries fishing in the same area without having a unified system.
Asia accounts for 71% of world fish consumption. In places like Bangladesh, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia fish makes up over 50% of all animal protein consumed.
Unless you've travelled widely in Asia, especially outside of the rich up & coming cities with restaurants catering to foreign tourist palates and ate in local places, it would make sense that you haven't seen it.
It depends where you are.
Stop fishing altogether and increase --otherwise dying-- marine life.
Having particular ecosystems in the ocean is not something we can afford to miss. And the current state of over-fishing is the main reason several of them are almost out of existence.
Yes it is, it's the biggest oxygen producer, but every ecosystem is important even that in our guts.
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/worlds-biggest-oxygen-pr...
Wild populations should be left alone entirely.
https://www.skretting.com/en/settings/news/general-news/inse...
I was more driving at: let's stop consuming fish at all...
I guess that leaves us with wheat and soylent green...
that's only because it's used as animal feed. hence soy got a bad name. most rain forest destruction is for our live stocks.
> and genetic manipulation
we can just stop that by itself
> stop rice because methane emissions
nothing compared to emissions by live stock. not in the same league (per calorie).
> stop potatoes because neophytes in most of the world
never heard of that.
> stop lettuce because low-calorie waste of precious land
we need more than calories, lettuce provides many minerals we need.
> I guess that leaves us with wheat and soylent green...
not really. look for vegan/plantbased/WFPB recipes and be amazed. richt and healthy (at times) and cruelty free
https://scroll.in/article/932402/net-profit-or-loss-keralas-...
[1] https://phys.org/news/2020-10-crisis-galapagos-chinese-fishi...
What is need is anti-fishing equipment mines, that destroy nets brought into a protected area. A solar powered drone-sub with a "gnaw"-wire-saw near the towing cables should do.
Fishing is a dying "industry" as is old school electricity- every time fishing goes into decline, fish-farms grow.
Interesting Trivia by the way: Fish farming is one of the cheapest ways to generate protein besides insects. Fish living in a weightless environ and requiring very little body heat, help to that.
creating more of them isn't a smart move.
You could say that, but it would mostly serve to convince people not to listen to you.
Well, I can see where your conceptual problem lies.
Theft is taking something that isn't yours. Violence is use of force. They are orthogonal concerns.
Whether your theft of something involved an act of violence depends on how you stole it.
You can be fiscally violent, i.e. harsh sanctions/trade wars, you can be emotionally violent, why you can commit unspeakable acts of violence without ever striking another person.
Theft of resources to a point of detriment is always violence.
Stealing an apple from Farmer John so you can eat is not violence.
Destroying the ecosystem which Farmer John uses to grow his apples, so that you can have more apples, is violence.
Overfishing in or near territories to the point of resource scarcity is 100%, always violence.
Now you're appealing to identity and trying to claim I'm in the same camp as vegans, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
If you have something substantial to say, please stop teasing us.
I like how this works. Just make claims and they become true.
There are other words to describe different concepts. If you want to conflate disparate things, I still don't see how you intend to have others go along with you. I'll wait till I hear news of a violent offender where the accusation was of consuming too much of a resource.
I still stand by the analogy I used. This is no different than taking a word that people associate with something negative and expanding its use to refer to something else. I did not intend to "tease" your royal highness.
Excerpts:
---
As a result of violence being such a complex phenomenon, there is no clear definition for it. Therefore, it is often understood differently by different people in different contexts - such as those from different countries, cultures, or belief systems.
While no standard definition of violence has been established, it is important, when developing effective prevention strategies, to have a clear understanding of violence and the context in which it occurs. In its 2002 World Report on Violence and Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) proposes a definition of violence that has since become a working term for many international and South African organisations working in the field: WHO definition of violence
“The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.”
---
Psychological violence (also referred to as emotional or mental abuse) includes verbal and non-verbal communication used with the intent to harm another person mentally or emotionally, or to exert control over another person.
The impact of psychological violence can be just as significant as that of other, more physical forms of violence, as the perpetrator subjects the victim to behaviour which may result in some form of psychological trauma, such as anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. This includes, but is not limited to:
* expressive aggression (e.g., humiliating and degrading),
* coercive control (e.g., limiting access to things or people, and excessive monitoring of a person’s whereabouts or communications),
* threats of physical or sexual violence,
* control of reproductive or sexual health,
* and exploitation of a person’s vulnerability (e.g., immigration status or disability).
