[HN Gopher] Alaska snow crab season canceled after disappearance... ___________________________________________________________________ Alaska snow crab season canceled after disappearance of an estimated 1B crabs Author : ijidak Score : 263 points Date : 2022-10-14 18:49 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.cbsnews.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.cbsnews.com) | pgrote wrote: | The Seattle Times joined followed a carb boat in April of 2022. | | https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/into-t... | | The captain's take on the issue includes climate change, over | crabbing areas known to be struggling and trawling. The article | also includes an explanation as to how cod could be responsible | due to climate change offering less ice protection for the crab. | DFHippie wrote: | > carb boat | | Heh heh. I imagine fishermen hauling in a net full of potatoes | and pasta. | 60secs wrote: | A bread bowl with a propeller | paxys wrote: | "Disappearance" is a weird way to say overfishing. It's not like | someone cast a spell or something. | anigbrowl wrote: | They could have died from the crab equivalent of a deadly | heatwave. I agree fishing is the most likely reason but I can | think of others. | ilamont wrote: | Something similar happened to the cod fishing industry in | Newfoundland and other parts of eastern Canada 30 years ago. The | reason: overfishing, due in large part to technological advances. | Here's what happened: | | _Canada and NAFO continued to overestimate the abundance of cod | in the Atlantic Ocean and therefore continued to set dangerously | high [Total Allowable Catches]. This was in large part due to the | widespread practice of calculating cod populations from catch | rates in the commercial fishery - if fishers filled their quotas | with ease, then officials believed the stock size was at | adequately high levels. However, fishing technology had become so | efficient by the 1970s that commercial catch rates remained high | even as the cod population dropped to dangerously low levels. | Electronic tracking devices could find fish no matter how small | their numbers and trawlers could harvest most species with | relative ease. ... | | Although overfishing in international waters did tremendous | damage to northern cod, Canada also failed to maintain a | sustainable fishery within its 200-mile limit. The government | ignored warnings from inshore fishers and university scientists | that cod stocks were in danger and chose to maintain quotas | instead of scaling back the fishery, in large part to prevent | economic losses and massive unemployment. | | By the early 1990s, after decades of sustained intensive fishing | from Canadian and international fleets, the northern cod stocks | collapsed. The spawning biomass of northern cod had dropped by | about 93 per cent in only 30 years - from 1.6 million tonnes in | 1962 to between 72,000 and 110,000 tonnes in 1992. In July of | that year, Canada imposed a moratorium on the catching of | northern cod and ended an international industry that had endured | for close to 500 years._ | | https://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/economy/moratorium.php | | They called off the season in 1992 and it never came back. A | pillar of the local economy in the Maritimes was wrecked. | | As for climate change and its impact on East Coast fishing, I've | read that lobster fishing is no longer a viable industry in Long | Island and it's declining in southern New England as waters get | warmer and the lobsters permanently migrate north. | [deleted] | starik36 wrote: | Looks like this article was written in 2008. I wonder if the | population has rebounded in the last 15 years at all. | PuppyTailWags wrote: | Wikipedia says its not expected to recover to sustainable | levels until 2030. Mind that they take 2-8 years to reach | sexual maturity and were reduced to 1% of original population | level, so a span of decades to recover is pretty sadly | expected. | gcanyon wrote: | Yep, came here to comment that same bit. So I'll contribute | the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atl | antic_north... | starik36 wrote: | That is one grim Wikipedia article. | tromp wrote: | > to prevent economic losses and massive unemployment | | So sad to see how easily long term catastrophic damage is | justified by short term gains. | jjr8 wrote: | Climate change (warming waters) has been directly implicated in | this (edit: Gulf of Maine cod) situation. | | https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.aac9819 | dfc wrote: | How is a 90% decrease in two years similar to a 93% decrease | over 30 years? | llbeansandrice wrote: | Top 2 comments are like "oh yeah this is over fishing" when | the only thing in common with cod are that they're in the | ocean. | | Either folks aren't RTFA or are being willfully ignorant. | Over fishing to the tune 1bn crabs when juvenile populations | from 2018 and 2019 looked great? No way. | beefman wrote: | Great song about it by Finest Kind (sadly not properly | available online): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6dJgmof0E | uxp100 wrote: | Interesting what is and isn't available. Because I clicked | this link to see not recognizing the name Finest Kind and was | like, oh they play that on the folk program pretty often, I | know that song. | xutopia wrote: | The overfished. Simple as that. Snow crabs have been becoming | smaller and smaller because the biggest ones were not living that | long anymore. It happened to cod fisheries in eastern Canada and | it is happening everywhere until it's too late. | whyenot wrote: | No, it's not that simple. The snow crab fishery is pretty | highly regulated and considered to be sustainably harvested (by | NOAA, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, others). As mentioned in an | another article [1] from August on the recent disappearance, | there were large numbers of juveniles in 2018 and 2019. | Something else is going on. Overfishing certainly may play a | role, but something else is likely the primary factor. | | 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/08/21/alaska- | cr... | WalterBright wrote: | Wildlife populations are a chaotic system, i.e. not steady | state, even without any influence by humans. | | It's still worth investigating, however. | aaron695 wrote: | barkingcat wrote: | https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2021/10/09/alaska-snow- | crab-... | | Notice that this article is from 2021 for last year's catch. | | "The 2021 fall harvest of Bristol Bay red king crab, another | important source of revenue for that fleet, was canceled for | this year because of too few females." | | The collapse has been happening for years. This year it's | just another species. Species by species it's going to | collapse. Next will be shrimp and krill. | | Don't be surprised when the salmon runs collapse too, because | for 3 years now every single year has been a 90% decline. | insane_dreamer wrote: | > considered to be sustainably harvested (by NOAA, the | Monterey Bay Aquarium, others) | | maybe they considered incorrectly, based on historical data | that doesn't reflect recent conditions | | also possibly that regulations are being flaunted by bad | actors | | it could seem improbable that either of those would lead to a | sudden catastrophic decline, but many systems do experience a | point where what had been a linear decline suddenly craters | in a non-linear fashion | PuppyTailWags wrote: | In previous collapses such organizations sounded the alarm | well before. Something else is happening. | barkingcat wrote: | https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2021/10/09/alaska-snow- | crab-... | | The alarm has been sounding for at least a season, maybe | even more. | llbeansandrice wrote: | By contrast cod that folks keep referencing collapsed 90% | over _30 years_. An issue with a single season does not | suggest that the regulations weren't strict enough. They | now do need to become more strict as a reaction to the | population but fishing is not the only pressure on a | population and I find it difficult to believe that snow | crab would be fished basically to extinction in < 700 | days | hedgehog wrote: | I don't know much about snow crab but Dungeness and various | oysters in the Pacific Northwest US are threatened by rising | ocean acidity caused by increased CO2. Warmer water is also | allowing green crabs to take hold. Farther south urchins have | killed off a lot of kelp forest in a way that seems not to | self-correct. Easy to imagine there are similar problems all | over the ocean. | soperj wrote: | Sea urchins are a problem everywhere in the pacific, and | that's because their main predator (sea otters) were nearly | wiped out. | swhalen wrote: | I think it's just the western coast of North America that | has this problem, rather than the entire Pacific. For | example in New Zealand, which is in the Pacific, there | were never any sea otters. Urchins, regarded locally as a | delicacy, are not particularly abundant. | greggsy wrote: | Crown-of-thorns starfish, on the other hand, are a very | serious problem in Australia | kfrzcode wrote: | Things that are easy to imagine aren't always easy to prove | rileyphone wrote: | At least the urchin problem is caused, in part, by the | mysterious sea star wasting disease - a disbiosis of their | microbial layer that leads to rapid death. Sea stars are | the natural predators of the urchins, and with their | disappearance, the urchins flourish and take down the kelp. | steelframe wrote: | > Sea stars are the natural predators of the urchins, and | with their disappearance, the urchins flourish and take | down the kelp. | | No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese | needle snakes. They'll wipe out the the urchins. | marcjuul wrote: | Absolutely not an expert here and would love to be corrected | but my poorly informed personal impression is that the whole | idea of a sustainable amount of fishing and whether all | species even have a number that is safe to harvest | (especially given that no species exists in isolation), let | alone what that number is, is on fairly shaky grounds | scientifically. Meaning that a lot of this is guesswork based | on too little information and "doing something is better than | doing nothing" compromises with the fishing industry. If a | species population has appeared to be stable for x number of | years with y amount of fishing, does that mean that it's | sustainable? Indefinitely? Given other changes in ecosystem | and environment? | colordrops wrote: | Thank you. The problem with a lot of the discussion around | this topic is that most people are heavily biased as they | derive great pleasure from consuming these animals, and so | certain ideas and theories are ignored or under | represented. | mattpallissard wrote: | Nothing with fisheries is simple. | | https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/preliminary-sur... | | Also, a lot of people are comparing this to the Canadian DFO's | handling of the Cod fishery. Sorry, this is not like that. Both | in time line and management style. This fishery was just shut | down, it's had its numbers slashed previously as well. In the | Cod situation they had their foot in the accelerator until the | very end. | melling wrote: | Yes, "the climate is always changing" | | Those "alarmist". | | People certainly do blame climate change when they shouldn't, | adding to the denial problem. | | But in this case 90% disappearing in 2 years probably isn't | overfishing. | chaxor wrote: | This likely isn't true due to the scale of disappearance of | crabs. | | *90% of the are gone - in only 2 years* That's not just | overfishing, something much worse has happened. | | The cod overfishing was also a very unfortunate tale, but they | saw the signs and tracked them catching fire and burning to the | ground the entire time, just didn't do anything about it. | | Here, AFAIK, they were bewildered at how this occured. | jobu wrote: | Other sources I've seen are blaming the dramatic heat during | the summer of 2019. It "scrambled the broader marine | ecosystem" causing die-offs and migrations for many species | of fish. Snow Crabs are primarily deep water scavengers so | they had plenty of food that year, but have struggled since. | taylodl wrote: | Some people don't want to hear that because it's counter to | their world-view. Earth isn't warming. Everything is OK. We | can continue burning fossil fuels while having zero impact | to the environment. Is there a word describing this mass | wishful thinking? | bwb wrote: | revscat wrote: | > Is there a word describing this mass wishful thinking? | | An existential threat to all