Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxbond | Hacker News Reader

Ignoring the snark, it's an interesting point and I'm not in favor of using violence to achieve any ends. Not interested in waiting around to die because some large fishing interests are structurally incapable of behaving responsibly, either, though.

Just as I reject that our only options are to either screw over fishing communities or do nothing, I reject that our only alternatives are violence or doing nothing. I don't believe there is a single solution which can be applied in all situations that would resolve this, it would need to be worked out on a case by case basis and in cooperation with those communities. But just because it is complex and difficult does not mean it doesn't exist, and the alternative is an ecological collapse which we are unlikely to survive.

View on HN

Not you nor anyone else has any proof of any collapse, it is hyperbolic nonsense.

The problem is that all and I mean all of these idealogical driven agendas require tyranny because I for one do not agree with your world view.

I hope you'll reconsider this approach to conversation. You don't even know my worldview or my ideology, you seem to be reacting to some imagined worst case for what my world view could be. This is pretty gratuitous and makes it difficult to have a conversation with you; you aren't actually having a discussion with me, you're trying to engage with a phenomenon you imagine that I'm a part of. You're taking some views I've expressed and generalizing them to my entire world view, filling in the blanks with the least charitable assumptions you could make.

For that reason, it doesn't seem there's a productive way for me to engage with you.

I'm guessing anything you don't agree with is considered ideology driven?

You seem unfamiliar with the mathematics of game theory or multi-agent coordination problems. The only way to avoid these traps (overfishing is literally a textbook example) is to grant regulatory authority to some overarching entity, like a government. That's not the same as tyranny.

No, the problem is that you are repeating the same nonsense that has been said for literally decades. So at this stage we can't agree there is actually a problem. If species go extinct that is not actually in my mind a problem that justifies a central solution.

I am tired of being robbed blind of my free will and wealth by these huge central planning bureaucracies. None of us are smart enough to have that much control.

> The problem is that all and I mean all of these idealogical driven agendas require tyranny because I for one do not agree with your world view.

There's always someone who disagrees with someone else's world view, that doesn't make it tyranny.

> Not you nor anyone else has any proof of any collapse, it is hyperbolic nonsense.

I'm surprised that there's any contention at all around the science that shows ocean degradation (historical and on-going), or indeed about the (likely) impending collapse.

In 2014, the living planet report[0] included this dire little snippet:

"Population sizes of vertebrate species—mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish—have declined by 52 percent over the last 40 years."

Fishery exhaustion around the globe is tremendously well documented, with only a tiny handful of isolated success stories where strict regulation has been able to be enforced, and localised recovery has started to occur (New Zealand, f.e.).

I'm wondering how you claim hyperbole in the people studying and reporting these things.

[0] http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/723/files/origi...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com