Hacker News Reader

Comment by darth_avocado | Hacker News Reader

The oceans are depleted. And some countries with shadow fleets are to blame more than the others. But somehow it’s not even a small priority for most countries. Whales are dying because they are malnourished and that is an indicator that there’s barely anything left. The idea that international waters are available for anyone and everyone to exploit is just wild.

View on HN

The tragedy of the commons, on a planetary scale.

Hardin's original essay addressed just that.

<https://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of...>

    > some countries with shadow fleets

I never saw this term used for fishing boats. Do you have any countries in mind? And what exactly is "shadow"?

    > Whales are dying because they are malnourished and that is an indicator that there’s barely anything left.

I assume you are talking about the recent deaths of Pacific Gray whales.[1] They are dying because climate change has depleted their primary food source in the Arctic. They are not dying due to overfishing by humans.

[1] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24052026/pacific-gray-wha...

It's always China: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/CHINA-ARGENTINA/FISHING/gkp...

As long as they are 200 nautical miles offshore, then it is fair game. That Reuters article reads like: "China did something; it must be bad."

They're normally called a shadow fleet because they turn off their transponders when they head into territorial waters.

First of all, just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it’s good.

But more importantly, specifically Chinese fishing vessels aren’t exactly innocent either. They go dark to go and fish in waters where fishing isn’t allowed including eco sensitive zones. Part of the problem with the dark fleet is “how much they fish”. Claiming 200 vessels are fishing while allowing 1000 vessels will obviously lead to overfishing.

Then there is the whole “illegal fishing” including but not limited to hunting sharks and other endangered species, using banned fishing practices, threatening local fishermen across the coast of Africa to corner parts of the fishing grounds etc.

All of this is well documented. So it’s not about China bad, it’s about them skirting the rules.

    > But more importantly, specifically Chinese fishing vessels aren’t exactly innocent either. They go dark to go and fish in waters where fishing isn’t allowed including eco sensitive zones.

Do you think that Japan, Korea, Taiwan does not do exactly the same? I believe they do. However, they are part of the "Free World", so we give them a free pass.

They are wrong too. But my comment was specifically addressing your argument that criticism only exists because it’s China and not because they are wrong. Whataboutism isn’t a great defense here. Everyone doing it needs to not do it. My parent comment that started this thread talks about everyone and not just one country:

> The idea that international waters are available for anyone and everyone to exploit is just wild.

Edit: Order of magnitude also matters here. Chinese fishing fleet is much larger than all the nations you mentioned combined. Any nation taking that much from the oceans which are a globally shared resource and a lifeline for the planet should receive scrutiny and pushback, regardless of who they are.

“In the few cases where dark vessels were directly counted by satellite, China’s share approached 100%”

To the surprise of absolutely no one.

Shadow fleet is anyone without a transponder reporting their location

If they are dying of hunger then the most likely cause is overfishing, far far ahead of climate change.

I can see from your reply that you did not bother to read the article that I shared.

Yeah, the enforcement problem seems almost absurd compared to the scale of the ocean

Which countries are using shadow fleets?

China, North Korea, Russia

In Morocco?

you're hung up on "The problem is especially severe in Morocco[…]" but the thread has moved on since the root comment where the author starts with: "The oceans are depleted."

There’s really no cause to raise a panic with lab-grown meat right around the corner. AI, FSD, electric cars, nuclear energy, and drones are eating up most of the VC money right now but lab-grown meat is waiting in the wings to take over in the next few decades.

I had to make an account to tell you to look again; lab-grown meat isn't at all a given or even a good alternative. 98% reduction in biomass in twenty years isn't a cause for alarm?

Why lab meat? Plants are right here now, require very little electricity, the sun is free, they can't run away, many can be eaten with very little preparation. It's both cheap and easy.

Because not everyone shares your preference and/or discipline for plants. Lab grown meat doesn't require a planetary scale realignment of moral values and habits.

Some might argue that ignorance or apathy doesn't reduce someone's participation as a consumer in a very inhumane and climate-wrecking meat industry down to simply "preference". I do agree it's unrealistic to expect 8 billion people to change their habits overnight, but we are going to see a massive prisoner's dilemma as resources dwindle until that 8 billion number starts falling.

That's a moral judgement about what words to use that has no bearing on causality. Incentives are never a valid justification but they are almost always an explanation. We should care about explanations when trying to solve problems.

I agree, designing institutions around incentives is key. But the discussion around factory farms can shaped around ethics and not morals, and I had taken the opportunity to point out that "preference" reads as unwarranted euphemism in the face of the brutality of modern factory farming, and downplays the agency of the individual as a participant. Past that, we are in full agreement that it's more fruitful to solve the problem rather than sit around making judgements.

> Lab grown meat doesn't require a planetary scale realignment of moral values and habits.

