Comments on: Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048

Study By Ecologists, Economists Predicts Collapse of World Ocean Ecology

[bigeye9]

Actually ocean pollution is seriously improved over the 10 or more years. Fish stocks have been diminishing due to demand, and better fishing techniques. Some posts are correct, fish will just cost more (supply and demand). The Japanese have learned how to raise Blue Fin tuna in hugh floating pens offshore. White Sea Bass were nearly wiped out, but are now also raised in sea water pens, and released into the ocean. Shrimp, Oysters, Lobster, etc. are also raised in the ocean. I'm pretty optimistic, really.

[rf35]

It%u2019s likely humans will survive the death of the oceans. Of course, populations will drop and countries like Japan, where seafood is a staple of the diet, will be hardest hit. Coastal regions and most islands may become uninhabitable. But this is a good thing for the Midwest farmers and cattle ranchers%u2026they%u2019ll be holding all the cards when it comes to feeding America and several other countries. Finally, a way for our economy to surge ahead of Japan%u2019s!

[velotron]

This kind of Armageddon news release from a "New" study always makes me skeptical. Let's get the
data out; what trends are they analyzing and how
did they reach this conclusion?

The article pointed out the location of their full report: "Worm and colleagues report their findings in the Nov. 3 issue of Science". Here's the abstract:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5800/787
Hopefully you can find the print edition of Science in your local library. (The state of affairs of easy public access to research papers is another matter altogether.) The lead author can probably answer any additional questions you have:
http://biology.dal.ca/us/f/worm/worm.html

[jlburrell-2009]

not only that but alot of people just don't care, because they probebly hate fish, or just don't believe it because they think our world is so big that it couldn't happen, well i think they're wrong and it can happen-i think if we leave the waters alone for at least 5 years and continue to stock and find a way to reduce the pollution around the world we might have a solution to this problem-but the world is full of ignorant people and this will never happen of course but hopefully the right person reads this so that we all can make a difference in the world that hold a future for our children, i know i want my kids to enjoy what i did in the past before we started messing up our ecosystem.

[jlburrell-2009]

this problem effects more than we think-other specices feed on those that us humans eat-not only that but even the state of ten thousand lakes(Minnesota) can't keep the fish population to an average amount because of illegal possesion and just to many fish have been taken out of the water everyday-i think that the world should put slot limits on all species of freshwater and saltwater fish, but the demand of money is the only thing keeping fish protecters from enforcing any kind of law like this.
i have recognized this problem in minnesota in the past 5 years in minnesota, when i go up north to fish there just isn't anymore big fish or a population of good size fish-there is so much to argue about this issue and just like no one believed that global warming is happing they'll just let it go till it's too late!-the mercury level has also gone up in most bodys of water so you really can't eat that much fish anymore(because of global warming), and with all these fancy resturants ordering all these expensive fish dinners is obserd,who really NEEDS these seafood dinners,just take vitamins that support the nutreints of seafood. the fish and seafood industry needs to settle down before they really struggle to find that artic crab or lobster, i'm sure they can find some other thing to invest there money on to save the population of fish. there are so many things that effect this porblem i could write a book about it!

[jebediah76]

Gvernement limiting funding for science that flies in the face of party politics erodes the value of funding science in the first place. It isn't cheap and it doesn't tell you what you want to hear - But there should be no doubting what constitutes credible science.

[mrjohnwang]

what bunk. this is about "commercially viable" fishing - it simply means fish will be more expensive - not extinct

the author's name is work - as in fishing bait

[jebediah76]

Dogsoul -
The credibility of science not withstanding - whether these guys are grandstanding or not doesn't change the fact that the oceans are in big trouble. everyone knows it - but some folks prefer to wait until those little cans of Tuna on the shelf at the store vanish. The fact is that coral bleaching, dead spots in the Gulf of Mexico, Mercury in our fish, and the increasing difficulty fishermen have making a living are all verifiable facts.
We figured out years ago that if you rotate your crops your field will not *** out on you - is this so difficult a notion to translate to the oceans?? C'mon, people!!

[kimberlilly]

Perhaps most of you dont care becuase you wont be here in 2048, But I will and so will my daughter!!! I think if anyone has children,grandchildren ETC.. we better start taking science seriously and get your heads out of the politcal rigamarow. This is serious SH_T!!
When the time comes for changes to actually effect us it's not going to matter if your Republican, Demorcrat or Liberal, WE are all humans and we are doing this!

[dogsoul]

I think this illustrates perfectly the problem with these kinds of debates. Used to be that science was considered more or less a reliable, unbiased, relentlessly objective pathway toward truth. If you could get science on YOUR side of the argument, it gave you tremendous credibility. Of course, many competing interests & even some scientists themselves seeking funding would exaggerate, manipulate, omit and even outright falsify findings in order to capitalize on that credibility so as to further a particular agenda and/or spurn the public into action. We've ALL seen this countless times from ANY side of virtually ANY argument - it's pretty easy to find some "scientific study" to support whatever it is you want it to assert. Science has lost much of its credibility. Now, perhaps the world's oceans will be dead w/in 40 some years as this study purports... but despite an admittedly UNqualified opinion - I tend to doubt that considering the earth's known record of massively variable climate change - I could be dead wrong(pun intended) and would certainly like to hear more qualified opinions on the matter - but IF this study is indeed publishing conclusions that are WAY off base... then how are we to know WHAT to believe amidst erroding public faith in the increasingly corruptable field of science?