"It's Been Like A Vacuum Cleaner" - Chinese Demand Drains Fish From Reefs Across World - Reuters

[hatrack]

HONG KONG -- Turquoise fish with red dots stare at hungry tourists from a tank at a restaurant in Hong Kong, the capital of the world's live reef fish industry, a lucrative trade devastating reefs across the Pacific Ocean.

Considered a delicacy, demand for coral fish has exploded in line with China's booming economy and some species such as the humphead wrasse are already endangered. "You may not be able to eat it in 4 to 5 years, whatever money you pay. This is the favourite among people from mainland China," said a fish merchant, who gave his name only as Chen.

Restaurant fish tanks in Hong Kong are filled with exotic fish species gathered from all around Southeast Asia, Australia and even remote Pacific islands, such as Fiji and Vanuatu. With the marine stock already exhausted in nearby waters, Hong Kong traders are reaching far and wide for increasingly rare fish such as groupers, snappers and humphead wrasse, spreading the unsustainable fishing habit across the Pacific.

"Basically it's been like a vacuum cleaner across the region," said Andy Cornish, director for conservation at the WWF Hong Kong. "Reefs near Hong Kong were depleted decades ago, and the trade has moved further and further away to source fish." Biologists say reef fish are highly vulnerable to overfishing as they need 5-10 years before reaching breeding age, and the trade is difficult to manage because the fishing is mostly on a small scale, done by rural communities. "Demand for many reef fishes is just too high ... Wild populations will continue to decline, if nothing is done because the fisheries are typically unmanged," said Yvonne Sadovy, associate professor at the University of Hong Kong.

EDIT

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12452

[kenny blankenship]

1. As long as human beings remain in total denial of the #1 problem

which is OUR OWN OVERBREEDING, there is no hope for the planet.

It's not just reef fish that are crashing, it's basically everything that swims.

Don't give me any liberal bullshit about if only we would only do this or share that there'd be more than enough to go around--that's a line of wishful thinking crap.
We. Are. Over. Populated. Period.

[GliderGuider]

3. Ayup.

Big fish species are 90% depleted already. 90% of all fish species will be extinct or threatened by 2050. Would the last man standing please turn out the lights?

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Spotting the problem is one thing...

...fixing it is another. Seriously, how do you get the human population down to about 2 billion by the end of the century? Without some serious genocide, that is. :shrug:

[Nihil]

12. Nice koan

> Seriously, how do you get the human population down to about 2 billion
> by the end of the century? Without some serious genocide, that is.

There is but one answer to your question and you have disallowed it.

[rman]

16. Where does the 2 billion number come from?

What is it with all the claims about over population, and no backing it up with studies on the problem?

[GliderGuider]

20. It's a simple thought experiment.

First, take away the oil and natural gas. Then factor in the observed anthropogenic degradation of the global resource base and waste sinks.

These two factors imply that the long-term human carrying capacity of the earth is likely to be somewhat less than it was just before the human race began to use oil and natural gas in a big way. Put that stake in the ground at the year 1900 (to be generous), for a baseline carrying capacity of 1.5 billion. Now reduce it to accommodate the erosion of resources and waste sinks I mentioned above. The degree of that erosion is open to question, but the authors to "Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update" place the degree of human overshoot at 25% (which I also think is optimistic, but that's not really the issue). Let's use that figure, and reduce the carrying capacity by the same amount. This gives us us a sustainable population of about 1.1 billion.

Now we have gotten more knowledgeable over the years regarding efficient use of resources, so we can perhaps add a few hundred million back to that number. I think 1.5 billion should be considered an upper bound.

[rman]

21. But by now we have technology to replace oil, not available in 1900;

Ie solar-electric, solar-thermal, geo-thermal, etc.

That's more than just "more efficient use of resources"; it's energy sources that were simply not available back then.

Why not factor that in the thought experiment? If you do, i'd expect one arrives at sustainable numbers quite different from the numbers in 1900.

