SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
It has been claimed that fish farming is a sustainable source of food that will help us feed the growing global human population while protecting wild fish populations – but this isn’t true.
“Fish farming is not a substitute for catching wild fish out of the ocean,” says Matthew Hayek at New York University. “In fact, it relies on catching wild fish out of the ocean.”
Hayek and his colleagues have shown that the amount of wild fish killed in order to feed farmed fish is between 27 and 307 per cent higher than previous estimates.
Farmed carnivorous fish eat multiple times more weight in wild fish caught from the ocean than is obtained by farming them, says Hayek. For instance, producing a kilogram of salmon may require 4 or 5 kilograms of wild fish.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DadaDoofy on Monday October 21 2024, @05:06PM (4 children)
"we have been adding 75 million to 80 million living humans to global population annually, consistently for a long long time."
Which is largely irrelevant if a mere 60 years from now world population is in decline. That also means that 75 to 80 million number will be decreasing each year from now until then.
"The 'settled science'"
Good grief. Science, by definition, is never "settled". Unless, of course, you are talking about political propaganda masquerading as science. In that case, it "settles" on whatever advances the political narrative and never varies, new contradictory evidence be damned. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Galileo encountered the same "settled science" bullshit 400 years ago when he presented evidence the planets revolve around the sun instead of the earth.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-in-rome-for-inquisition [history.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 21 2024, @05:49PM (1 child)
If, in the future, you ever see me write "settled science" and I also forget to leave off the /s, " talking about political propaganda masquerading as science" is exactly what I'm doing.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Monday October 21 2024, @09:41PM
My apologies. The /s tag does help.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 21 2024, @06:08PM (1 child)
Also: +80 million per year (average) over a span of 60 years = +4.8 billion, for a net close to 13 billion, or 60% more people in those 60 years, and to keep these birth rate trends "down" as low as we are, we have been increasing resource consumption per person steadily.
I was born in the 1960s, from that perspective 8 billion - 60%, or 3.2 billion total, seems like a much more rational number for total human population.
The Georgia Guidestones suggested a limit of 0.5 billion, and that got them blown up by Anonymous Cowards in the night.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 21 2024, @10:04PM
We don't have a reason to care what number the creator of that monument pulled out of their ass(es).
Credibility doesn't come from having crazy enemies.
The problem with inventing numbers about what the population of Earth should be, is that they ignore reality. There are over 8 billion people on Earth, and they aren't going away in the short term. My take remains that the best we can do for them is to create a global developed world civilization. That's probably the only way we will see 3.2 billion people again on Earth absent a die-off.