It was reported on the news today,that if fishing worldwide carries on at the rate it is now,there will be no fish in the sea by the year 2048.
Apparently someone did a study,like all studies and predictions,you can never know how accurate it is,but if true,it seems mad to think that after millions of years existing in the sea,that they could be wiped out in just over 40 years time.
| truespeed wrote: |
It was reported on the news today,that if fishing worldwide carries on at the rate it is now,there will be no fish in the sea by the year 2048.
Apparently someone did a study,like all studies and predictions,you can never know how accurate it is,but if true,it seems mad to think that after millions of years existing in the sea,that they could be wiped out in just over 40 years time. |
They don't even know how many and of what type there ARE in the sea, how the hell can they predict something that moronic? 
I guess people will believe anything. | truespeed wrote: |
It was reported on the news today,that if fishing worldwide carries on at the rate it is now,there will be no fish in the sea by the year 2048.
Apparently someone did a study,like all studies and predictions,you can never know how accurate it is,but if true,it seems mad to think that after millions of years existing in the sea,that they could be wiped out in just over 40 years time. |
Instead of commenting without reading the report, I would be interested in seeing a link if you can find it. No fish at all seems unlikely, since not all species are targets of fishing. If it was talking about certain types of fish, it might have some validity, since some populations are tracked pretty closely. Boils down to seeing the article and the report to se what was actually said.You can read the full story here Although not all fish will be gone, the impact is still there...
The food chain itself maybe broken if any one of its kind "collapsed"
If I remember right already 23% of them have collapsed now...
yea i herd that on the news and it is compleatly trrue......read about it on kdka.com
Oh theyve been saying this for years!
Its cod which will be first to go. Then probably shark, as that is used in fish and chip meals too. Its the Spanish and Jappanese trawlers that cause all this sh*t
Last edited by Pyro Man on Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Pyro Man wrote: |
Oh theyve been saying this for years!
Its cod which will be first to go. Then probably shark, as that is used in fish and chip meals too. Its the Spanish and Jappanese trawlers that cause all this ****** |
Well, if you read the article, you'll see that it has been trending that way for years. Its not a new idea. The news is that a large study confirmed it again.
It seems very likely that there is danger here if nothing changes.I find it hard to believe that there will no longer be any fish in the sea in the year 2048, the sea is not something that we can measure and neither is the "aqua" life.
| truespeed wrote: |
It was reported on the news today,that if fishing worldwide carries on at the rate it is now,there will be no fish in the sea by the year 2048.
Apparently someone did a study,like all studies and predictions,you can never know how accurate it is,but if true,it seems mad to think that after millions of years existing in the sea,that they could be wiped out in just over 40 years time. |
Yeah it might be true for some kind of fish. People are really devasteting the population of some of them very quickly, but I don't believe that all of them will be whipe out. | redace wrote: |
[
People are really devasteting the population of some of them very quickly, but I don't believe that all of them will be whipe out. |
99% of all species that ever existed on the earth are extinct. They've been going extinct since the beginning of life without the aid of Man. Man is at the top of the food chain right now. With restocking, replanting etc, we should be able to continue on until a more superior being comes to life and knocks us down a couple notches.Really, I don't see this happening; they don't include economic trends into their calculations.
Once fish populations decline, fishing becomes less profitable, therefore less people do it. This trend continues until you reach a balance point where just enough fish are harvested to maintain the low population. This would cause fish to become rare on tables, so eventually people would loose their taste for it in general, perhaps letting the populations rebound.
This is impossible... even with our mass fishing industry worldwide we could never manage this, especially by 2048. Bias study 
If there is something going on then scientists will do something about it really soon. I really dont' think that such a thing is true. Its not really that accurate either. Science is a big guess at times.
I think what the study is saying,isnt that this Will happen,but what will happen if we dont change the way we are fishing the seas,you could argue with the dates and the time frame,but i think if things carry on the way they are now then it is entirely possible,nature has a delicate balance,if you take out one species,it affects other species reliant on that species as a food source,and again once that speices dissapears another species is affected,industrial fishing just speeds up this process.
To say the politicians will do anything should the decline in sea life become notciable is a very optimistic view of politicians,scientists all over the world have been warning for years over the effects of global warming,yet the country which emits more harmful gases into the atmosphere than any other country,continually ignores it, short term gain seems more important than long term security to their country... of course im talking about the USA... the ironic thing being is they are more affected by changes in the weather than almost any other country in the world.
So although the very idea that sea life could be wiped out in our lifetimes,seems an impossible idea,it should be taken seriously.
| Blaster wrote: |
| If there is something going on then scientists will do something about it really soon. I really dont' think that such a thing is true. Its not really that accurate either. Science is a big guess at times. |
As was noted above, it isn't the scientists that have to do something. It's politicians. It would be nice to think that politicians are looking out for our best interests, but I'm afraid that they are, for the most part, looking out for their own campaign coffers. Industry is always a better source of funds than the masses.
Not really that accurate? Maybe you could post errors you found in their methodolgy or data?
@ocalhoun - No, I dont think they took into account economic factors. They were describing a trend. But I'm not sure I would count on your scenario behaving as you predicted. Have you looked at how the fishing industry has been using larger factory boats, using sat tech, etc. to increase their catch? I think it is possible the industry will just find more and better ways to catch the dwindling populations until they get so small the whole industry collapses. Whether the populations can recover at that point is just a matter of how small it is when they finally do something.
All I'm saying is that a forecast was made. If you can poke holes in the math, fine. Otherwise, maybe discussing what to do about it makes more sense than looking the other way.This is scary news for sure. I remember being quite surprised when I read it. I really enjoy seafood so I hope this isn't going to occur! Either way, I think it's a good wake up call for people to start taking care of the environment. We are such a wasteful and resource-leeching race. Gotta start thinking more about preserving the earth and it's resources.
