Sorry - no happy news yet. Say bye-bye to the fish you like to eat.
Researchers project collapse of seafood species
Last Updated: Thursday, November 2, 2006 | 2:24 PM ET
CBC News
The ocean ecosystems are in trouble and losing species fast, which could leave no seafood to harvest before 2050 if the current global trend continues, said researchers Thursday.
"This loss of species is threatening the sustainability of not only fishing, but … also other human uses of the ocean," said Boris Worm of Dalhousie University, lead author of the study published in the journal Science.
Researchers say the loss of species threatens not only the sustainability of fishing but the entire ocean ecosystem.
(CBC) "This trend is negative for human well-being, meaning it has direct impacts on our economies and livelihoods."
The loss of biodiversity is reducing the ocean's ability to produce seafood, resist diseases, filter pollutants, and rebound from stresses such as over-fishing and climate change.
The research suggests that every species lost increases the decline of the overall ecosystem. On the other hand, every species recovered adds to the total productivity and stability of the ecosystem and its ability to withstand stresses.
Based on their findings, researchers project there will be no seafood species left to consume before 2050 — but they say it's not too late to change.
"We can see the bottom of the barrel, but it's not too late to turn it around. We're very optimistic about the recovery potential of the ocean ecosystem at this point in time," said Worm.
The authors say that restoring marine biodiversity through ecosystem-based management is essential in avoiding "serious threats to global food security, coastal water quality and ecosystem stability." They suggest integrated fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats and creation of marine reserves to aid in the recovery.
"We have to be selective about what we dump into the ocean and how it affects those ecosystems. We need to be smart about protecting sensitive regions," said Dr. Worm.
The four-year analysis is the first to look at all existing data on ocean species and ecosystems, in an effort to understand the importance of biodiversity on the global scale.
Researchers examined 32 controlled experiments, observational studies from 48 marine protected areas, and global catch data from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization's database of all fish and invertebrates worldwide from 1950 to 2003.
The scientists also looked at thousand-year time series for 12 coastal regions, drawing on data from archives, fishery records, sediment cores and archeological data.
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the University of California and UC Santa Barbara.
Please, humanity - give me a sign that you're actually going to catch a grip of all the looming catastrophes and do something to turn things around. Ok - you have less than 40 years to get it all together. Ready, set, GO....
9 comments:
I read this same article just yesterday. This is serious shit! Like what's it going to take?
All of these warnings and predictions that we're getting from scholars and scientists around the world just seem to be accepted as certainty.
Why is that?
Things have to start changing as of yesterday, and I just can't believe the world as a whole isn't up in arms over this stuff.
What are we waiting for? The predictions to come true? It will be far too late.
I'm going to have to play Devil's advocate here and say that I seriously doubt the conclusions these researchers have reached. Coming from the Atlantic Canada where fishing is BIG I can tell you that the fisheries is still quite healthy. The only species that I have heard of in danger is Cod. Through strict control Cod stocks are gradually climbing. Lobster fisheries are still strong. The fishermen (persons) have to throw back any that are to big (breeding stock) or too small. Also, most of the salmon we eat probably now comes from farmed salmon, not wild stock.
I'm not saying we don't need to get rid of the pollution or carefully manage the fisheries, I'm just saying they seem to be exaggerating their findings to spread more doom and gloom.
Here comes the old adage: "This requires further study".
Do you honestly believe reputable scientists willingly exaggerate their results to be alarmist, doomy and gloomy? I don't. I think it's 'just the facts, m'am'. If so, then I'm naive, and further at a loss to figure out what the hell's really going on in the world. If I can't believe the scientists, then there's really no one left.
Whether or not scientists have their own personal (ie. funding) agendas to publish these findings, I don't doubt the conclusions of a test that adheres to scientific method. I don't see it as a bad thing to err on the side of caution. If this study alarms people enough that more funding comes along for more tests to verify the findings of this research as being accurate, then I think it is a good thing.
That's the magic of scientific method. It requires others verify the results in order for it to become 'law'.
I just don't know if continuing to doubt something potentially devastating might happen is necessarily the best course of action, especially if immediate action is needed and inaction would result in far worse consequences than to at least do something. There will always be doubters and deniers - ALWAYS - how long to you have to placate them before actually acting on something?
Even if it's not going to happen now, it will eventually, so why not start working on some ideas & solutions while it's still possible (and less costly)?
Maybe this is just another in the long list of 'potentials', which, when the list gets long enough, will most certainly have something on it that will, with 100% accuracy, do us in.
Maybe, as Doug had said before, it will just be one of many mini-crises that will slowly gnaw away at human prosperity, growth (a flawed concept in itself) & advancement until we achieve balance with our natural carrying capacity once again.
A few thoughts:
1. There are almost seven billion of us on the planet. A large portion of that population eats fish as a daily dietary staple. Could the global fisheries simply be dying out because there are too many fucking humans?
aye, there's the rub as I've said many, many times before. Too many yelping mouths to feed. Hello, population control?
