Report: Seafood faces collapse by 2048

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html

"asadi" wrote in message
t...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html


Connected in ways nobody likes to think about:
http://www.populationconnection.org/

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:26:08 GMT, "asadi"
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html


I saw that linked from one of CNN's main pages yesterday. While I agree
that the oceans and the contents therein need some form(s) of
protection, I have to question using the increase in consumption as
definitive data. A good bit of what I see being sold is from
aquiculture. And I do realize there are concerns about what effects it
has on the environment, but if aquiculture develops as agriculture has,
it would seem that things might not be as bleak as some might wish to
portray.

Fully realizing the potential for starting a, um, debate that the
following statement has, I'll make it anyway. I've never seen or heard
of a researcher saying, "Things could be better, but they could be a lot
worse, too. Since they're pretty much okay, no point in sending more
than a few bucks so we can just spend a little time each year monitoring
the situation for change(s)..." And I've never seen a news report or
article covering such an "okay" situation, either.

TC,
R

I definitely need stronger coffee today. I had to click on the link
because I couldn't figure out what the hell "seafood faces" were. g

Joe F.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:26:08 GMT, "asadi"
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html


I saw that linked from one of CNN's main pages yesterday. While I agree
that the oceans and the contents therein need some form(s) of
protection, I have to question using the increase in consumption as
definitive data. A good bit of what I see being sold is from
aquiculture. And I do realize there are concerns about what effects it
has on the environment, but if aquiculture develops as agriculture has,
it would seem that things might not be as bleak as some might wish to
portray.

Thus demonstrating that you are as clueless with regard to the worldwide
devastation wreaked by agriculture as you are about everything else.

Fully realizing the potential for starting a, um, debate that the
following statement has, I'll make it anyway. I've never seen or heard
of a researcher saying, "Things could be better, but they could be a lot
worse, too. Since they're pretty much okay, no point in sending more
than a few bucks so we can just spend a little time each year monitoring
the situation for change(s)..."

So?

And I've never seen a news report or
article covering such an "okay" situation, either.

And?

Wolfgang

"rb608" wrote in message
ups.com...
I definitely need stronger coffee today. I had to click on the link
because I couldn't figure out what the hell "seafood faces" were. g

Joe F.


LOL. Me too, what a riot. I read it about 6 times and finally clicked the
link to figure out what it meant. Then it dawned on me that I had read that
exact headline a few lines further up in my homepage, and knew exactly what
it meant.

--riverman
(Its 1:37AM and I'm sitting on roff explaining probability theory. What the
f**k is wrong with me??)

riverman wrote:
--riverman
(Its 1:37AM and I'm sitting on roff explaining probability theory. What the
f**k is wrong with me??)

What are the chances of that happening? :-)
- Ken