human life. | Tagbert wrote: | That mass wishful thinking is call "climate change | denial". | | We keep adding more and more evidence that climate change | is happening. Even on a local scale we can all see | significant changes in our local climate from year to | year. The older among us can see this even more clearly | if they chose. From what we know of the atmosphere there | HAS to be heating from the rapid increase in CO2. | | You can stick your fingers in your ears as much as you | want but it won't prevent this from happening and at an | accelerating pace. | peyton wrote: | Also the solutions being pushed kind of suck for most | people. We've had 50 years of sustainability and eco- | asceticism. Denial is a perfectly fine reaction to the | solutions being proposed. | hedora wrote: | A dollar a gallon tax on gasoline would be more than | enough to capture the CO2 it releases. | | Other energy sources are similar. | | These costs are way below what happens when some oil | producer throws a tantrum or starts a war. However, | unlike wars, etc., such a tax would directly cut into oil | company profits. | qorrect wrote: | Your crazy if you think the government isn't going to | just piss that money away. Its already at ~$.50 a gallon | with federal and state taxes. And the oil companies will | just stop producing to lower supply and inflate the | price. More taxes are going to hurt the individual , | companies have enough money to get around it. No, we need | a revolution. | gremlinsinc wrote: | The same people who get pumped up by football games and | tailgaters, war epics, and 'badassery' and doing stupid | but 'brave' things like shooting fireworks out your ass, | are the same people who will deny anything that's 'too | scary' not to. | | Or attribute it to "God's will" and then still assume | he'll take care of things so they can just go on ignoring | the issues. | | Reminds me of the cowardly lion who could talk a big | game,but was inwardly afraid of everything. Even | xenophobia and racism --it's ALL rooted in fear of | 'others' fear of this. Politicians know damn well the | power of fear, and have used it w/ great success to stay | in power and keep left/right workers divided on stuff | like abortion/gun rights. | [deleted] | oesexe wrote: | COD, the fish that changed the world. Amazingly well written | book. | | Apparently Cod used to be MUCH larger than it is today. for the | same reason, they dont grow very old. | nemo44x wrote: | Many fish were much larger in the not so distant past. Marlin | in Caribbean used to be huge compared to todays catch. | Pictures from the 1950's and earlier, you see some just | massive Marlin. They're big today but nothing like how they | used to be. But we have a whole lot more people on the Earth | today. | nickfromseattle wrote: | Here is an article that highlights this change. Just scroll | the pictures, don't need to read the words. | | https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/ | b... | wahern wrote: | > "We are eating bait and moving on to jellyfish and | plankton", [University of British Columbia fisheries | scientist] Pauly said. | | http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/30/local/la-me- | ocean30j... (https://web.archive.org/web/20161010003945/htt | p://articles.l...), p3 | guywithahat wrote: | I don't like how they keep blaming climate change, even though | that doesn't seem to be what happened here. We just had one of | the best seasons for crab fishing; does CBS expect us to think | climate change in the last year ruined this season? Much more | likely is disease, some new techniques in crab fishing that over | harvested the sea, or random deviation. | taylodl wrote: | Global warming also contributes to the proliferation of | disease. | Daishiman wrote: | chasd00 wrote: | nharada wrote: | "Larger statistical variance caused by climate change results | in outlier event that kills 90% of crab" isn't a great | headline. What do you need to believe that climate change is a | factor in this event? A sample size of 1 million? A deviation | of 5 sigma? | boxmonster wrote: | This was predicted in Horx Myxln's groundbreaking book | "Crabitalism" | yamazakiwi wrote: | I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but with this name I | hope you are because it's hilarious. | boxmonster wrote: | I'm joking but I expected to get [dead] so it's nice to see | HN has a sense of humor sometimes! | advantager wrote: | https://imgur.com/855O98r | [deleted] | ASalazarMX wrote: | It's a parody cover. That twitter account is hilarious: https | ://twitter.com/paprbckparadise/status/12512693961120931... | masklinn wrote: | Alternatively, the antagonists of much of Neal Asher's | polity series are spacefaring crustaceans. | WalterBright wrote: | Overfishing is a classic problem of "Tragedy of the Commons". The | oceans are the commons. | | For example, nobody is predicting a catastrophic decline in the | population of pigs, chickens, and cattle. | | Fish farming is the future. | hayst4ck wrote: | I have large cognitive dissonance to "we shouldn't be the world | police" and "globalism is bad." At face value I agree, but... | | If you believe in the rule of law and human rights, then | globalism seems like a natural consequence, as does policing | the world. | | What would happen if you let China have global hegemony and | they become the over-fishing police? What type of enforcement | do you think they might have (or non enforcement, or selective | enforcement). | | It seems clear with world scale commons, there must be both a | common set of laws (globalization) and an entity capable of | enforcing those laws (America is the world police). | myshpa wrote: | Veganism is the (only logical) future. | Luc wrote: | Or meat and fish from bio reactors. | Spivak wrote: | The issue is that people en masse don't actually care all | that much about the cruelty of killing animals so long as | it's not reasonably torturous. The future, however dystopian | you may see it, is sustainably growing the animals we want to | eat for slaughter. | revscat wrote: | Which will likely involve not raising animals for slaughter | at all, but rather things like Impossible/Beyond meats. | hedora wrote: | Impossible/beyond apparently have similar CO2 footprints | as turkey. | | On the other hand, we're in the middle of a turkey | shortage due to bird flu. | wonderwonder wrote: | I don't think those will really ever make a noticeable | dent in the market. Most people don't want plant based | burgers, especially with the negative reputation of soy | and masculinity. I think lab grown meat will be the | future. If you are able to present it in packages that | look exactly like the cuts that one can currently buy in | the store I see no reason they wont catch on. | MichaelCollins wrote: | These have flopped. Most people who like meat want real | meat. Most people who don't like meat don't want fake | meat. The remainder is the market for fake meats, and it | has proven small. | LegitShady wrote: | they flopped because they're expensive. I've tried both. | They're both more or less edible. But impossible burgers | are more money than just buying beef, and not as good. | Why is this pea protein more money than beef? | virgildotcodes wrote: | The concept of "reasonably torturous" is pretty wild. | hayst4ck wrote: | Quite literally wild. There is nothing quite like | watching David Attenborough walking us through the | absolute ruthlessness of the animal kingdom in his plummy | staccato voicing. There is no doubt that had cows evolved | differently they would be as torturous to their prey as | any other animal. | | I think we can definitely do better, but I think it's | equally clear that mother nature is not very opinionated | on the topic. | virgildotcodes wrote: | This is an appeal to nature fallacy.[1] | | Every horrifying thing beyond imagination has happened in | nature, including all sorts of rape, murder, and | infanticide. | | Does this justify humans in engaging in rape, murder, and | infanticide? | | This is a discussion of morality, not what nature allows | (which is everything possible within the laws of | physics). | | [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature | ajsnigrutin wrote: | I mean... compared to other animals, of which some don't | even kill you, before they start eating you... we're | still better than a lot of "nature". | virgildotcodes wrote: | The thing is, there are a lot of horrible ways that | people die. Cancer, alzheimer's, violence, crippling | injuries, chronic pain and depression leading to suicide, | war, etc. etc. | | Does this justify us enslaving people and torturing them | (debatedly) less in a factory farm and slaughtering them | at a young age? | chrisfrantz wrote: | Agreed, if you have to include the word torture in the | descriptor of food production than there's already an | ethical problem to solve. | hayst4ck wrote: | What is the ethical problem? What kind of solution would | there be? | | How would that philosophical thinking apply to other apex | predators, such as spiders who poison and wrap their prey | while they hopeless wriggle to death for minutes or | snakes who suffocate their prey to death sometimes | breaking major bones, or a cat killing a rodent for fun? | Do we have a responsibility to intervene against other | torturous predators, why or why not? | | I am curious about your philosophical reasoning on the | topic, I am not asking rhetorically. | ijidak wrote: | > Overfishing is a classic problem of "Tragedy of the Commons". | The oceans are the commons. | | > For example, nobody is predicting a catastrophic decline in | the population of pigs, chickens, and cattle. | | That's a great point. | | So true... | | It's hard to get people to care enough to do anything about it | until enough people are affected. | | Which is no fun for the sea life and poorer humans waiting for | things to get bad enough that sufficient action is taken. | klyrs wrote: | Disease like CWD and avian flu can result in massive culls of | farmed animals. High density animal farming bears risk of | epidemics, and fish farming is no exception. As with most | things in life, there are no easy answers. | gmd63 wrote: | Bubbles don't just happen in finance. They happen in biology. | jeffbee wrote: | "U.S. wild-caught Alaska snow crab is a smart seafood choice | because it is sustainably managed and responsibly harvested under | U.S. regulations." | | -NOAA Fisheries | | Humans have never practiced truly sustainable fishing at any time | or place in history. Just do not buy fish. | tylersmith wrote: | If humans don't buy them they have no value and may as well be | extinct anyways. | troutwine wrote: | What a horrifying worldview. | stjohnswarts wrote: | It really is. I will never understand the "i got mine" | attitude. I'm no angel, but holy shit. | bombcar wrote: | What about farmed trout? https://www.clearsprings.com | yamazakiwi wrote: | According to clearsprings | | >Farmed seafood, in general, is a sustainable option, | requiring far less feed per pound compared to other farmed | sources of protein like beef, pork, and chicken. | | That is one advantage if true but that just means more | sustainable than beef, pork, and chicken. | | Is there a condition that would prevent their farming? Like | the accessibility of the feed? | bombcar wrote: | > Conventional operations use large amounts of fishmeal and | fish oil (and hence more wild fish) in their feed. All | rainbow trout on the U.S. market is farmed-raised in the | U.S., where farming operations are held to strict | environmental standards. Improvements to feed have enabled | less wild fish to be used. | | https://seafood.edf.org/trout | | So I guess they harvest wild fish to feed the farmed fish? | mickdeek86 wrote: | Fishmeal and oil are byproducts of processing the filets | bombcar wrote: | They can't feed the fish only parts of previous fish or | they'd run out of material pretty fast - like a recycling | center with no external inputs. | andrew_ wrote: | As a fisherman who practices sustainable fishing and abides by | the regulations in place, and has witnessed the rebound of | several species I target, I call bullshit. | jeffbee wrote: | If the regulations lead to a complete disappearance of the | fishery then they are definitionally unsustainable. | llbeansandrice wrote: | How are you able to implicate the regulations here | directly? The fishery collapsed 90% in 2 years, something | else is at play. | ROTMetro wrote: | By 'rebound' do you mean slightly above such catastrophic | depletion that action was finally taken? Kind of a low | baseline. | naikrovek wrote: | it's crazy how you think you know more about this than the | person who wrote the comment you replied to. | [deleted] | ok_dad