This not only leads to mental health problems, but also to severe physical problems, such as psychosomatic disorders.
---
There, I have done your research into a pre-established, publicly accepted fact which I have no obligation to do (or else I would be doing it all day!). Your welcome.
Now it's your turn to come up with reasons why this evidence of historic colloquial use will not be enough for you.
Excellent, goodbye!
For making things clear, however I'm not done and will leave quotes from your original post here:
"Theft of resources to a point of detriment is always violence."
"Destroying the ecosystem which Farmer John uses to grow his apples, so that you can have more apples, is violence.
Overfishing in or near territories to the point of resource scarcity is 100%, always violence."
I see no qualifiers there and this does conflate the two concepts.
But is not necessarily government. Is "wery well known japanese car maker" storing frozen tuna for speculating with the market prices in a sort of "gold" substitute, but more profitable than gold market. Yes this has happened and is probably happening now. We know it because the 2011 Tsunami destroyed the hidden storages. Japan, Not China (in this case).
Is Totoaba prices in the Chinese market being falsely promoted as miraculous remedy for all stuff and prices manipulated to the point of making small fortunes, where the pirate local fishermen are paid in peanuts. You wipe the pirate locals has the same result as wiping the small drug dealers.
And in the other part of the warfield, we have a bunch of environmentalists without any real money. People that can be overpowered, crushed by lawyers or assasinated selectively. What will be more convenient.
Actually sinking of boats is highly unnecessary and not something people do unless the other boat has cannons and rockets, which a fishing boat is unlikely to have.
Well, you say that, but they have been known to use bombs.
> Sea Shepherd said fishermen threw rocks that broke the ship’s windows and tossed gasoline bombs that briefly ignited a fire on the Farley Mowat’s deck. [0]
[0] https://apnews.com/article/db582591f91d4747abc0fefc520257af
This happens since decades near California Gulf in fact.
Though I'm not sure whether that's really happening, since a search for "chinese fishing boats fired" https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+fishing+boats+fired exclusively returns results where coast guards of other nations fired at Chinese boats. If Chinese boats had guns, you'd think they'd use them and we'd get to hear about it.
And that's ignoring the possibility of collaborating with the Chinese state.
Not that this is happening, but I don't see any large barriers to it.
> China permits the sale of hemp seeds and hemp oil and the use of CBD in cosmetics, but it has not yet approved cannabidiol for use in food and medicines. So, for now, the bulk of Hempsoul’s product — roughly two tons a year — is bound for markets overseas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/world/asia/china-cannabis...
I've also seen a lot of Chinese eBay sellers say they don't accept orders from China. Not sure what that's about.
1. Thank you Elon, for making this feasible.
All avenues that aren’t violent have not worked and the UN or the international court system are too slow to respond effectively. YouTube already has many videos of military ships shooting at Chinese fishing vessels. That seems like the most expedient solution.
The pollutants from it aren't a concern when far out at sea, as they're only a threat to local air quality. They're just a concern closer to shores.
We shouldn't do business with a country that steals, doesn't play fair, is the embodiment of 1984, and above all, commits genocide.
Get the G7 countries, Korea, India, etc. on board with the plan. Start doing manufacturing in India, Vietnam, Africa, and Mexico. Copy their Belt initiative, but make the countries that do business with us allies rather than devastatingly indebted.
Agree in unison to cancel Chinese debts owed as repayment for technologies stolen.
Defend the South China Sea for energy exploration by other neighboring countries. Defend Vietnam's water rights.
Strengthen alliance with Vietnam, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. In the extreme case, offer recognition of independence to Taiwan or even US statehood.
Brain drain China. Offer immigration packages and economic incentives to Chinese PhD students.
We have to be proactive about the situation. Xi has played the CCP's hand early, and we have a chance to nip their ambitions in the bud.
Before anyone accuses me of racism, I care deeply about the Chinese people. I also acknowledge the problems of the West - racial injustice, inequality, ongoing wars. But compared to democracy, as flawed as it is, I think the future posed by Communist China is nightmare fuel and has the potential to eclipse the future we are trying to build.
I do not understand how you can say this about China? [1]
> I think the future posed by Communist China is nightmare fuel and has the potential to eclipse the future we are trying to build
Seriously? [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
The US does seem to have a large misunderstanding of what the social credit system is, and the ways it differs, and does not differ from the regular credit system.