[phantom power]

23. Here is why:

Solar is too expensive. Geo-thermal is highly limited by geography. None of it can be deployed, at the scale required, in time to offset the energy loss that we're about to incur from peak-fossil.

Furthermore, the problem is deeper than energy. Keeping 6.5 billion humans alive requires water and topsoil that are currently being used at unsustainable levels. We have run a crop deficit for 6 of the last 7 years, even with all of our currently available cheap energy and technology, used unsustainably.

[GliderGuider]

24. We don't have enough of those technologies at the moment to keep 5 billion people alive without oil.

Those technologies are all dependent in some degree on an underlying oil-fueled infrastructure. Much of the earth's population lives in regions where energy from those technologies will not be available in sufficient quantities to keep all the existing people alive. Even by the most optimistic estimates, we would need to replace 25% of the heat energy the world gets from petroleum with energy from other sources, along with changing the distribution and utilization infrastructures to accommodate those new forms of energy.

One more big problem we will face is that most other forms of energy will exhibit much greater distribution inhomogeneity than oil, simply because oil is so transportable. We already see this effect with natural gas, where markets are essentially regional rather than global due to transportation difficulties. Raw thermal energy from geothermal or solar thermal installations, for example, has an even smaller localization of availability.

So there are at least three problems with using "technology" to replace oil. The first is scale, the next is infrastructure capex, and the third is distribution difficulties for the resulting energy. Such technologies will have a place, of course, but that is more likely to be within a highly localized, population-reduced context than within one of a relatively uniform high-population globalized civilization.

[rman]

26. Obviously we can't just switch over right now,

nor will the global population be decreased significantly in a civil manner any time soon.

Between more efficient use of energy including more localized production of goods and energy (solar is very well suited - there's no need to transport large amounts of it over large distances), and further development and deployment of new technologies, i think a gradual transition can be made over the next decades, to sustain maybe not 6 billion but quite a bit more than 1.5 billion. I've heard some scholar argue that we have past sustainable levels in the 1980s (sorry no source at hand).

Also, if not for poverty, then what is it that causes people to conclude there is overpopulation?
There is however one other important contributer to poverty: distribution of wealth. To only talk about population reduction and not about more equal distribution of wealth in order to reduce poverty, is just not right in my opinion.

[GliderGuider]

27. What if we don't have decades?

Many of us are coming to the conclusion that the world will only have sufficient energy to do something effective for maybe the next 10 to 15 years.

The notion that we passed the threshold of sustainability in the '80s was published in the latest "Limits to Growth" update. That's where the 25% overshoot number I quoted earlier came from. That implies a "sustainable" population of 5 billion. I disagree with that assessment, because the notion of "sustainable" cannot by definition include the use of any fossil fuels at all. I don't think the planet can support 5 billion on a purely solar energy budget - especially when you consider what a population of that size has already done to the global food supply, water tables, soil fertility, fish stocks, biodiversity and accessible mineral concentrations.

Talking about changing the wealth distribution founders on the same rocks as talking about reducing the human population humanely IMO. Neither is achievable.

[rman]

28. Perfection is never achievable; all we can ever do is try.

I don't think that's a basis for saying that we should not even try.

Poor people are poor because they are being exploited by the rich. Not doing anything against it makes it worse. It is not as bad as could be because people have been and still are trying to do something about it.

To say as a matter of principal that this should not be done, is dangerous in my opinion. As i said: not opposing this makes it worse.
Some people never have enough and you're willing to let them take ever more. Who's to say you won't be next some day?

Currently a couple of hundred multi-billionaires own 50% of the wealth on earth. They've already more than doubled their capital in the past few decades.

If nothing else, distribution of wealth does have an effect on what the sustainable population size is. More inequality reduces the sustainable level.
I'd venture to guess there's more inequality now then there was in 1900. Without oil, with 1900's population levels but with current inequality, the sustainable population level might well be even lower then it was in 1900.