It absolutely does until it's actually something normal people call "meat" which is still a long long way off.

habits, no. But difficult argument to make that lab-grown meat requires _less_ of a "moral value realignment" than plant-based food?

Various plants (dark leafy greens/cruciferous vegetables) do make up the foundation of a healthy diet, but do not provide significant protein or fats. Meat is very useful from a dietary perspective. You can make a quality vegan/vegetarian diet, but hitting high protein goals for those who are active can be difficult. The majority of vegetarian+ protein options are also high in carbs.

Plus, meat is tasty. It makes perfect sense people look forward to lab-grown variants that are ethically sourced and have no adverse health effects.

    > but do not provide significant protein or fats

Uh what? Seed oils. Avocados. Tofu / seitan / tempeh.

Sure, but a seed oil is not a plant. The oil is extracted from a plant. You can eat all the plants you want, but unless you directly consume the processed extract, you won't be getting much fat. Avocados are a source of healthy fats. However, this still leaves you deficient in EPA. Conversion from ALA is trash, so the only option to my knowledge is seaweed/algae and you would massively over-consume other nutrients trying to hit the DRI for EPA. Your only option is supplementing with algae pills I think. From a quick glance, this is 2-3x as expensive as fish/fish oil.

Tofu, seitan, and tempeh all have protein, but they differ from animal protein in that they are "cut" with lots of carbs and fat. I am on a protein-sparing modified fast (PSMF) for bodybuilding goals right now, and there are no viable non-animal whole sources of protein (so, excluding pea protein isolate etc.) I can have. Even seitan is only ~81% protein by calories, which is too low. I am targeting 90% calories from protein right now.

They are definitely good options, along with lentils (which have a similar problem of having more carbs than protein), for vegetarianism+. But they are not a perfect substitute as you cannot get nearly pure protein from them. They also tend to lack the BCAAs that make up a large portion of muscle.

So, you can fulfill most dietary goals purely vegan, but it is harder and more expensive due to limited options.

> 2-3x as expensive

That seems a small difference in contrast with the industries scales and the price comparaison will probably be the opposite in case of expended demand. Also most plant diet are already cheaper and that little supplement wouldn't make a difference.

> PSMF for bodybuilding

You may have not found a plant alternative for your needs but it seems you are on a quite unusual diet. "do not provide significant protein or fats" apply essentially to the group of people that are bodybuilding AND on a similar nutrient diet AND eating "whole sources" only. For anyone else, it's fine:

- sedentary: most plant protein will do fine, they are packed with fibers that helps transit the carbs/fat and regulate insulin

- sedentary with cardio/active life (commuting by foot/bike, running, swimming...): same as sedentary, as you noted you got all the carbs needed with the meal.

- bodybuilding not on a "whole sources" diet (milk, whey, chicken without skin...): Plant shakers are similar to their animal alternative, and protein isolate can be prepared of cooked the way one want.

You seems quite informed so it may not be that hard for someone as much informed as you, but I concede plant diets are not the norm and most people just don't know how because they learned to eat differently instead. As an athlete you probably know that it seems hard to change habits.

Regarding the price we don't share the same experience: proteins are cheaper, restaurants meals are cheaper and societal cost (subsidies) is cheaper. Some specific supplements may be more expensive but that's marginal.

> but hitting high protein goals for those who are active can be difficult.

That's where eating bugs comes in to save us all

Bivalves are probably the lowest impact proteins and are already part of the diet across the world. The sequester carbon, clean up the water they grow in and are filter feeders that can leverage the coastline that will eventually be under water due to rising sea levels.

People often exaggerate the necessary protein for an active lifestyle. High protein diets are needed for competitive bodybuilders or power lifters, but people who are active in other ways (running, cycling, hiking, climbing, yoga, more casual gym goers) really don't need a high protein diet and do just fine on a moderate protein diet.

I think a lot of people have gotten a really narrow idea of what health and fitness looks like and think it has to involve a barbell and a macro tracking app. You can also move your body in nature, run up some hills, carry 40 lb packs for days, and do yoga.

Protein isn't just necessary for activity, protein is essential in brain development and function, data show lower iqs in those who opt for a vegan or vegetarian diet despite those people on average tending to be higher-educated.

can you share the data?

btw, how much protein do you consider recommended?

can't run away, fantastic

They don’t taste the same though

If your lab meat is running away, something has gone very wrong

Nah, I like the taste of fear and adrenaline; give it brains and a source of horror.

Because I say this as an ex vegetarian, meat tastes good.

"Lab" grown meat of the aquatic variety has been around for eons in the form of mussels and other bivalves. No central nervous system to suffer, similar nutritional profile that fills in plant-based gaps, extracts nutrients from the water instead of polluting it, and grown on ropes.

However the concern here is not just finding something tasty for humans to eat.

People aren't going to stop catching and eating fish until it is legislated against, globally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com