2. The Atlantic Canada fisheries might be far ahead of the curve when it comes to fishery protection, conservation and patrolling, simply because the cod (and other) fisheries have been such a visible case of resource depletion/mis-management gone awry. I think it got to a point of grave concern for the inhabitants of Eastern Canada several decades ago - long before the rest of the world, and therefore they are way ahead in custodianship of what sustains them.
3. Certain countries still whale, for f-sakes. And there's doubt that the global fishery stocks aren't being overburdened either? Sure a big stretch to relate whaling to fishing, I know, but really...humans aren't any more visionary than what they can see at the end of their nose. We haven't done anything visionary since the 1960s as a civilization.
I'll add this story to my 'I'm not really surprised' pile of clippings.
Do I believe that scientist misrepresent their findings? Absolutely!
Spend enough time in the research world Reid and you too will learn the terrible secret; unless you find out something big, you won't get funding. Couple that with the joys of manipulative statistics and the fact that the majority of scientists have admitted to fudging data and you have a recipe for yet another unreliable source of "data".
If someone were to find something "conclusive" out, the funding would dry up and all those researchers would be out of business. They're not stupid, they know how to play the game.
Sure, but this release is a review of hundreds of previous studies overlaid with historical trends:
"The study is the biggest and most all-embracing effort yet to understand the productivity of the oceans and predict their future. Uniquely, it combines historical data on fish catches, some of it going back a thousand years, with analysis of marine ecosystems and experiments to bring marine life back to protected areas.
The authors, from five countries, reviewed hundreds of individual studies covering every scale from whole oceans to marine plots of a few square metres. They say the same pattern emerges at every scale. Rich ecosystems with many species can survive over-fishing and other threats well – but once biodiversity is lost, the entire system, including fish stocks, goes into exponential decline." (from New Scientist).
Individually, sure studies can be 'skewed' for whatever you want the results to represent, but would a review of many together show the same? - that there's some sort of scientist-initiated conspiracy to demonstrate that there is a serious problem here? Maybe. I don't have faith in anything anymore.
Jon, I want your opinion...in the case of 'global warming' and other related 'potential catastophes', it will be very difficult (most likely impossible) to have conclusive evidence that human activity is partly or largely to blame. In your opinion, what would be considered 'conclusive' enough to be deemed irrefutable? Do you think we'll ever get to that point with a theory that encompasses so much, over such a long period of time? Would the fact that so many scientists (in particular) agree that there is something going on make the theory conclusive?
I have a feeling there is consensus that shit is hitting the fan, the disagreement comes with what exactly to do about it, right?
Good questions Reid.
Sadly, in the scientific world there is nothing conclusive. While this study is a review of older studies, do we know how they chose the studies? Did they pick at random or did they just look for studies that supported their claims? I can tell you that in every paper I've written I seek out evidence supporting my claim. It's good to know about the other studies of course just in case someone brings it up. But then you have a list of 100 studies supporting your claim and that ends that argument.
I can also tell you that it can be pretty easy to make the data look the way you want using statistics. Patterns are everywhere if you look for them and I've seen some pretty big stretches published in "reputable" journals.
So, while many scientists belive that the shit is hitting the fan (which is correct I feel), there are just as many who have evidence to the contrary. What does that mean for you and I? Well, simply put that those in power will seek out the scientists willing to agree, I mean whose research agrees, with the current political trend. Same as it ever was.
Sorry dude. We're all screwed until we elect politicians whose world view more closely matches our perceived reality. Who knows, in fifty years you and I could look like big 'ol chicken littles. Only time will tell.
Hey Reid - I hadn't had a chance to check back on this post until now. I'm afraid Jon is right. Sometimes it might not even be intentional but researchers usually start out with what they think the answer is and then try to prove that they're right instead of starting with no opinion and searching for what the answer actually is. I did this when I worked at NRC. My superviser was researching e-health and she was really big on wellness. So she get me to research the cost benefit of prevention vs. acute care (cost of smoking prevention campaign vs. treating emphazema patients)to prove that it was better to spend money on wellness initiatives than just on treating already sick people. This bias is even more present in literature reviews (like the study you cited) because when you start searching the journal databases the key words you use are going to bring up articles that support your position. At least scientists conducting origional experiments have to work with the numbers they get. In these cases however there can be confusion between correlation and causality. A researcher may see an apparent correlation and reach a conclusion without doing more research to determine which way the causality relationship (if there is one) works. Have you read Freakonomics? It does a good job of explaining this. Sometimes different conclusions from the same facts doesn't even mean that one is wrong. Some people might say "Look at how pretty the new snow is! It's so peaceful looking." and someone else would say "Look at all that crappy snow! I wish it would just melt!" Two different reactions to the same snow but who is right? Anyways...this is why I don't like writing. I don't know when to shut up!
Wow! That was a well-executed explanation, Matt. You and Jon make excellent points. Thank you.
Post a Comment