wrote: | > Humans have never practiced truly sustainable fishing at any | time or place in history. | | Oh shit, something I know about! | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DqH2DPSw4g | | Yea, people have actually done this sustainably. | kodah wrote: | Apparently the definition of "sustainable" comes from the | United Nations, not NOAA: | https://ocean.si.edu/conservation/fishing/sustainable-fishin... | | They also disagree with you that they've _never_ been | sustainably fished. | squidfood wrote: | The problem is that "sustainable" is always based on past | observations. There were 40+ years of observations for these | crab and a stable fishery. But if the environment changes for | the worse, the data-based definition of "sustainable" for a | stock might not change fast enough to compensate. | | So the "new sustainability" under climate change has to be | much more precautionary than before, and yet not shut down on | false signals. It's tricky science even when intentions are | good. | kodah wrote: | Agreed, just making lucid the details of this argument. | It's easy to take away from what you said that we haven't | even tried. | inopinatus wrote: | Are you suggesting a low crab diet? | felix_n wrote: | Too soon! | carapace wrote: | Check out Dana (Donella) Meadows Lecture: Sustainable Systems | (Part 2 of 4) - 2013 | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuIoego-xVc | mcwone wrote: | Thank you for posting this, what an amazing lecture. | mattw2121 wrote: | King Salmon fishing was shut down in much of Alaska this season | as well. I was there during the time and driving through the | Kenai Peninsula was much different than previous years. Normally, | you'll see people lined up on the river all over the place. | reaperducer wrote: | There was at least one piece of good news this year. The river | that hosts the Fat Bear competition had a record number of | salmon this year. I think the estimate was 74 million. | cluoma wrote: | At the Whitehorse dam we also had one of the lowest counts of | Chinook on record this year. Not looking good for northern sea | life at the moment. | harveywi wrote: | Possibly the same estimated 1B crabs that disappeared from | Twitter when the Elon Musk deal was announced. | ijidak wrote: | werdnapk wrote: | Earth isn't in trouble, but we are. Earth will continue on and | we'll end up as a minor footnote in the history of the planet. | DesiLurker wrote: | No earth is, there are things on the planet besides us and | inanimate objects. There is a whole biosphere that we are | destroying for small incremental gains. this is a very human- | centric viewpoint. So what if a particular action does not | improves standard of living for humans if it impacts billions | of other species and breaks delicate ecosystems. Honestly I | am at a point where I dont care as much about human | prosperity (think higher levels of maslow's hierarchy of | needs) as about saving the biosphere. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | The anthropocene will be visible in every history of the | planet as one of the most rapid changes in every geologically | and archaeologically observable metric, on the scale of the | asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. | | The asteroid may vanished in a massive conflagration, but | people don't talk about it because that particular lump of | space rock went extinct, they talk about all the other | changes that came about as a result of its admittedly short | time in our atmosphere and ecosystem. | conductr wrote: | > observable metric | | By who though? Our entire existence could very well be a | tree falling in an empty forest. | Dylan16807 wrote: | By whoever is making the footnotes. | MisterSandman wrote: | Citation needed. It really depends on the geological time | scale you're talking about. Geoscientists are still in | debate of whether the Anthropocene should be added as it's | epoch - yes, humans have had an impact, but it's hard to | concretely state that the impact will be noticeable enough | that another species would demarcate our existence as such. | voisin wrote: | > Our ability to change the earth for the worse exceeds our | willingness to change ourselves for the better. | | Jack up the cost of carbon so that willingness to change | increases and the relative cost of lower carbon options becomes | more attractive. Right now we are effectively subsidizing our | collective suicide by not internalizing externalities. It's | nuts. | barbazoo wrote: | From your bio: | | > SEO, and Marketing are my passions. Over the last 36-months | my ads have made $1.36+ million in sales. | | > Our ability to change the earth for the worse exceeds our | willingness to change ourselves for the better. | | You know what you're talking about. | dang wrote: | Please don't cross into personal attack. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | tick_tock_tick wrote: | Meh, our ability to change the earth grows every year sooner or | later we'll fix it. | UncleOxidant wrote: | And in so doing we'll end up breaking something else | AlexandrB wrote: | Someday, _maybe_ we 'll be able to bring back well-known | extinct species like passenger pigeons where biological | material may still exist in a museum somewhere. We're _never_ | going to bring back the thousands of arthropod species that | have gone extinct since the industrial revolution[1] - many | of which we never knew about in the first place. | | [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632 | 071... | | > However, it is likely that insect extinctions since the | industrial era are around 5 to 10%, i.e. 250,000 to 500,000 | species, based on estimates of 7% extinctions for land snails | (Regnier et al., 2015). In total at least one million species | are facing extinction in the coming decades, half of them | being insects (IPBES, 2019). | nyc_data_geek1 wrote: | Citation needed | tick_tock_tick wrote: | That our ability to change the world is increasing? I mean | we are clearly affecting it more then we ever had in the | past. Or do you want a citation from the future? | hamburglar wrote: | I think we've demonstrated that we can change the world | in _unintended_ ways, whereas your "meh" above assumes we | can change it in _intended_ ways. | hyperbovine wrote: | I think (s)he was referring part about how we'll | "definitely" know how to fix it before it's