Seafood faces collapse by 2048: Science reports

[ulterior epicure]

This article ran in the Kansas City Star this week (November 3). I'm sure it was a wire report that was published in other newspapers. Did anyone else read about this claim that at current rates of decline in the population of fish, the sea will be empty by the year 2048?

Who comes up with this information?

u.e.

[jayt90]

It is so hard to get really good information. Fifteen years ago the cod fishery on the Grand Banks was wiped out by apparent overfishing, with much unemployment, and little sign of recovery; yet fresh and salted cod have been just as available all these years, and the price is comparable to other wild, white fleshed fish.

But the methods used (dragging, trawling, throwing away unwanted dead species) is surely cause for alarm, and the seas are wide open to unlawful pilferage and damage. All we can hope for is sensible and rational improvement.

[Adam Balic]

Of course, the claim that all fish and seafood species will collapse is ludicrous. If present trends lead to that result, present trends will not continue. For one thing, any fish that can be farmed will be relatively safe because as its numbers decrease in the wild the price of the farmed version will become relatively cheaper. For another thing, fisheries within the control of a nation can be and are regulated. For still another thing, international mechanisms are becoming somewhat more potent, with the high-end consumers (who support the markets for expensive fish -- they don't sell much bluefin tuna in Africa) boycotting and otherwise rejecting endangered species.

The available fish and their relative prices will surely change, as they always have, but we are neither going to run out of fish to eat nor run out of fish in the ocean. Dire predictions like this one, calculated to grab headlines, represent the kind of flawed science that demonstrated itself unworthy on hundreds of occasions in the 20th century and before.

←

Regarding the flawed science comment, I haven't had time to read the article that spawned the press interest, but as it has been published in "Science" journal (which is a very high ranking journal indeed) and represents an international collaboration, I should think that the science is fine. The chance that the most dire predictions come true is a seperate issue, science isn't about absolutes after all.

Regarding high end consumers being self regulatory, I don't think that this is true and the recent information on Southern Blue fin tuna stocks demonstrate this. Basically, there was/is such a demand for this fish in Japan that they have been very heavily havested. Only recently when it was demonstrated that the Japanese were consuming much more of this species then they have claimed to have landed was the issue addressed. Much of this species is landed in Australian territorial waters, with the Japanese gov. putting on political pressure for large landings. Maybe, this goes back to your original 'irrational' desire comments.

[russ parsons]

i think it's important to recognize the difference between aquaculturing oysters, mussels and clams--which are, after all, pretty much stationary for most of their adult lives--and fish, which require space for movement in order to develop muscle tone. This isn't to say that it can't be done, but that it will be much more expensive than the "aquarium"-style aquaculture that is most commonly practiced for those species today.

[Adam Balic]

And to some extent, many aquaculture species still require/are given input of fish derived proteins. This doesn't help wild stocks either.

[primowino]

And to some extent, many aquaculture species still require/are given input of fish derived proteins. This doesn't help wild stocks either.

←

Adam,

Glad to see you've settled in and back to your main pastime. I will continue to follow your culinary adventures till we meet again.

[Fat Guy]

as it has been published in "Science" journal (which is a very high ranking journal indeed) and represents an international collaboration, I should think that the science is fine.

←

And yet, you have Ray Hilborn, University of Washington professor of aquatic and fishery sciences (whose credentials are impressive), saying "It's just mind-boggling stupid." So, not all scientists seem to agree with your reasoning, which is, as I understand it, that if it's in Science then the science is good.

[russ parsons]

And yet, you have Ray Hilborn, University of Washington professor of aquatic and fishery sciences (whose credentials are impressive), saying "It's just mind-boggling stupid." So, not all scientists seem to agree with your reasoning, which is, as I understand it, that if it's in Science then the science is good.

←

hmmm, are you saying that if there isn't agreement on a statement, the statement is false? sounds a little like the anti-evolution crowd to me. for the most part, contrary to what seems to be the accepted opinion, much of science is not so much a set of facts that everyone agrees on, but a method for conducting an informed discussion ... sometimes argument. informed disagreement is encouraged. once you get past the fundamental level, i suspect there are few things you'll ever see all scientists agree on. therefore, i don't think scientific disagreement is a valid argument for falsity.