I think you will have to make some assumption about the number on wealth distribution in order to calculate the sustainable population level.

[phantom power]

30. Supposing that we redistribute our wealth...

How many more people do you predict that's going to save? I'm genuinely curious. Do you have a number in mind?

[rman]

31. I don't have a number in mind,

i'm not a statistician. But i think the number will be significant.

I hope people agree that a ratio of inequality of wealth distribution in the order of 1 to a million up to 1 to a billion _does_ have an significant effect on the number of sustainable population level.
I think you can't realistically dismiss inequality of wealth distribution as an important cause of poverty - the same poverty that leads people to believe there's over-population.

[phantom power]

34. I think it's worse than that.

Most of the wealth you are speaking of is wealth that is going to disappear as peak-fossil, the loss of arable land, rising sea levels, storm damage, etc, etc, etc, take it away from us. Redistributing it will be a moot point, since it will no longer exist. The reason it's going to disappear is because it was bogus wealth to begin with. It is all based on drawing off earth's "goods-and-services" faster than is sustainable.

This is not saying that such a redistribution isn't a desireable thing. It's simply to say that earth can sustainably support a certain number of humans, all having a given standard of living (equally distributed, as it were). For something approximating a western middle-class standard of living, that number appears to be around a billion. Not 6.5.

If we ever had very large sources of cheap, carbon-neutral energy, that would in theory allow us increase that number by applying the energy to drive sustainable resource-cycles with the energy at greater rates. At this very moment in time, there is really only one carbon-neutral energy source that is so cheap, and it's nuclear. But it really doesn't matter, since it looks like we are going to get clobbered by peak-fossil and climate change before even nuclear can be brought on-line in the quantities needed. In light of that, a billion humans with a humane standard of living is probably optimistic. It will get worse before it can ever get better again.

[brokensymmetry]

32. You write truly great posts.

Have you thought of using the DU journals?

Selfishly, I'd like to see more of what you
have to say.

By the way - I agree with everything you've
written on this thread. Too few have even
a glimmer of understanding.

[GliderGuider]

33. Thanks!

I tend to use DU threads to focus my thinking and explore new pathways. If any of these meanderings result in coherent thoughts I put them on my web site for more general exposure. That way even Republicans get to read them :-) They're linked in the list at the bottom of the main page of http:www.paulchefurka.ca

[Divernan]

13. It is not liberals who oppose birth control, family planning, abortion, etc.

That would be the religious right/conservatives - you know the people who work themselves into homicidal frenzies to protect the "pre-born", but could care less what happens to all the kids being born into crushing poverty.

I agree with you that overpopulation is the most serious problem facing humanity and it exacerbates all other problems.

Given the long history of liberals fighting for reproductive rights, population control, etc., where on earth do you come up with your use of this term, "liberal bullshit"?

[rman]

17. Doesn't mean the #2 problem is irrelevant

Sustainable population levels do _also_ depend on distribution of wealth -unless- you think it's ok for a significant portion of the global population to live in poverty.
In the end, at any given time there is only so much wealth to go around, and living conditions do depend on how that wealth is distributed. That's not liberal crap, it's basic logic.

[n2doc]

2. Bad combination of emerging economy with poorly environmentally educated people

Now that they can afford to indulge, the rest of the world is going to hurt even more. The future of the ocean is that of a giant fish farm, with carefully controlled farms fed by plankton collected from offshore boats. Everything edible will be extinct outside of the farms and aquariums.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Original Reuters Article

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSHKG5892420070326

[Nihil]

5. What is it about those people?

> Restaurant fish tanks in Hong Kong are filled with exotic fish species
> gathered from all around Southeast Asia, Australia and even remote Pacific
> islands, such as Fiji and Vanuatu. With the marine stock already exhausted
> in nearby waters, Hong Kong traders are reaching far and wide for
> increasingly rare fish such as groupers, snappers and humphead wrasse,
> spreading the unsustainable fishing habit across the Pacific.

