Displacing fish meal is a major priority and motivation for this startup.
Comments welcome:
That wasn't real text. Just holding some space here. Real text is going to be awesome.
We wouldn't need such dramatic changes to combat global warming if the population didn't continually exponentially expand.
Consider it a metanym of for the technology that best meets the needs a given local community, using the resources which are available in that environment, while doing the least harm to the environment which is possible given the constraints. I'm not an absolutist, and my goal is to argue against a false dichotomy rather than to advocate for any particular technology.
Sustainability necessarily means taking into account the resources available in a given local environment, so the question of whether a given technology is useful or sustainable only has meaning if we flesh out that context.
Just as I reject that our only options are to either screw over fishing communities or do nothing, I reject that our only alternatives are violence or doing nothing. I don't believe there is a single solution which can be applied in all situations that would resolve this, it would need to be worked out on a case by case basis and in cooperation with those communities. But just because it is complex and difficult does not mean it doesn't exist, and the alternative is an ecological collapse which we are unlikely to survive.
The problem is that all and I mean all of these idealogical driven agendas require tyranny because I for one do not agree with your world view.
For that reason, it doesn't seem there's a productive way for me to engage with you.
I'm surprised that there's any contention at all around the science that shows ocean degradation (historical and on-going), or indeed about the (likely) impending collapse.
In 2014, the living planet report[0] included this dire little snippet:
"Population sizes of vertebrate species—mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish—have declined by 52 percent over the last 40 years."
Fishery exhaustion around the globe is tremendously well documented, with only a tiny handful of isolated success stories where strict regulation has been able to be enforced, and localised recovery has started to occur (New Zealand, f.e.).
I'm wondering how you claim hyperbole in the people studying and reporting these things.
[0] http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/723/files/origi...
You seem unfamiliar with the mathematics of game theory or multi-agent coordination problems. The only way to avoid these traps (overfishing is literally a textbook example) is to grant regulatory authority to some overarching entity, like a government. That's not the same as tyranny.
I am tired of being robbed blind of my free will and wealth by these huge central planning bureaucracies. None of us are smart enough to have that much control.
There's always someone who disagrees with someone else's world view, that doesn't make it tyranny.
"but"? That's a non-sequitur. If we run out of fish there's no fish to eat.
Ocean fishing requires very little energy input, but provides huge amounts of ready to eat food output. You can't replace that in many parts of the world. Not every place has good farm land for one, or the technological infrastructure, or even political stability.
Give you and example. Egypt went from a population of 8 million to 80 million in the last century. Do you think they can grow all that food in the desert? or do they rely on fishing and on global imports of food items...like grain from Ukraine. How will the poor do when you take out one of their sources of food. While simultaneously the price of energy is sky rocketing and global trade is under threat do to conflict and as countries begin to hoard fertilizer and food for their own populations, in anticipation of the the coming winter.
So all of those studies pointing out that most ocean fishing only happens because of subsidized fuel are wrong?
When someone can't even acknowledge reality there's really no point in engaging.