[DTBarton]

I am always extremely dubious of studies that make cataclismic, omnipotent claims that are obviously speculative, like all the fish will be gone by 2048 (not 2049, or 2047). Environmental systems are so huge and complex that anyone who claims to predict with certainty what will happen in the short term, not to mention over 40 or 50 years seems to me to be engaged in very arrogant chutzpah. I don't know the affiliation of the people who published this study but that's always interesting to find out. Sometimes dire predictions about one thing or another are funded by folks who profit from such predictions. Government funded researchers have little incentive to present positive news because then there would be no need for them to get continued funding. They typically reach conclusions that are somewhat to very negative and the course of action always includes more funding for further studies, natch.

There are many examples of bogus doomsday predictions. Many of the same people who are now thrashing about global warming were yelling about global cooling 30 years ago. Paul Erlich and his overpopulation alarmists told us in the mid 70s that half the world's population would starve by the mid 80s because we couldn't produce enough food. Here we are in the 21st century fretting about an obesity epidemic as the US population flies over 300 million. And the most recent, obvious alarmist nonsense about the 2006 hurricane season that was going to wash us all into the sea.

I think we can take heart in the reality which is that in these days of modern disisimination of information, issues like this are freely discussed and hashed out such that major calamity can't happen in a vacuum. Look at all the opinions being expressed on a foodie web site!

[russ parsons]

so you see it as a choice between "total collapse" and "everything's ok, proceed as usual"? seems kind of reductionist. i don't know of any responsible fisheries management people who would argue that we aren't facing serious problems that need to be addressed.

[jsmith]

While I do worry about declining stocks, whenever my oceanographer friend mentions the looming extinction of a species I can never resist the line “We better eat a whole bunch now before they’re all gone!”

Always goes over well.

[russ parsons]

While I do worry about declining stocks, whenever my oceanographer friend mentions the looming extinction of a species I can never resist the line “We better eat a whole bunch now before they’re all gone!”

Always goes over well.

←

you're joking, but that does seem to be the essence of several countries' national policy.

[Milagai]

While I do worry about declining stocks, whenever my oceanographer friend mentions the looming extinction of a species I can never resist the line “We better eat a whole bunch now before they’re all gone!”

Always goes over well.

←

you're joking, but that does seem to be the essence of several countries' national policy.

←

and a lot of people's personal policy too..

Milagai

[coquus]

I am always extremely dubious of studies that make cataclismic, omnipotent claims that are obviously speculative, like all the fish will be gone by 2048 (not 2049, or 2047).  Environmental systems are so huge and complex that anyone who claims to predict with certainty what will happen in the short term, not to mention over 40 or 50 years seems to me to be engaged in very arrogant chutzpah.  I don't know the affiliation of the people who published this study but that's always interesting to find out.  Sometimes dire predictions about one thing or another are funded by folks who profit from such predictions.  Government funded researchers have little incentive to present positive news because then there would be no need for them to get continued funding.  They typically reach conclusions that are somewhat to very negative and the course of action always includes more funding for further studies, natch.

←

The scientists are being speculative, they make it pretty clear they are projecting approximations of current trends. Of course they don't believe the precision of the predictions, or maybe they do, they are scientists after all. Let's get one thing straight however, they haven't lied to us.

[Fat Guy]

hmmm, are you saying that if there isn't agreement on a statement, the statement is false?

←

Do you really think that's what I said? I was responding to Adam. He said it's in Science magazine, therefore the science is good. I disagreed, and pointed out that at least one scientist thinks the science is not only not good but also "mind-boggling stupid." My point is that the fact that it's in Science magazine doesn't make it right.

[Adam Balic]

And yet, you have Ray Hilborn, University of Washington professor of aquatic and fishery sciences (whose credentials are impressive), saying "It's just mind-boggling stupid." So, not all scientists seem to agree with your reasoning, which is, as I understand it, that if it's in Science then the science is good.

←

hmmm, are you saying that if there isn't agreement on a statement, the statement is false? sounds a little like the anti-evolution crowd to me. for the most part, contrary to what seems to be the accepted opinion, much of science is not so much a set of facts that everyone agrees on, but a method for conducting an informed discussion ... sometimes argument. informed disagreement is encouraged. once you get past the fundamental level, i suspect there are few things you'll ever see all scientists agree on. therefore, i don't think scientific disagreement is a valid argument for falsity.

←

And also very similar to the tactics used by anti-climate change lobbists. Hopefully, this is due to a layman lack of understanding of the scientific process. Like Russ mentions, you will rarely see complete scientific concensus on a significant study. The fact that this study appeared in a significant journal, means that it was peer reviewed and considered valid enough by the editors to be published. This doesn't mean that it is going to be considered "correct" by all people in the field, now or in the future, and it may not be correct in reality. This doesn't mean that it isn't worthy of consideration and dicussion and I find the un-critical and off-hand dismissal of the article quite depressing actually.