Fucking locusts. That's all they are: locusts.
Devour until nothing left then move on to the next area.

Whales, squid, sharks, fish ... hoover it up and eat it then hoover up
some more. An earlier post in this forum shows how this type of person
views the unusual event of a deep-water squid appearing further north:
it becomes "sport" and a source of photographs showing meatheaded
"sportsmen" killing a different species for a change. Now we have people
in restaurants choosing which exotic fish to make extinct for their
over-priced evening meal.

I'd swear that this is proof of speciation to shut the creationists up:
there are some homo sapiens sapiens who are still sapient but there are
a hell of a lot more that are now just a cancerous version that consume,
breed, expand, consume, ... no time for the "thinking" part of the species
to do anything before the "eating" subspecies destroys everything.

The best thing to happen to this planet would be an asteroid strike as
soon as possible. Take out 6-7 billion locusts and start again ...
maybe this time something intelligent will evolve.

[w4rma]

6. Hopefully we'll evolve into something intelligent. (nt)

[progressoid]

8. "those" people?

You mean "us" people.

They are doing the same thing that we did (and continue to do) but on a much larger scale and at a more critical time for the planets' ecosystem.

[Nihil]

11. On this specific thread I mean "those people"

With respect to other human failings (energy consumption, exploitation
of other countries, lots & lots more) I totally agree that the term should
be "us people" but in this particular thread I meant what I said.

I have never desired to fish (or hunt) exotic creatures to extinction
for the cause of "fashionable cuisine" or to hunt down & kill any living
creature for "sport". Those are two of the specific traits that I was
addressing in my post - one because it was the subject of the OP and one
because I introduced it (having been too angry to respond to the original
thread on the squid).

The "us" comment is perfectly valid with regard to profligate energy
wastage, disregard of ever-increasing amounts of pollution and the
wilful ignorance of our effect on the environment. That's why I wasn't
too particular where the asteroid hits, as long as it does it soon.
:P

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Homo Sapiens vs. Homo Comburus

Deathmatch at 11. And everyone's invited.

[blondie58]

15. you hit it right on the head, Nihil

Locusts.

Man, this makes me angry. I am a certified scuba diver and one of my future dives- well, when I get the money and the time! was the South Pacific.

This is so selfish. The poor reef fish have a hard enough time with global warming killing their reefs.

[Lasher]

7. Too many people (EOM)

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. If the human species did begin in Africa, why is China's population

geometrically out of whack with every other continent?

I already know that part of the answer is that they relied on having large families, but does that really explain why so many of them survived longer into adulthood, where other cultures on other continents suffered hardships which killed most by their fortieth year? Was the Chinese diet and home remedies the reason for their longevity?

[rman]

18. Europe, India, Japan are more densely populated than China

Population density in Africa is relatively low because much of it is either desert or rain forest. Same with South America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

1. Monaco - 23,660 / km2
14. China - 636 / km2

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. That doesn't entirely answer my question.

Unless you're suggesting that their climate and geography was better suited to sustain people?

[rman]

22. Apparently it was,

in still is to an extent.

[Dead_Parrot]

29. You've got it

Africa is quite a harsh environment - Seasons that hit like a hammer, lots of big predators, not a huge amount of year-round water and food. It's a great place for driving evolution, but not a nice place to raise the kids. Outside of the continent there's lots of fertile land, gentler climate, and less dangerous animals: A tool-using ape with a penchant for violence can run rampant over the whole lot - and breed like rabbits.

[Danascot]

25. Humphead Wrasse

From a dive trip to Palau two years ago. I can't stand the thought of taking away even one reef fish. The coral reefs are on the brink of collapse. We have to stop taking out the bricks in the wall.

If you're a diver, go now because it may all be gone soon.