
The World Is Losing Fish to Eat as Oceans Warm, Study Finds - iron0013
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/climate/fish-climate-change.html
======
cwkoss
How do they control for overfishing? It is certainly concerning that fish
population is in decline, but it doesn't seem clear that water temperature is
the only or primary cause.

~~~
monetus
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but iirc, they make a projection based
on how many are caught each year.

~~~
pvaldes
In fact based on how many are landed and registered at ports. that is a
different question. Pirate fishing is unregistered.

I would expect a correction factor for sea cages, that... maybe could have
increased in the same period of time? just guessing. I dunno.

There are probably also entire areas closed to fishermen since 2011, We could
expect a decrease on fishes previously landed from this areas.

------
ilovecaching
I'm very worried about the bees. My theory is that the bees are going to go
extinct, and that will be the butterfly that wipes us out.

At the very least it seems highly probably we'll be in a state of total
anarchy in a new dark age within the next fifty years thanks in part to
unethical uses of technology.

~~~
wrong_variable
Relax, bees were already wiped out in some regions with heavy pollution in
China, and what happened was humans were made to do the work of the bees -
which it turned out was cheaper than depending on bees !

In case we do lose a large part of the ecosystems humans can still survive on
potatoes - 2 billion people already survive on rice / root plant , so the only
thing lost would be luxury items enjoyed by the top 40% of the human
population.

Maybe it will push them to worry about more serious stuff like sea level rise
?

There is always liquefied cockroaches.

~~~
honkycat
There was this great quote from writer Kara Brown that goes:

"If I Need a Gas Mask, I’d Rather Be Dead"

I honestly agree with that. If all I have left to eat is liquid cockroaches,
I'd rather be dead.

~~~
dec0dedab0de
I think that is just part of the cycle. Life will get difficult, many will
die, less people would mean less pollution, and then the earth can clean
itself until things are nice enough for people to multiply and ruin things
again.

------
FrozenVoid
The problem isn't just "water changing a few degrees", its oxygen% dropping
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation)

------
honkycat
These stories get worse and worse. And nobody ever does anything to fix it.

Yet another stressor for us oft-maligned millennials: We are supposed to be
hitting the "grown-up" mile markers, and we are supposed to be having
children. But we are smacked in the face with a doomsday scenario, with no
signs of large portions of the US population taking it seriously.

"How can we afford a green new deal?" How can we afford to not at least TRY to
reverse course?

Why aren't millennials having kids? Look at the devastation around you. Will
they be born into a world careening towards mass-famine and war? What will be
left of the earth in the coming years? What do they stand to inherit?

With cloning and gene editing and CRISPR babies, are my genes even valuable?
Why not just clone astronauts? And is it better for the whole earth if I
choose to not have children?

Personally, my partner and I have decided it is better if we do not have
biological children. I come from a family that tends to adopt children instead
of having them, so that is no huge worry to me. Am I afraid of missing out on
an amazing, transformative human experience? Yeah. But if you look at the map
of the possible paths human civilization can take, "here be dragons."

~~~
joefourier
> Why aren't millennials having kids? Look at the devastation around you. Will
> they be born into a world careening towards mass-famine and war? What will
> be left of the earth in the coming years? What do they stand to inherit?

If you were instead having children between 1950 and 1991, when the world was
literally teetering on the brink of nuclear armageddon, would you not have
reached the same conclusion? What about during the 1940s during World War II?
Or 1930s, during the Great Depression? World War I and its aftermath is not
ideal either, with a global pandemic killing a large percentage of the world's
population, and many experts rightly predicting the resumption of hostilities
in the coming years. 1871 to 1914 was great if you happened to be in a wealthy
European country, of the right social class and ethnicity, and avoided dying
of the many diseases (it was appropriately called "The Gilded Age" in the
United States after all).

Of course the past appears more certain with the benefit of hindsight, but
individuals still had children despite the circumstances and possible futures
at the time appearing far worse than those of the present. The world did go
through large numbers of mass famines, warfare, pandemics and societal
upheavals, but humanity kept on reproducing, surviving and innovating, and now
we have much better tools to deal with our problems than ever before.

