The decline of the fisheries--much more immediate than global warming

WEEK IN REVIEW: "On the Farm: A Seafood Snob Ponders the Future of Fish," by Mark Bittman, New York Times, 16 November 2008.

Cool but disturbing chart on jump page shows "underexploited" fish at 80+-percent of world's fishers in 1950 and at 0% now. "Fully exploited" was the rest in 1950 and it's about 30% now (limit of sustainability). "Overexploited" starts as sliver in 1950 and grows to 39% now. "Crashed" starts more in 1960s and is just under one-third today.

So if 1950 was 80+ percent underexploited and rest fully exploited, today it's one-third crashed, move than one-third overexploited and just under one-third maxed out.

As for farming? It is very resource intensive and hard on the environment.

Little wonder that when we played "Survivor" in the NewRuleSets.Project work with Cantor Fitzgerald back in 2001, this was #2 most important issue after clean water.

Global warming came in dead last, by contrast.

Comments

[Al Alborn]

The most important book that I have read in 2008 is Bringing Nature Home by Douglas W. Tallamy.

http://www.amazon.com/Bringing-Nature-Home-Sustain-Wildlife/dp/0881928542/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229820995&sr=8-1

I am both a Master Gardener and a Master Naturalist. I have principally focused on water quality and wetlands over the past couple of years; however, several friends have started discussions regarding "native plants." I listened; however, didn't really understand their message until I finally read the book they all recommended - Bringing Nature Home.

The elevator speech: Our environment is the product of millions of years of evolution. All living things evolved in the context of other living things around them and depend upon a very specific, narrow band of food sources. The lowest level of the living food chain, insects, evolved to depend on specific very narrow plant species ("native plants") as a food source. Other living things up the chain depend upon insects to convert the energy created by plants through photosynthesis into food for the rest of the food chain (including us). Take away the native plant species and the insects lose their food source. Take away the insects and the food chain collapses. Damage the food chain and the system collapses. Our love of well manicured lawns and open spaces are taking away the native species. Eventually, the system will collapse... and we will be no more.

Simply put, once you read this book I belive you will probably incorporate it into Grand Strategy thinking and your next book (the one we are expecting after "Great Powers". If we don't protect the food chain, Grand Strategy really doesn't matter.

In any case, it will probably be a pleasant and interesting diversion from your normal reading list.

[Phil Pohl]

Cold War Warrior - Great recommendation. One fallicy I find in most biological based projections such as Tallamy's is that technology will not change. The evolution we've witnessed is only projectable if the old rules govern. Man's ability to engineer is far beyond that of any previous species. His ability to reason, I believe, is also a unique trait that will allow fish farming to be more acceptable to the pallet and the planet (see www.americulture.com ). Controlled Environment Agriculture requires up front investment, but, with proper design, can produce food 365 days a year with little or no energy consumption. I'm a Cold War Warrior as well and love Master Gardeners and native plants, and agree food security is a big part of global stability, but don't forget Man's adaptability.

[Al Alborn]

Thanks for the reponse, Phil. I think that dialogs within the blog are not permitted; however, I'll take a shot (since your direct response was allowed).

I believe our ability to reason is vastly over-estimated. If we were really "that smart", wars would have ended some time ago (and Tom would probably be doing something other than thinking "Grand Strategies"). We tend to think macro, the problem is micro.

My point isn't food security (although that certainly is an issue), it food chain viability (and we are at the "top" thus the most vulnerable). I hope you're right; however, I don't think so.