[1] https://phys.org/news/2020-10-crisis-galapagos-chinese-fishi...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.