Of course I do not endorse China's human rights violations.
Farmed fish also generally relies on being fed cheaper seafood, and it’s hard to beat Chinese prices.
It’s best to just stop eating fish for a while. If the industry shrinks even a bit, things can start to recover.
the big nation might not care if Chinese vessels are in the waters of your small nation.
Actually, that sounds like a great way to start a world war.
They do this in International waters around Australia, and it's a huge point of pride among Australians.
https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-species/cetacea...
Citation needed.
Basically all of these articles tries to spin Chinese distance fishing fleets operating largely in international waters, at the edge of respective country EEZs, legally as... illegal. This article specifically:
>nothing blatantly illegal to report to the Ecuadorian navy, the Coast Guard was relegated to watching,
There is nothing to stop enforcement of isolated illegal behaviour, which actual analysis of transponder behaviour shows, is limited to handful of boats and such behaviour is consistent among other distant fishing fleet. CCP doesn't give a shit when other countries enforce on Chinese distant fishing vessels unless behavior overlaps with disputed maritime areas. Plenty of Chinese ships detained or even sunk by foreign coast guards, central government just shrugs and say tough shit. Though it's a sufficiently annoying diplomatic issue that China is trying to reduce it's DWF size in the next few years.
> devastate local fish populations
At the end of the day, China _UNDER_ fishes per capita, including the Galapagos drama. Ecuador & Peru, two countries with 1/28th population of China, captures about about 1/4 of China, who also has 1/2 the EEZ of these countries, which incidentally means China has to fish more in international waters. In fact Ecuador & Peru catches as much fish annually as US with 1/10 the population... so if anything these two countries need to fish less and China needs to fish more.
BTW top 5 DWF fleets by size: China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Spain. Adjusted per capita China would rank behind Taiwan, Korea. In terms of transshipped fishing (offloading catch to support vessels) which allows fishing fleets to fish longer with less traceability, China ranks behind South Korea, Japan, Taiwan.
http://cimsec.org/evolution-of-the-fleet-a-closer-look-at-th...
Most Chinese fishing takes place right outside the EEZ in the high seas, and after the 2017 fiasco with a Chinese ship caught in the Galapagos EEZ they've been very careful not to actually enter its 200nm limit. The linked article has some great maps of AIS data that clearly show this. There may still be scattered instances of ships with AIS transponders turned off being sent into the EEZ or transfers from non-Chinese flagged vessels to Chinese ships, but according to the article "In most cases, what is detectable may not be illegal, and care is clearly being taken by the Chinese fleet to give the appearance of legal compliance with national and international laws."
The real bombshell is this here: "A task force report published in 2010 by Chinese government, industry, and academics argued that countries that have a longer history of using the ocean have more power in determining how resources are distributed and thus receive a larger share of those resources: occupying brings about rights and interests"
China is subsidizing a large deep water fleet so they become the largest fishers on the high seas outside of the 200nm EEZs and so can write the future rules for high seas fishing. As stated in the article, of the regional fishery management organizations that operate in the area very few Chinese ships are registered with the IATTC (founded 1949) despite China being a member. Rather, the ships are all registered with the SPRFMO (founded 2012). It's a lot easier to write organization rules when you're a founding member than when you join decades later. In international politics possession (in this case precedence) is 9/10ths of the law and you can be sure in any future negotiations over fishing quotas in the currently loosely regulated high seas China will have the largest voice because they have the largest fleet and largest historical catch.
While everyone's still back in the 80s guarding their 200nm UNCLOS EEZs China's already got the first mover advantage on everything outside those EEZs.
Looks like the real solution is to genetically modify fish so they always stay within 200 nm of land.
"Czech deer still avoid Iron Curtain"
Humans alive in 2000 years also won't have much worse lives. It'll be a sidenote in biology class "Did you know, there used to be many different types of animal roaming freely, but now there are just two types left, cats and dogs.".
Humans who don't have something don't know how great it was or what they're missing.
Perhaps your ancestors could have told you how awesome it was to ride mammoths into the sunset... But those ancestors are no longer around and we think of them as mostly theoretical creatures.
Nor is it going to crash a coast guard vessel on purpose. The crew also won't be killing any coast guard who board the vessel. [0]
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/world/asia/chinese-fisher...
