Mass Plankton Die-Off

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

We simply need to stop breeding for a generation.

That, my friend, has to be just about the greatest understatement ever uttered.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As Wolfgang Pauli is said to have remarked, after reading a colleague’s/student’s paper: “This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.”

Reducing the population, without reducing the individual’s rate of consumption, does nothing to reduce that population's population to resource consumption ratio.

Gord, I think that could be applied to MOST of the thinking on over population.

I can only believe that contemplating what a meaningful reduction would entail drives people into such a state of denial that they simply can not reason.

[beowulfborealis]

I knew Garrett Hardin when I was at UCSB. In 1968 the journal Science published a remarkable paper he wrote addressing common resources like water, air, tuna fish, oil, etc, and how all these common resources need to be managed by government or privatized. This is because any individual who thinks rationally, is going to take advantage of any common resource. This leads to destruction of the resource.

One glaring example of this tragedy that is affecting us all now, is bluefin tuna fishery management. The whole world loves tuna fish. Bluefin tuna in particular, has become subjected to the last buffalo hunt. NOAA Fisheries has tried to get the world to come together in some kind of management plan but it is just doomed to extinction, like the fish. Nobody wants to restrict themselves fishing for them, especially when prices of $50,000 dollars or more can be gained from one fish. Its tragic to see greed take over and watch these magnificent fish go extinct right before our eyes.

Here is a good article on the Tragedy of the Commons:

Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Reducing the population, without reducing the individual’s rate of consumption, does nothing to reduce that population's population to resource consumption ratio.

Yes, but...

Total consumption = number of people X personal consumption rate

Ideally you want to drop BOTH the number and the rate, but failing that decreasing either one of them reduces the total.

[markpierce]

We need to reduce personal consumption to save the world? If so, aren't we hyper-consumers by being involved in boating? Seems to me, anyone with a boat with the view a high standard of living is a crime against the universe, is a hypocrite. They should forswear the material life and live natural without clothing, shelter, and grocery stores, and thus help reduce the human population to a sustainable million or so.

[markpierce]

Yeah, I suppose some would prefer boat builders should be collecting aluminum cans and general assistance (welfare/transfer payments) so as to save the world.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by markpierce

We need to reduce personal consumption to save the world? If so, aren't we hyper-consumers by being involved in boating? Seems to me, anyone with a boat with the view a high standard of living is a crime against the universe, is a hypocrite. They should forswear the material life and live natural without clothing, shelter, and grocery stores, and thus help reduce the human population to a sustainable million or so.

There is a great deal of validity to that argument. If we lived in a fare world, and shared resources equitably, we in the US would have a personal income and use oil at about the same rate as a Guatemalan. Of course they don't live in a temperate climate and use heat so we would all have to make other adjustments or move.

But even then we would still be using the same amount of resources as we do now, we would not have changed the consumption, just spread it around. To reduce global pollution/soil depletion/water over consumption (take you pick) we would have to ratchet down our consumption dramatically below that level.

Remember that as American's we are 5% of the population but use 25% of all energy expended.

This is the solution to the "Tragedy of the Commons."

The only counter argument is to say, as I do, that the human race is incapable of resolving the 'Tragedy of the Commons' and thus we are doomed to fail. If you can't save all then save yourself. In which case I refer you to "Sailboat for when the SHTF' thread.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by hpeer

There is a great deal of validity to that argument. If we lived in a fare world, and shared resources equitably, we in the US would have a personal income and use oil at about the same rate as a Guatemalan. Of course they don't live in a temperate climate and use heat so we would all have to make other adjustments or move.

But even then we would still be using the same amount of resources as we do now, we would not have changed the consumption, just spread it around. To reduce global pollution/soil depletion/water over consumption (take you pick) we would have to ratchet down our consumption dramatically below that level.

Remember that as American's we are 5% of the population but use 25% of all energy expended.

This is the solution to the "Tragedy of the Commons."

