Actually, I think there are considerably more efficient solutions out there.
Given that much of the developed-world fish demand is not in the form of fresh fish, or even recognisable species, but rather in processed foods (canned tuna, dried protein pet foods, pre-breaded/pre-fried 'fish fingers,' 'artificial crab meat' from extruded reconstituted pollock) - perhaps there could be a way to bypass creating a viable engineered species and all the related support infrastructure and risk that entails.
I was quite excited by an article I read a little while back on NASA work to develop fast-growing protein clusters, developed from amphibian and fish materials. Feed the cells, they grow into the desired edible tissue ... but none of the rest of the living organism.
Seems a much more efficient solution ... assuming it can be scaled up to the sort of global demand we're witnessing ... fast enough.
As for the 'tragedy of the commons' that we're witnessing in the oceans. If we cannot develop and enforce strong use rules on those commons, then perhaps we have to get really serious about pricing those commons - and not just the 'harvesting' overhead as you suggested earlier.
Place a 'wildlife' premium tax on all fished materials.
The genetic engineering 'may' be a solution, but these things take time to develop and become commercially viable. So, until the technology is proven and widely available (remember GM technology is widely mistrusted) marine farms are by far the (second) best solution.
The alternative is to abandon the free market and go for some good old socialist central Planning. The problem, quotas are always subject negotiation by politicians representing fishing constituents and they are not really credible outside national or trading bloc entities. Even the EU cannot bring quotas down low enough to make EU catches sustainable, and the fishing industry complains loudly each time they are cut back, never quite able to take the long term view it needs to survive.
1. Well, like it or hate it, but genetically-modified salmon are already been aquacultured, and some are escaping, and already we have Atlantic salmon outbreaks in the Pacific. Since whatever we do will be 'behind the curve,' better oversight and documentation will be needed at a minimum.
2. There are already some interesting hybrid market/planning solutions. Off the coast of Alaska, for example, there are strict rules about size of boats, type of technique, and numbers of licenses permitted to commercially fish in given areas. The permits are issued by the state's Fish & Wildlife authority, and are informed by wildlife biologists who monitor the population. That is a rational system solution.
In an alternative, said licenses would be freely marketed to buyers so long as fishing rules are strictly observed - I can't remember if that is the case with my Alaska example.
Beyond that, there is the natural shortcoming of territorial waters & policies governing these migratory species.
----
Still, I wonder if fishing rights will again lead to shooting wars.
Remember when Spanish warships started escorting their trawlers to just outside Canadian territorial waters, after the Canadians threatened to stop any vessel that tried to do so? Yes, I think resource scraps are a definite for the future, even over fishing. Or have I just played too much Civ 3?
The Alaska ideas will work if quotas are set that allow fish stocks to grow, or stay constant - the problem is that in internatinal waters individual nations have no jurisdiction and we are back to the tragedy of the commons issue again, as factory trawlers sit outside territorial waters and clean up.
Nah CivIII is just starting to reach the modelling sophistication needed to consider these resource issues and their solutions. I do wonder about greater political functionality though. :-)
As for extra-territorial migrating fish - yes, I take your point - which is why the challenge then becomes global fishing rules with global enforcement.
In the face of global challenges like this, it saddens me to see such a lack of leadership or real discussion on this. We've had 30 bloody years already! Nearly 10 since the last agreement on the Law of the Sea.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Not so cut and dry as that, unfortunately
Given that much of the developed-world fish demand is not in the form of fresh fish, or even recognisable species, but rather in processed foods (canned tuna, dried protein pet foods, pre-breaded/pre-fried 'fish fingers,' 'artificial crab meat' from extruded reconstituted pollock) - perhaps there could be a way to bypass creating a viable engineered species and all the related support infrastructure and risk that entails.
I was quite excited by an article I read a little while back on NASA work to develop fast-growing protein clusters, developed from amphibian and fish materials. Feed the cells, they grow into the desired edible tissue ... but none of the rest of the living organism.
Seems a much more efficient solution ... assuming it can be scaled up to the sort of global demand we're witnessing ... fast enough.
As for the 'tragedy of the commons' that we're witnessing in the oceans. If we cannot develop and enforce strong use rules on those commons, then perhaps we have to get really serious about pricing those commons - and not just the 'harvesting' overhead as you suggested earlier.
Place a 'wildlife' premium tax on all fished materials.
Re: Not so cut and dry as that, unfortunately
Date: 2003-10-03 10:49 am (UTC)The alternative is to abandon the free market and go for some good old socialist central Planning. The problem, quotas are always subject negotiation by politicians representing fishing constituents and they are not really credible outside national or trading bloc entities. Even the EU cannot bring quotas down low enough to make EU catches sustainable, and the fishing industry complains loudly each time they are cut back, never quite able to take the long term view it needs to survive.
Re: Not so cut and dry as that, unfortunately
2. There are already some interesting hybrid market/planning solutions. Off the coast of Alaska, for example, there are strict rules about size of boats, type of technique, and numbers of licenses permitted to commercially fish in given areas. The permits are issued by the state's Fish & Wildlife authority, and are informed by wildlife biologists who monitor the population. That is a rational system solution.
In an alternative, said licenses would be freely marketed to buyers so long as fishing rules are strictly observed - I can't remember if that is the case with my Alaska example.
Beyond that, there is the natural shortcoming of territorial waters & policies governing these migratory species.
----
Still, I wonder if fishing rights will again lead to shooting wars.
Re: Not so cut and dry as that, unfortunately
Date: 2003-10-03 11:06 am (UTC)The Alaska ideas will work if quotas are set that allow fish stocks to grow, or stay constant - the problem is that in internatinal waters individual nations have no jurisdiction and we are back to the tragedy of the commons issue again, as factory trawlers sit outside territorial waters and clean up.
Re: Not so cut and dry as that, unfortunately
As for extra-territorial migrating fish - yes, I take your point - which is why the challenge then becomes global fishing rules with global enforcement.
In the face of global challenges like this, it saddens me to see such a lack of leadership or real discussion on this. We've had 30 bloody years already! Nearly 10 since the last agreement on the Law of the Sea.