Thread: The Most Important Question of the Century

Originally Posted by Sailor

It is sad but true that with current resources it is impossible to guarantee equal standards of living to everyone on earth. We in Europe and Northern America are using the most of the worlds energy and natural sources currently. Actually so much that we have to import these elsewhere: oil from Middle East and natural gas from Russia. People in China, India and Africa are closing behind us, but there just isn't enough to share. They have realized that they want to share the same cake as we do. I do not like it but it is a fact.

Sorry Brotherman, but that is just propogandist nonsense that you have been fed. The only problem is the distribution or lack of or control of by the crooked power addicted power fixated governments. It's all about control brother CONTROL!

On a scale of zero to make-believe, we score a zero.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Sorry Brotherman, but that is just propogandist nonsense that you have been fed. The only problem is the distribution or lack of or control of by the crooked power addicted power fixated governments. It's all about control brother CONTROL!

Yeah my man! I agree that is possible to see things that way too
If i didn't know you better, i would think you are a politician

Originally Posted by Miner123

These people have lost all credibility. They are continually caught in lies and are obviously pushing an agenda.
I live in an area where farmers are going out of business because they can't afford to run their farms. The government through regulation and taxation has done that to them. If we were truly in such dire straits the governments of the world would be making sure farmers are producing instead of putting them out of business. It's really just a load of crap used to control people and consolidate power.

What lies have they been caught in?

My comment was about over fishing the oceans...not farming.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

if that were fact..i think there would be mass shortages and i just don't see it. fishermen still meet their quotas all the time. plus they do it time after time and year after year. if we only have 10 percent of the fish left, do you not think there would be a massive price hike? the numbers are not adding up. just another green world/save the ocean scare tactic. on my first post i stated where ted danson and crew said we would not have ANY FISH by now, i have quite a supply close to where i live and at some of the lowest prices in quite some time.

It's because the fishing industry has been increasing it's fleets constantly.
They've just gotten more efficient at catching fish.

Today, there are over three-and-a-half million fishing vessels operating in the world's oceans, all engaged in a desperate competition over dwindling supplies of fish. Little wonder then that the aggregate global fleet of over a million industrial and semi-industrial vessels has been operating at an annual loss of some $50-billion each year -- a collosal loss that is being compensated by government subsidies to vessel owners, and all at taxpayers' expense.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

if these environmental groups would tell the truth and not use scare tactics time and time again, they might gain some creditability with the rest of us. do not go screaming about something that is not a fact or only half truths.

Feel free to point out the lies and scare tactics.

The only fact presented so far is that ocean fish populations are decreasing dramatically.

Originally Posted by Miner123

If we had nuclear power plants, we would have all the energy we need and more, but, using scare tactics again, we have been hogtied by regulation so we are unable to build them. The same people also keep voting down the drilling of oil and natural gas. We have more than we could ever use but are unable to get to it. If these people would just stand aside we would be in fine shape.

While it is true that nuclear power plants haven't been built in the western countries lately (except here in Finland), Kyoto Protocol might speed up things a little.
Unfortunately current power plants are not long time solution: they have risks, although minimized, but still: enviromental and political. Current power plants are based on a nuclear fission, which produces nuclear waste. It is also possible, at least in theory, to use current power plants to produce material for weapons of mass destruction. That's why they can never be the solution for the whole world.

Once scientists are able to make power plants that base on a nuclear fusion, then our problems will be solved for a long time (at least what it comes to energy). It is estimated that such plants would be working about 2050. Something else has to be done before that.

Unfortunately people seem to have very primitive way of thinking what it comes to wastes: when you don't see it, there is no problem. This is true when burning fuel like it would never end, burying nuclear wastes into ground, and even dumping chemical weapons in the sea.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

It's because the fishing industry has been increasing it's fleets constantly.
They've just gotten more efficient at catching fish.

Today, there are over three-and-a-half million fishing vessels operating in the world's oceans, all engaged in a desperate competition over dwindling supplies of fish. Little wonder then that the aggregate global fleet of over a million industrial and semi-industrial vessels has been operating at an annual loss of some $50-billion each year -- a collosal loss that is being compensated by government subsidies to vessel owners, and all at taxpayers' expense.




Feel free to point out the lies and scare tactics.

