Global marine populations slashed by half since 1970: WWF

[Little Tich]

Source: Yahoo! News / AFP

Geneva (AFP) - Populations of marine mammals, birds, reptiles and fish have dropped by about half in the past four decades, with fish critical to human food suffering some of the greatest declines, WWF warned Wednesday.

In a new report, the conservation group cautioned that over-fishing, pollution and climate change had significantly shrunk the size of commercial fish stocks between 1970 and 2010.

WWF's Living Blue Planet Report indicated that species essential to the global food supply were among the hardest hit.

One family of fish, that includes tuna and mackerel, had for instance declined 74 percent during the 40-year period, it found.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/global-marine-populations-slashed-half-since-1970-wwf-003519398.html

[valerief]

1. Human population was around 4 billion in 1970. It's now over 7 billion.

Looks like as one species grows, others die off.

[msongs]

2. keeping cranking out those human babies and bye bye sea life nt

[Gregorian]

3. Until we address growth of the human species, all of our efforts will be for nothing.

If we double efficiency of the processes we use, and then double the population, we're back at zero. And doubling efficiency doesn't happen. And even that is only one area of consumption. Like the article, there is also deforestation and terrestrial loss of diversity. It's diversity which makes life on earth possible.

And we were already in trouble with the population in 1970.

We've been in an emergency situation, yet no one is even aware of it. My town was full of tourists this summer. From all o er the world, as though nothing was happening. I mention tourism because it's something we can cease, in an attempt to decrease our carbon footprint. Yet the mere mention of anything specific results in jeers. Well, something has to give.

[The2ndWheel]

10. The growth isn't even the primary issue today

Tomorrow, sure.

There are 7+ billion of us, but how many are hooked into the global economic system to the point at which we would define it as fair? Even just in the US, we want more people to have more, because so many don't have enough. So adding more people to the 7+ billion, which we're still doing, is something that doesn't even enter into the equation yet. The current issue is adding people that already exist to the developed world's lifestyle, because that's the only fair thing to do. That's the shorter term issue. The total population is the long term.

It's both population and consumption working together at the same time, which is why it's a damn near impossible situation to fix.

[Gregorian]

17. I used to say "Wait until China gets hot water".

You're absolutely right on. And we can't deny them the modern lifestyle.

So between living a modern lifestyle and growth, we're burning a candle at both ends.

I have also been known to say: who is going to stop taking warm showers first? Something has to give.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Link to the report:

http://ocean.panda.org/media/Living_Blue_Planet_Report_2015_Final_LR.pdf

[restorefreedom]

5. "essential to the global food supply."

not really. humans do not need to eat fish or any other animals. until we change our attitudes about the "necessity" of a meat based diet, land and sea animals, and the planet itself, will not be safe.

humans are literally eating themselves into planetary destruction.

edit: i agree with those who have said human population growth is adding to this problem tremendously. but the rise of meat based diets in growing countries (China) goes hand in hand with it.

[LiberalElite]

7. Agree -

Vegetarian 25+ years here.

[restorefreedom]

8. cool. 29 for me this month. nt

[The2ndWheel]

11. A diet of fruits and vegetables isn't going to be

any more sustainable for 7+ billion people either. We're still going to eat the planet, one way or the other.

Do you think all the resources that are required for a meat based diet would go unused if everyone were to switch? We would still find a way to use it. All those resources freed up? We'd have ourselves another orgy of some sort if that happened.

The main issue is that human beings have become very successful at life. There's no counter balance, except eventual death, and I have no doubt we would like to stop that. We've gotten better at postponing it. A group of lions will take down one zebra at a time. We herd all the cows. We won't just take what the tree has to offer at the moment, we'll plant the seeds on a massive farm and have year round access to anything we want.

[restorefreedom]

14. meat based diets are way more resource intensive

to produce than plant based. they also produce more pollution and greenhouse gases and contribute to the crisis of antibiotic resistant disease.

and fyi a veg diet is not just "fruits and vegetables." there are many good sources of protein and healthy fats.

and if your argument is that since the resources are going to be used up anyway so we might as will just waste them raising animals to kill for food, I don't think it's a very strong argument. Why don't we try to save the resources first and then see what good we could do with them. Or perhaps we could just conserve because the planet really needs that.

[The2ndWheel]

16. I said fruits and vegetables to keep it short

All I'm saying is however we choose to feed 7+ billion people isn't going to have us floating like a leaf in the wind. It's not as though agriculture hasn't been destructive.

and if your argument is that since the resources are going to be used up anyway so we might as will just waste them raising animals to kill for food, I don't think it's a very strong argument. Why don't we try to save the resources first and then see what good we could do with them. Or perhaps we could just conserve because the planet really needs that.

We're not going to conserve it. Not until everyone everywhere has everything they want and/or need.

That's the thing with our concept of freedom of choice. People want the meat. As long as they can get it cheap in the economic sense, relatively few people give a damn how it gets done, or what it costs outside of their pocket.

While civilization has given us the ability to care about the long term, we're still not built for it. We're still like any form of life, and it's about now. You can make plans for a big dinner at the end of the month. If you don't eat between the start and end of the month, you won't get to the big dinner.

We're not built to care about 20 years from now, let alone 100 years from now. We do what we need or want to do now, and deal with the consequences later. That's human history in a nutshell. And no matter what we do, there will be both an upside and a downside to it.

[restorefreedom]

18. i don't disagree with you.

but if we humans as a group cannot start playing the long game with regard to our planet home, we will perish.

and a high meat diet is a big part of that. i won't argue with you that people don't want their meat...they do..to the detriment of their own arteries, the animals, and the planet itself.

it is human nature to seek short term gratification....but it's hurting us all.

[GliderGuider]

6. We've done the same on land.

95% of all wild animal populations are gone, gone, gone. Replaced by cattle, pigs, chickens and your neighbor's kids.

[restorefreedom]

9. and duggers. nt

[ffr]

13. Lots and lots of them. Isn't she pregnant again? n/t

[restorefreedom]

15. oh balls, you're kidding, right? nt

[ffr]

12. Chicken of the sea

So bountiful. And what a great slogan to brainwash those who might question industrialized fishing. I stopped eating all fish years ago. I'm not going to vote for more the of the same with my dollars.