too late. | masklinn wrote: | > (s)he | | English has a perfectly cromulent singular neutral, no | need for that. | irrational wrote: | But, we always affect it in negative ways. Our ability to | change the world in negative ways says nothing about our | ability to ever fix it since we have absolutely no | experience doing that. | gcanyon wrote: | Not _always_. We mostly fixed the ozone hole. Acid rain | is largely gone from North America. Rivers in much of the | world are much cleaner than they were in the last half of | the 20th century. Air quality has likewise improved in | many places. | | I think that as areas achieve a certain level of plenty, | their focus shifts from shorter-term thinking to longer- | term thinking. And most places around the world are | reaching that tipping point. | nyc_data_geek1 wrote: | let me know when we figure out how to reverse mass | extinction | outworlder wrote: | > Meh, our ability to change the earth grows every year | sooner or later we'll fix it. | | You are talking about geoengineering. | | It would be way better not to have to do such things in the | first place. This is like "meh, sooner or later we'll be able | to grow entire organs, you can keep smoking". Sure. But is | that day coming soon enough? And what are the drawbacks of | such a large intervention? | | Besides, species are going extinct every day. We can't get | them back. | _Adam wrote: | We'll fix it till it's broke! | masklinn wrote: | We'll break it till it's fixed! Bearings will continue | until morale improves! Breakfast and move things! | tremon wrote: | It's not a question of sooner or later. The only remaining | options are late or too late. | toss1 wrote: | NO | | Our ability to change the earth grows every year | | Technologically, we get closer to the ability to fix it. | | BUT the fact that this kind of collapse keeps re-occurring | means that humans are turning out to be collectively too | stupid to actually fix such things until after a disaster | happens. | | The Tragedy Of The Commons has been known about for | centuries. Yet it keeps happening again, and again, and | again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, | and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and | again, and again, [ . . . ] etc., including in this very | instance. | | All humans need to do is adjust to the reality. Yet the fact | that some of the adjustments will mean that some of the | people will need to change how they make a living, causes too | many humans to argue vociferously that the change will be | delayed. Humans even start wars over this kind of stupidity. | And then, THE EARTH SYSTEM COLLAPSES, and forces everyone to | make the change. | | The only question now is how big a disaster will happen and | how recoverable it is. If we are lucky, the disaster will be | just in the sweet spot of [bad enough to force the stupid | mass of humanity to change it's ways], but not quite [bad | enough that it cannot be recovered once those ways are | changed]. | outworlder wrote: | > On a serious note, Earth is in trouble. | | Earth is not in trouble. It has survived worse extinction | events just fine. | | _We_ , along with all current living species, are the ones in | trouble. | ASalazarMX wrote: | I understand your mindset, what I can't understand is why you | offer religion as solace. These very real world problems won't | pray themselves out. With your approach we might as well just | act as if nothing is happening and be happy. That's a solution | that might work for old people on their way out, but it's | absurdly inadequate and insensitive for the young generations. | tsol wrote: | >With your approach we might as well just act as if nothing | is happening and be happy. | | That's what we're already doing, only we're not happy and the | panic is making us collectively fight and make worse | decisions. Calm people make better decisions than panicked | people staring in the face of existential evaporation. | virgildotcodes wrote: | Most environmentalists would argue that we've been far too | calm, leading us to not take the issues seriously and not | make the requisite drastic changes to our civilizations. | dang wrote: | Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | darth_avocado wrote: | I am willing to bet it is illegal fishing boats from countries I | dare not to list for being downvoted. It is well known that some | countries list a few hundred boats but in reality have fleets of | tens of thousands of boats that operate under the radar. They | over fish and destroy entire ecosystems and no one is doing | anything about it. | stjohnswarts wrote: | If there were enough boats out there to reduce the population | 90% in two years then we would know. Our radar isn't -that- | bad. | krastanov wrote: | But China is overfishing in the public, not "under the radar", | and they usually only go up to someones territorial waters, do | not completely cross. Moreover, I very much doubt they would | dare do so to a semi-powerful western state, let alone the US. | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/insider/a-clear-look-at-c... | ROTMetro wrote: | I remember chilling north coast of Santa Cruz late one night | after a surf sesh, and boats pulling up to shore, unloading | people and other items. This was right about when (was it | Golden Budda?) in Soquel got busted for smuggling chinese | machine guns? Sure they cross territorial waters. | | (Man I was bummed. They had the best hot and sour soup.) | pphysch wrote: | Or there are corrupt fishery regulators who are giving wild | overestimations of fish population in return for kickbacks from | fishery associations/cartels. | | If it was the Big Bad, there would be political uproar. But if | it was good ole corruption, it would be business as usual. | woodruffw wrote: | Do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this just | xenophobic speculation? | | China's encroachment on sovereign waters for fishing is one | thing when it's against South American countries with small | navies; it's another thing entirely when it's the US. I doubt | they're behind this. | vnchr wrote: | Is it xenophobic when your own comment cites that exact | behavior? | logicalmonster wrote: | Why are you assuming that the poster is hinting at China when | his comment didn't mention the country? | dmix wrote: | Portuguese fisherman were the big thing off the