The only fact presented so far is that ocean fish populations are decreasing dramatically.

you are making my point for me..it was said there is only 10 percent of the fish left, but you, yourself say that the fleets have increased dramtically and all are getting their quota...do you not see the fallacy in that statement...MORE SHIPS, MORE FISH, MET QUOTAS...something is not adding up...
ted danson was the first to come out big time in public years ago stating that the oceans would have ZERO fish by now...he was using the scare tactics then and with his group "save the oceans" he is still trying.
if product(fish) is in short supply, then prices go up..simple supply and demand policy......there has been no price jumps that i see, in fact seafood and fish have gone down in most areas here. that does not meet the supply and demand theory at all.(I.E. gasoline prices)
someone is lying again, plain and simple. if they would tell the truth and not exaggerate their numbers, then and only then would the people listen to them. did not anyone learn the simple lesson of the "boy who cried wolf"? it only works until the people get sick and tired of "the sky is falling" mentality for every special interest group out there.....WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

Originally Posted by 59caddy

you are making my point for me..it was said there is only 10 percent of the fish left, but you, yourself say that the fleets have increased dramtically and all are getting their quota...do you not see the fallacy in that statement...MORE SHIPS, MORE FISH, MET QUOTAS...something is not adding up...

Yeah they're getting more efficient at pulling fish from the oceans.

And it's a catch limit so being able to meet the limit isn't much of an indicator.
They have more ships and are more efficient so of course they can meet
their quota.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

ted danson was the first to come out big time in public years ago stating that the oceans would have ZERO fish by now

I don't think he made that claim. But who cares anyway. He's an actor.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

...he was using the scare tactics then and with his group "save the oceans" he is still trying.
if product(fish) is in short supply, then prices go up..simple supply and demand policy......there has been no price jumps that i see, in fact seafood and fish have gone down in most areas here. that does not meet the supply and demand theory at all.(I.E. gasoline prices)

It's because it's heavily subsided by the govt.

The fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly and economist Ussif Rashid Sumaila examined subsidies paid to bottom trawl fleets around the world. They found that $152 million US are paid to deep-sea fisheries. Without these subsidies, global deep-sea fisheries would operate at a loss of $50 million a year. Most of the subsidies are for the fuel the fishing vessels burn travelling beyond the 200 mile limit and dragging weighted nets.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

someone is lying again, plain and simple. if they would tell the truth and not exaggerate their numbers, then and only then would the people listen to them. did not anyone learn the simple lesson of the "boy who cried wolf"? it only works until the people get sick and tired of "the sky is falling" mentality for every special interest group out there.....WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

Seafood prices have been going up.

From 1970 to 2003, seafood prices increased by 566%, compared with 297% increase in red meat and 194% in poultry.

You're not basing your conclusions on anything scientific. Can you find any scientists that do not think the oceans are being overfished?

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Yeah they're getting more efficient at pulling fish from the oceans.

And it's a catch limit so being able to meet the limit isn't much of an indicator.
They have more ships and are more efficient so of course they can meet
their quota.



I don't think he made that claim. But who cares anyway. He's an actor.



It's because it's heavily subsided by the govt.

The fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly and economist Ussif Rashid Sumaila examined subsidies paid to bottom trawl fleets around the world. They found that $152 million US are paid to deep-sea fisheries. Without these subsidies, global deep-sea fisheries would operate at a loss of $50 million a year. Most of the subsidies are for the fuel the fishing vessels burn travelling beyond the 200 mile limit and dragging weighted nets.



Seafood prices have been going up.

From 1970 to 2003, seafood prices increased by 566%, compared with 297% increase in red meat and 194% in poultry.

You're not basing your conclusions on anything scientific. Can you find any scientists that do not think the oceans are being overfished?

i do not know about where you are, but the price increases are not here...shrimp was $13.99 and now $11.99, steak was $6.79 now $5.99, poultry (chicken breast boneless) was $2.79 and now $1.39.

about the ships, if there are more ships and more people eating and everyone still has the supply in the markets and there are no shortages anywhere that i have heard of, something is wrong with the numbers then.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

i do not know about where you are, but the price increases are not here...shrimp was $13.99 and now $11.99, steak was $6.79 now $5.99, poultry (chicken breast boneless) was $2.79 and now $1.39.

It's probably farmed shrimp. That's totally different then wild caught.
Also I don't think shrimp are one of the critically over fished seafoods.

If you want to look at one that is critical check out Bluefine Tuna. I doubt
you'll find anyone saying their populations are fine.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

about the ships, if there are more ships and more people eating and everyone still has the supply in the markets and there are no shortages anywhere that i have heard of, something is wrong with the numbers then.

There is nothing wrong with the numbers. You're not seeing something wrong because the oceans are being overfished. If they were fishing the seas in accordance with the actual amount of fish left then we would be seeing shortages. But instead they are taking more then what is sustainable and that is why there is such a huge decline in wild seafood populations.

And like I said before if you believe this isn't a problem then you should be able to find some scientists that agree with you.

You won't be able to because overfishing is a fact.