It will never end with fish but the food species will almost wipe out. Many place have lost their fish Canada against Atlante has destroy their cod population by over fishing, Chile has lost their i think it was mackerel population and when it start to grove again they wipe out again. Mediterranean sea can the fisher now more find tuna in a profit way.
The deep see fish are more sensitive and now we start fishing them.
The ocean are badly hurt already and 2048 well be really bad.
How scary~~~ No more fish to eat 
Joke... No!! I'll pray for that... Hope that will not happen
By that time I will be 60+ already, no more teeth to eat.. hehe That's how things are going. We're probably some of the last generations to be able to use things in such excess. Pretty soon they're going to start rationing things in a attempt to preserve what little we have left of our wild fish populations. I think the best we can do is to hope that fishing rates do not continue the way that they are now.
the sea s huge 97 percent of the earth is water, there are millions of species, we will have plenty of fishes, iti's the quality of them that im worrifed about, also , if there are a bunch of whales and sharks, and very few catfishes and sturgins, then we are ******
Adapting is the only way to continue in life. If we as a people don't learn to adapt as in living with out fish or over fishing then we will be doom. I on the other hand I believe before we get to this point that the ingenuity of our peoples will resolve this issue. Adapting……
| yy1124 wrote: |
Although not all fish will be gone, the impact is still there...
The food chain itself maybe broken if any one of its kind "collapsed"
If I remember right already 23% of them have collapsed now... |
worthy point I wonder if there was ever a press statement back in the 1930's:
"An independant study shows that by the year 1996 there will be no more salmon in the rivers in California."
of course the reaction would have been that of disbelieve:
"that is impossible 'all the fish'; you can practically walk on their backs in the creeks."
I am only familiar with the fish populations in california and i remember once when i was a kid in the 70's where i saw trout in a creek back to back. but this scene is now extinct outside the tanks of the fish hatcheries.
any time humans harvest a resource from the earth without being concious of the costs invovled and paying those costs back to the earth, then there is a chance for a natural disaster caused by human activity.
in this case i surely hope that we don't disrupt the ecosystem of the oceans to drastically.
I dont think that is true.
Fish multiply and if there is a large area of water, over time fish will live there
| Mwilliams wrote: |
I dont think that is true.
Fish multiply and if there is a large area of water, over time fish will live there |
Thats a nice, warm thought, but you might want to look at the list of species man has wiped out (or came to the verge of wiping out) already.
@evilryu530 -97%?! You need to go back to the books. That statement is completely inaccurate. In surface area, water covers about 71% of the Earth. In mass, its about 0.04 % of the earth's mass. I can't find figures off hand for volume, but it is not anywhere close to what you claim. The only number I found that approaches 97% is how much of the earth's water is in the ocean (3% in the atmosphere). | Mwilliams wrote: |
I dont think that is true.
Fish multiply and if there is a large area of water, over time fish will live there |
The problem is our cache method is to effective we can completely empty a area of fish. And for bigger food fish like cod and Salomon need do grove adult (least 2-3 year) so they never have a chance to multiply before they catch. how can true.. is that nostradamus
I don't have any trouble believing that fish are gonna get harder and harder to come by just be looking at the way to consume as of now.
If people can't understand how removing even a medium portion of the fish from the sea disrupts the entire ecosystem (and eventually biosphere), I feel sorry for them.
| evilryu530 wrote: |
| the sea s huge 97 percent of the earth is water, there are millions of species, we will have plenty of fishes, iti's the quality of them that im worrifed about, also , if there are a bunch of whales and sharks, and very few catfishes and sturgins, then we are ****** |
I'm unable to respect the opinion of someone who thinks the Earth is covered by 97% water. Have you ever seen a map/globe? Doesn't take rocket science to see that 97% of the Earth isn't covered by water. Come on now -.- | truespeed wrote: |
It was reported on the news today,that if fishing worldwide carries on at the rate it is now,there will be no fish in the sea by the year 2048.
Apparently someone did a study,like all studies and predictions,you can never know how accurate it is,but if true,it seems mad to think that after millions of years existing in the sea,that they could be wiped out in just over 40 years time. |
They predicted everyone would die by 1980 from like famine or something. The issue is the systems are far more complex than those idiots seem to realize. Fishing couldn't continue at this rate. At a minimum the fish would become scarce and far too expensive. Something like whale might go extinct but there will always be some fish.
And don't forget, fish is a renewable resource and something we could very easily grow. | dwinton wrote: |
| truespeed wrote: | It was reported on the news today,that if fishing worldwide carries on at the rate it is now,there will be no fish in the sea by the year 2048.
Apparently someone did a study,like all studies and predictions,you can never know how accurate it is,but if true,it seems mad to think that after millions of years existing in the sea,that they could be wiped out in just over 40 years time. |
They predicted everyone would die by 1980 from like famine or something. The issue is the systems are far more complex than those idiots seem to realize. Fishing couldn't continue at this rate. At a minimum the fish would become scarce and far too expensive. Something like whale might go extinct but there will always be some fish.
And don't forget, fish is a renewable resource and something we could very easily grow. |
Fish isn't a renewable source,the eco system is complex and delicate,take out one species and you lose another that is dependent on it,the report only says that "IF" we carry on at the rate we do then there will be no fish left in the sea,that as a statement is highly possible,but as already been stated ,the scarcity of the fish will make it more expensive,so perhaps the cost of fish may be the only thing that will prevent it happening. If you hunt any animal enough,then it will become extinct,that is a fact.
A similar story.