The only counter argument is to say, as I do, that the human race is incapable of resolving the 'Tragedy of the Commons' and thus we are doomed to fail. If you can't save all then save yourself. In which case I refer you to "Sailboat for when the SHTF' thread.

I didn't think anyone would take my argument seriously.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by markpierce

I didn't think anyone would take my argument seriously.

My apologies....................I think?

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by beowulfborealis

One glaring example of this tragedy that is affecting us all now, is bluefin tuna fishery management. The whole world loves tuna fish. Bluefin tuna in particular, has become subjected to the last buffalo hunt. NOAA Fisheries has tried to get the world to come together in some kind of management plan but it is just doomed to extinction, like the fish. Nobody wants to restrict themselves fishing for them, especially when prices of $50,000 dollars or more can be gained from one fish. Its tragic to see greed take over and watch these magnificent fish go extinct right before our eyes.

I think the Japanese just paid $230,000 USD for one lone bluefin tuna.

[hpeer]

Jared Diamond quotes one of his students who, when talking about the Easter Islanders cutting down their forests asks:

"What where they thinking while cutting down the last tree?"

Seems like we should know that answer, from experience.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by hpeer

There is a great deal of validity to that argument. If we lived in a fare world, and shared resources equitably, we in the US would have a personal income and use oil at about the same rate as a Guatemalan. Of course they don't live in a temperate climate and use heat so we would all have to make other adjustments or move.

But even then we would still be using the same amount of resources as we do now, we would not have changed the consumption, just spread it around. To reduce global pollution/soil depletion/water over consumption (take you pick) we would have to ratchet down our consumption dramatically below that level.

Remember that as American's we are 5% of the population but use 25% of all energy expended.

This is the solution to the "Tragedy of the Commons."

The only counter argument is to say, as I do, that the human race is incapable of resolving the 'Tragedy of the Commons' and thus we are doomed to fail. If you can't save all then save yourself. In which case I refer you to "Sailboat for when the SHTF' thread.

Excuse me, but I am missing something here. A world of fairness??? Really??? A desired world of fairness??? There is no fairness, it is called competition. And don't preach democracy, we live in a republic. Am I supposed to worry about the world's poor uneducated undesirables? Depletion of water---are you for real???

And we may use 25% of the worlds oil but under your theory, we should drop back to candles, split wood and not atoms. I find positions you propose unrealistic. AND THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR GREAT COUNTRY!

To each according to his needs, from each according to his means!!! WooW that has been kicked around for the last 100 years or so. It did not work elsewhere why should it work here?

Instead of Tragedy of the Commons I suggest reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. And no, I am not angry, I am just totally baffled by opinions some share.

Foggy

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by foggysail

Excuse me, but I am missing something here.

Yes Foggy, I think you are missing a great deal. Take another stab at reading my post.

[hpeer]

On a moderately related note, here is an interesting article. I don't know the authors. It is more about land reserves than marine but it does mention how stressed our oceans are.
FOOD, LAND, POPULATION and the U.S. ECONOMY

FOOD, LAND, POPULATION and the U.S. ECONOMY

Footnotes
1. Per capita fish production from aquatic systems will continue to decline because of overfishing, pollution, and population growth.
2. Combined, crop and pasture land occupy 50% of the U.S. total land area. This amount of land is essential to provide the diverse diet Americans presently enjoy. However, if the U.S. population doubles in about 60 years, Americans will have a less varied diet, one consisting mostly of grains and vegetables.
3. Additional forests should not be converted into agricultural and urban uses because forest products are already in short supply. U.S. forests also are essential in preventing flooding, purifying water, and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
4. This 70 million acres in reserve represents less than 0.7% of U.S. agricultural land. This small amount of land is insufficient to rescue agriculture when the population doubles.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Yes Foggy, I think you are missing a great deal. Take another stab at reading my post.

Hey you're right, I misread your post and like politicians .......I MIS-SPOKE! I thought you were recommending not explaining the consequences. Heck in any case, Atlas Shrugged is still recommended!

Thanks for your post--

Foggy