coast of | Canada. Definitely not unique to China, although they seem | to use fishing boats as a political tool like Russia uses | little green men. But that's closer to their shores. | vore wrote: | Tell me what other country the OP could possibly mean when | they said "countries I dare not to list for being | downvoted". | logicalmonster wrote: | China seems like a logical guess, but that statement | could describe Israel or other countries that have very | passionate supporters as well. | josegonzalez wrote: | I don't think it could mean Israel given that we're | talking about the Bering Strait and not the Mediterranean | or Red Sea. | outworlder wrote: | If the shoe fits... | woodruffw wrote: | China has been the subject of multiple high-profile news | stories (and popular HN threads) about overfishing. They're | also the standard xenophobic bugbear on HN. | jjk166 wrote: | How many states are there with access to pacific waters | that could potentially have thousands of unregistered | fishing vessels and whom a poster would be uncomfortable | naming explicitly for fear of backlash? | logicalmonster wrote: | Seems odd that this is a logical guess, but then that's | labelled as "xenophobic speculation". | jjk166 wrote: | It's a logical guess that the only country that could | have thousands of unregistered ships would be china, one | of the worlds leading industrial powers with a large | pacific coastline. It's xenophobic speculation that china | does in fact have these ships and specifically are the | cause of this population collapsing. | NSMutableSet wrote: | Japan's pacific coastline is twice as large as China's. | Your logic here is extremely faulty. | samatman wrote: | This is widely known, just not to you. | | Calling names won't change that. | virgildotcodes wrote: | It's kind of an obvious dog whistle, come on. | stjohnswarts wrote: | China is by far overfishing all over the world compared to | other countries. I doubt the Alaskan crabs are a result of | that though. | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/25/can- | anyo... | Supermancho wrote: | > They over fish and destroy entire ecosystems and no one is | doing anything about it. | | That's not just hyperbole, it's flat wrong. Some organizations | _try_ to do things about it, even if the methodologies have | historically been ineffective. Nobody would be able to | completely solve it, while the Oceans are still largely | uncontrolled. | | https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-oceans/news/2022/06/gover... | raydiatian wrote: | Cthulhu | UnpossibleJim wrote: | I just assume Douglas Adams got it wrong and it's the crabs | that left instead of the dolphins =P | raydiatian wrote: | "So long, and thanks for all the detritus" | melony wrote: | They had their neurons uploaded into Slavic machine learning | systems. Stross wants his lobsters back! | cmsj wrote: | Maybe it was the crab rapture? | djmips wrote: | "Hope and pray." - yeah that'll solve it! | wonderwonder wrote: | a billion seems like such a huge number when you consider its | referring to giant crabs. Had no idea there were that many; but | never really thought about it. Seems insane for there to be that | many let alone for that many to be missing. | WalterBright wrote: | If I was prez, I'd reserve a number of offshore "national parks" | where no fishing of any sort is allowed. | underbluewaters wrote: | Search "Marine Protected Areas", they are definitely a thing. | US Presidents also have a habit of designating Marine Monuments | as they exit office. | twawaaay wrote: | You know, the difference is that marine animals travel a lot | more than land animals. | wiredfool wrote: | Oddly enough, there's decent evidence that preserves that ban | fishing are effective for preserving the biodiversity in the | larger region that includes zones where fishing is allowed. | lcfcjs wrote: | jcynix wrote: | Overfishing? Remember sardines and Cannery Row in Monterey? Today | it doesn't look much better, it seems: | | https://www.montereyherald.com/2020/11/03/the-sardine-war-hi... | glonq wrote: | Next season on Discovery's Deadliest Catch: | | Sig and Wild Bill learn how to knit. | gremlinsinc wrote: | At least we still have lab grown meat, as it appears we'll soon | have to get all our sustenance from labs since we'll probably | be the last living creature on earth, sooner than later. | tzs wrote: | Sig went to fish in Norway, and Discovery is covering that [1]. | | [1] https://www.discovery.com/shows/deadliest-catch-the- | viking-r... | outworlder wrote: | How feasible is it to grow crabs in captivity? We need to start | farming food, no way natural ecosystems can support themselves | _and_ humans at current levels. | thr0wawayf00 wrote: | No idea, but I see more plant-based food in our future | generally. It's gotta be way, way cheaper to farm crops than | fauna and farm-raised seafood comes with it's own issues with | mercury, etc. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Interestingly, raising animals in captivity is much much more | difficult than I imagined. | | IIRC - Guns, Germs, and Steel had a pretty good point that we | didn't so much domesticate animals and plants as there were | plants and animals that were pre-disposed to domestication. | cmsj wrote: | Yeah for sure. Lion could well be 10x more delicious than | beef for all I know, but I'm quite certain we couldn't farm | millions of lions. | llbeansandrice wrote: | Meat from carnivores tends to not be very good/tasty for a | variety of reasons. iirc most of it is mainly due to the | fact that other carnivores process meat similarly to how | humans do so it's not as nutritious/tasty. Also many | carnivores tend to also kind of be scavengers whose meat is | generally quite quite bad. | shagie wrote: | It's possible. | | Searching suggests it is done more in SE Asia than in the US | (this might be a "what does the cuisine focus on?") | | RAS Vertical Farming for Mud Crabs - | https://youtu.be/XQJmZz4mdWY (there's a bit of an accent, I'd | recommend subtitles) | | I'll also suggest a watch of How America's Biggest Indoor | Shrimp Farm Sells 2 Million Shrimp Every Year - | https://youtu.be/1AK_RQ1uaGs (the American diet tends to have | more shrimp than crab). And for crawfish (not indoor) | https://youtu.be/_bggaA5AURA | opportune wrote: | I did a decent amount of research into this a while back. They | (blue crabs) can be grown in captivity, but they're | cannabalistic, so they have to be kept apart from each other. | This makes it pretty inefficient and high overhead. The crab | farming operations I've seen literally have each crab in its | own little compartment - this is too labor intensive to be | feasible outside of places with very low wages like the | Philippines and Indonesia. | | If someone can figure out how to keep crabs in large pens | without them eating each other, they will make a lot of money. | I'm not sure if that's possible with selective breeding. Maybe | we need to wait until crab legs can be "printed" or grown in a | lab | TheGigaChad wrote: | washedup wrote: | Wow, those are some crazy numbers. Shocking it could happen that | fast... what's next? | whymauri wrote: | I'm eating as much delicious sushi grade tuna I can before it's | gone. | tsol wrote: | It's already full of plastic and mercury, so still might not | be a great idea | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _It 's already full of plastic_ | | So are you, and everybody else that has synthetic textiles | in their house. | c0nducktr wrote: | What's one more drop of poison, right? | Damogran6 wrote: | You and everybody else. That's the problem. | whymauri wrote: | There are many ways to solve the specific problem of | overfishing, mostly to set aside zones where fishing is not | allowed so the population can recover. This is at the level | of government and states, having little to do with anything | within my power. | virgildotcodes wrote: | Changing the industry overnight isn't in any one person's | power any more than electing the next president, but the | sum of our collective votes does decide the victor. | | Large scale boycotts of the industry will drop demand, | and so production, and finally the impact on the | fisheries. | | You can already see this at work with the decline of the | milk industry in the US as consumers have lowered their | consumption by about 49% since 1970.[1] | | All done by the power of consumer choice. | | Millions of people are already voluntarily choosing to | engage in these boycotts against these destructive | industries, without waiting to have a gun put to their | heads. It's worth considering taking part in order to | have some positive impact on the world, while also | continuing to push for systemic change, in my opinion. It | doesn't have to be either/or. | | [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/june/fluid- | milk-co... | mickdeek86 wrote: | That's talking about people _drinking_ milk or milk with | cereal. Overall dairy consumption has increased ~20% over | the same time period, mostly due to cheese and yogurt[0]. | | Changing the industry is not in _one_ person 's power, | but it is a small number of people (owners of the several | large producers and the regulatory guys) who do change | it; this (overnight) cancelling of the season is a | counterexample to your point. | | https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/dairy-data/ | checker wrote: | Creating zones is one thing, enforcement is another. | Hopefully technology can help solve this because I | honestly don't see any other way - the oceans are too | vast. | jjk166 wrote: | Enforcement is a solved problem - ships can be tracked by | various means, ports where catches can be offloaded can | be audited, crews can be arrested and ships impounded | when in port. No one is going to overfish if they can't | economically get their catch to market and get paid for | their troubles. The issue is getting everyone to enforce | the policies consistently - the leaders of different | jurisdictions may not see eye to eye on what level of | protection is optimal, and the people actually doing the | enforcement may be willing to turn a blind eye to | violations depending on circumstances. | 83 wrote: | >> Enforcement is a solved problem >> The issue is | getting everyone to enforce the policies | | Doesn't seem solved to me. Look at the trouble south | america has been having with chinese trawlers doing | illegal fishing and sending it back to china. | hedora wrote: | Enforcement is far from a solved problem. For one thing, | many fishing boats are still using slave labor. | | I agree the technology exists, but there's no way the | governments in those areas are going to enforce any sort | of laws that hurt short term profits. | stjohnswarts wrote: | what a great way to look at life. | ynx wrote: | oh, c'mon! | | We don't have supervillains trying to destroy the world, all | we need is rational people thinking like this to do it for | us. | wnevets wrote: | tragedy of the commons in action | DesiLurker wrote: | Yup, as I always say, Tragedy of the commons will turn out | to be our great filter. | inopinatus wrote: | irrational wrote: | Well, I don't like any seafood, so, on the one hand this does not | affect me at all. On the other hand... this is just one more | piece of data to add to the ever growing pile of how badly we are | ruining the planet for any life above the level of single cell | organisms. We are screwed. | gremlinsinc wrote: | Sure it does. The billions who subsist on seafood will now have | to eat eggs, pork, beef. This will cause supply issues of those | things. If you're a vegetarian you might be safe, though those | too will be in higher demand maybe. | | There's also water shortages, see the drought that's drying up | the Mississippi river. Without water we'll have less and less | crop yields. | | We slowly had changes happen over 3 decades, then all of a | sudden hit a turning point where we're breaking records yearly, | maybe even monthly, and starting to get some feedback loops | brewing. | | The govts of the world though don't seem to think it's a big | priority, lucky for them they're all ran by old people who will | be dead before it really gets out of hand. | cmsj wrote: | > "billions who subsist on seafood will now have to eat eggs, | pork, beef" | | There is another possible outcome... :/ | suzzer99 wrote: | Did anyone else read this is 18 crabs and wonder what the heck | was going on? | celestialcheese wrote: | This is wild to see. Especially after one of the best salmon | seasons this summer in AK. Prices being high helped, but the | salmon population was excellent. | | Source: Family commercial fishes in AK ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-14 23:00 UTC)