Another issue is that there seems to be an "all or nothing" attitude here. I actually, find the idea of a loss of commercial fisheries anywhere between 0-100% in the next 50 years quite alarming. An improverished world where elite diners are the only people with ready access to high grade fish is not an attractive prospect to me.

And of course there has already been a reduction in global fish stocks. The has been a huge decline in large fish in the last twenty years and cod stocks are an obvious example. In the last month Scottish the scottish fishing industry has been advised to implace a total ban on cod fisheries or face imminent collapse. Irrespective of what actually happens it highlights a current critical issue, not just something that other people will have to concern themselves with in 50 years.

Edited November 12, 2006 by Adam Balic (log)

[Adam Balic]

hmmm, are you saying that if there isn't agreement on a statement, the statement is false?

←

Do you really think that's what I said? I was responding to Adam. He said it's in Science magazine, therefore the science is good. I disagreed, and pointed out that at least one scientist thinks the science is not only not good but also "mind-boggling stupid." My point is that the fact that it's in Science magazine doesn't make it right.

←

No, I didn't say that. I simply highlighted that a uncritical dismissal of the article, with no counter evidence was flawed thinking and showed a lack of understanding of the nature of scientific debate. A hundred scientific opinions against this article doesn't mean that it isn't worthy of consideration and in part I imagine that this is what editors of the journal intended.

Edited November 11, 2006 by Adam Balic (log)

[ghostrider]

I get the feeling that some folks aren't reading even the summaries of the Science article all the way through, let alone the piece itself.

I've already noted, on page 1 of this thread, that the piece is more nuanced than the dire-doom headlines would indicate. The Seattle Times article linked above also points this out, saying the following about the study & its lead author:

Worm also is optimistic that the trend could be turned around with more marine conservation zones and other efforts....

Worm cited the North Pacific fisheries off Alaska as a success story, where harvest managers have avoided many of the mistakes made in other areas of the world.

...Worm said that if Alaska management stays on course, the North Pacific could buck the global trend and continue to yield harvests past the midcentury.

The study & at least some of the reporting on it seem clear on the point that no unequivocally dire forecast is being made, despite the headlines. To say that it is & then attack the unreliability of long-term forecasts is to engage in a straw-man argument.

Let's skip the headlines and look at the actuality. Forecasts aside, it seems indisputable that 2200 commercially fished species had collapsed in the 53-year period ending in 2003. Why do people think that the collapse won't continue if we do nothing? How can we ensure that the rest of the world's fisheries will be managed as well as the No Pac fisheries off Alaska?

[ghostrider]

There's a piece in the Seattle Times on this study. Two things about the coverage were interesting to me. First, there's this response from a skeptic:

But other scientists question that forecast.

"It's just mind-boggling stupid," said Ray Hilborn, a University of Washington professor of aquatic and fishery sciences.

"I'm worried about some areas of the world — like Africa — but other areas of the world have figured out how to do effective fishery management."

For example, most of the harvests in the North Pacific off Alaska — where most Seattle fleets fish — are not in sharp decline.

(About Ray Hilborn)

←

When you dig a little deeper into Ray Hilborn's background, you find that he spent two years on the Scientific Advisory Board for Presidents (sic) Commission on Ocean Policy. Considering what some see as the anti-scientific bent of this administration, that begins to make me skeptical of his skepticism.

Then you find that he's published papers like this one, which seems to be as unapoligetically ideological as it is scientific.

None of this automatically means that his criticism of Worm isn't valid, but it does suggest to me that his commentary may not be completely disinterested. The terms he uses also suggest that he's as interested in publicity as Dr. Worm.

[Tae.Lee]

mmm.. soylent green...

[laniloa]

When you dig a little deeper into Ray Hilborn's background, you find that he spent two years on the Scientific Advisory Board for Presidents (sic) Commission on Ocean Policy.  Considering what some see as the anti-scientific bent of this administration, that begins to make me skeptical of his skepticism.

I just wanted to point out that both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Scientific Advisory Panel were non-partisan. The Commissioners were nominated by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Great care was taken to include a range of experts from across the country as you can see from their biographies. The Scientific Advisory Panel was selected by the Commissioners based on input by the National Academies of Science and without any involvement by the administration.

The Chair of the Commission has joined with the Chair of the Pew Ocean Commission to jointly push for ocean governance reform. The work of the two will likely shape ocean policy for the next decade or more regardless of who is in power.