The reason there are so many people trying is because it's about how the pie is divided, not how large the pie is.
> The tragedy of the commons is a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users, acting independently according to their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling the shared resource through their collective action. The concept originated in an essay written in 1833 by the British economist William Forster Lloyd, who used a hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land (also known as a "common") in Great Britain and Ireland. The concept became widely known as the "tragedy of the commons" over a century later after an article written by Garrett Hardin in 1968. In a modern economic context, "commons" is taken to mean any shared and unregulated resource such as the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, ocean fish stocks, or even an office refrigerator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
To me the wild thing is the first sentence:
>IN 2018, THE most recent year for which relevant data are available, people consumed more fish than they did either pork or beef or poultry.
The lede isn't buried, it's right there, but it goes unremarked. We already converted land mammals to human food:
> Earth's LAND MAMMALS By Weight
> A graph in which one square equals 1,000,000 tons. Dark grey squares represent humans, light gray represent our pets and livestock, and green squares represent wild animals. The squares are arranged in a roughly round shape, with clusters for each type of animal. Animals represented: Humans, cattle, pigs, goats (39 squares), sheep, horses (29 squares), elephants (1 square). There are other small, unlabeled clusters also. It is clear that humans and our pets & livestock outweigh wild animals by at least a factor of 10.
If we're pulling out more fish from the sea than all those pigs, cows, chickens, ducks, etc., that's gonna leave a mark, eh?
The sea is big, though. 3x as large as the land, and it's mostly teeming with life. It gets just as much solar energy per square km as the land, so it can support a roughly similarly dense ecosystem.
The problem is more about what type of fish we like to eat than the sheer volume: if we were willing to make do with krill and plankton we could sustainably consume many times our current intake, but not so when we want cod and tuna.
We are in the same boat.
We have some arrogance about our recent social achievements, as a species. In a few centuries we went from clashing empires to a semblance of cooperative and democratic internationalism with a general if superficial repudiation of racism and imperialism. Some people, both pro- and anti-capitalist, have suggested that we are within sight of a long-term equilibrium of social development. It's humbling in these circumstances to remember that we still don't even really know what to do about... fish.
NATO is indeed quite powerful. Unfortunately the strategic balance of power in the Atlantic cannot be held hostage by most nations trying to protect their fishing rights!
That’s not enough, but if more people did it, it’d be a start.
Some might even call it a tragedy.
The basic principle is that it makes the long term health and viability of the resource in the interests of those exploiting it, by putting the ability to effectively manage the resource long term in their hands.
I understand Iceland and New Zealand has systems with property rights for fishing grounds, which has solved these problems.
I am not quite sure what you mean by property rights and what it means in reference to other places.
On a side note, New Zealand just changed a number of significant fishing rules for commercial and recreational fisherman. The new restrictions on types of fishing that are allowed are to help protect both the Hectors dolphin (est. 10,000 left) and the Maui dolphin (est. 50 left.
It is good to see these unilateral efforts are possible in NZ due to their being no competing interests who have legal entitlement to the same waters.
Annecdotally, It is still relatively easy to go to the beach in NZ and catch a few fish of 2 - 6kg in size.
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/protection-and-response/sustainable-...
The "property" is the quota, the proportion of the total allowed catch of a species. As you say quotas can be bought and sold, so they are ordinary property.
(The total catch is set annually, sometimes even based on the recommendations of fisheries experts.)
It went even as far as stopping all fishing of herring in 1977-1982. That worked (in the sense of “herring didn’t go extinct, so there still is something to catch”)
> "every year, the European Commission makes recommendations on the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) to the Council of Ministers based on scientific evidence. The Council of Ministers, however, often disregards these recommendations because, as a rule, the priority for these ministers seems to protect jobs in the short term, not to maintain sustainability. As a consequence, the annual catch agreed to by the Council of Ministers is generally around 48 per cent more than the scientists’ recommended figure. The fact that 88 per cent of European fish stocks, measured against maximum sustainable yield (MSY), are overexploited is due in part to these excessively high catch quotas."
From https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/fisheries/fisheries-ma...
Seems like it is a much more real consideration for fishing than taxation.
You should learn how to bypass paywalls so that you aren't stuck in that boat. It's a necessary skill for the modern world alongside using bittorrent and youtube-dl.