A Global Fish War is Coming, Warns US Coast Guard (usni.org) 192
schwit1 shares an article from the U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine. It includes this warning from the Coast Guard's chief of fisheries law enforcement:
Nearly two decades into the 21st Century, it has become clear the world has limited resources and the last area of expansion is the oceans. Battles over politics and ideologies may be supplanted by fights over resources as nations struggle for economic and food security. These new conflicts already have begun -- over fish... In 1996, Canada and Spain almost went to war over the Greenland turbot. Canada seized Spanish vessels it felt were fishing illegally, but Spain did not have the same interpretation of the law and sent gunboats to escort its ships. In 1999, a U.S. Coast Guard cutter intercepted a Russian trawler fishing in the U.S. exclusive economic zone. The lone cutter was promptly surrounded by 19 Russian trawlers. Fortunately, the Russian Border Guard and the Coast Guard drew on an existing relationship and were able to defuse the situation...
Japan protested 230 fishing vessels escorted by seven China Coast Guard ships entering the waters of the disputed Senkaku Islands. Incidents in the South China Sea between the Indonesian Navy and Chinese fishing vessels and China Coast Guard have escalated to arrests, ramming, and warning shots leading experts to suggest only navies and use of force can stop the IUU fishing... The United States needs to show it is serious about protecting sustainable fisheries and international rule of law. It needs a fleet that not only will provide a multilateral cooperation platform, but also take action against vessels and fleets that are unwilling to cooperate... If cooperation cannot be achieved, the United States should prepare for a global fish war.
When I read "fish war," I was imagining it more like this.
Japan protested 230 fishing vessels escorted by seven China Coast Guard ships entering the waters of the disputed Senkaku Islands. Incidents in the South China Sea between the Indonesian Navy and Chinese fishing vessels and China Coast Guard have escalated to arrests, ramming, and warning shots leading experts to suggest only navies and use of force can stop the IUU fishing... The United States needs to show it is serious about protecting sustainable fisheries and international rule of law. It needs a fleet that not only will provide a multilateral cooperation platform, but also take action against vessels and fleets that are unwilling to cooperate... If cooperation cannot be achieved, the United States should prepare for a global fish war.
When I read "fish war," I was imagining it more like this.
Protecting its own interests (Score:2, Insightful)
"The United States needs to show it is serious about protecting sustainable fisheries and international rule of law." Right. Change that to protecting its own interests, and international rule of law where it benefits self. As history has shown time and again.
So, please, don't try to play just and rightful, it has not worked for America for many decades.
Re: (Score:2)
"The United States needs to show it is serious about protecting sustainable fisheries and international rule of law." Right. Change that to protecting its own interests, and international rule of law where it benefits self. As history has shown time and again.
So, please, don't try to play just and rightful, it has not worked for America for many decades.
Of course we are. Canadians do the same as do the Japanese. It's the job of our governments to do what is right for the citizens with the exception of tech workers of course :-)
But, governments like Canada and the US do so for good reason. Not to help pump up the shareprices of Sunkist Tuna, but also to prevent a disaster like the Canadian Cod Industry [wikipedia.org] from poachers. 17 years later they still are not back! Other predators came in that eat younger Cod. It will never come back probably as a result.
It is bad w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Solution: Don't eat fish. Don't eat meat, while we are at it - don't eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Protecting its own interests (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that you can beat the differential equations describing large population dynamics with trying to convince individuals is preposterous to begin with.
No, but conservation efforts do work. Deer and Turkey in the USA are a perfect example. At one point they were practically extinct but regulating seasons has helped them come back in record numbers. On the extreme side, outlawing fish consumption in the USA would certainly reduce the global fish demand. Much more moderate options like outlawing wild caught fish, certain species, certain species from certain countries, etc... would also likely work to some extent.
But I agree that trusting consumers to always do the right thing is likely not going to work. Although everyone thinks they want to save the environment, it's much harder for an individual to pay $10/pound for sustainable fish each week when they can get unsustainable fish for $5/pound.
Re:Protecting its own interests (Score:5, Insightful)
The free market may create a self-rectifying problem. The more expensive it becomes to fish (because there are less fish) the quicker people will develop sustainable fish repositories to raise fish.
This does work to a certain extent. When commercial fishing becomes unprofitable or more expensive than farmed fishing then it will stop. The problem with this approach is that it requires a depletion of fish to a level where they may go extinct. It's not enough to stop when there are no more fish. You need to stop *BEFORE* there are no more fish unless you really think that having an ocean devoid of fish is a good thing. Passenger pigeons were once so plentiful that they darkened the sky. Humans didn't kill every last one of them but they killed enough that the numbers couldn't recover. Another example would be corn. A single stalk of corn can't survive on its own. It needs enough other corn stalks around so that it overpowers its predators. Every species has a minimal viable number that is required for the species to survive. If you cross below that level, even if you stop killing them, they will still die out.
Re:Protecting its own interests (Score:4, Informative)
The free market may create a self-rectifying problem. The more expensive it becomes to fish (because there are less fish) the quicker people will develop sustainable fish repositories to raise fish.
This does work to a certain extent.
One of the reasons why market self-regulation doesn't work in real life, at least when it comes to fisheries, is that as each species is fished out, they just move to a new one with little regard for the consequences. They are now heavily exploiting krill: the main prey of baleen whales like the blue whale, who are too specialised to exploit something else - the consequence may well be that they go extinct despite all the regulations and efforts the world community has put in to save them. Or take another consequence that most people are likely to feel the consequences of, if ever they venture to the beach or out to sea: we have depleted the stocks of species that prey on the larvae of jelly fish, which is why we now get reports of fishermen catching enormous loads of them. Fancy taking a dip in that?
As far as I can see, the market won't regulate itself - as long as at least some of the players are too stupid or selfish to actually hold back from making a short term profit, self-regulation isn't going to happen. We need global regulations strictly enforced by all major nations in cooperation. We do in fact have sufficient technology - such as supervising fishing vessels from satelites: they follow easily recognisable patterns when they are fishing, so it is relatively simple to follow them around until they reach harbour.
Re: (Score:2)
The free market does solve this. The best known solution to the tragedy of an open-access commons is to create property rights, then get out of the way and allow the free market to work.
As that's a solution which has already been successfully implemented several times [perc.org] to solve this exact fishing problem with trade-able Individual Vessal Quotas (IVQ). It's also been used to solve similar wildlife/game animals issues [cei.org] by selling the animals to private owners.
Notice that nobody thinks we're going to run out of
Re: (Score:2)
And here is where the free market destroys everyone where farmers all together destroy their grass and cattle together [wikipedia.org] in the tragedy of the commons?
This example set in medieval Europe happened frequently. Farmers over fed their cows and when grass became scarce instead of conserving in a panic all agaisn't their self interests quickly outdid each other trying to eat as much grass as they can and worry to screw the other guy.
We have Canadian Cod disaster [wikipedia.org] after 17 years it still has and probably never will r
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, it's like you didn't actually read my comment, nor the cited links, wherein the specific solution to the tragedy of the commons was revealed to be private property rights in the commons so that someone had a vested interest in protecting their own part of it rather than just over using the "common" resource.
i.e. you can't have a tragedy of the commons without having a commons....
And I'm not "assuming" anything, the theory is sound because when it's been used it has actually worked, unlike your apparent
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read the links, did you? The ones which talked about the International arrangements creating the private property rights...
Re: (Score:2)
I do not want Mexican poachers in the Gulf of Mexico depleting stock for American fisherman. The government is not the bad guy but rather protecting the property of the fisherman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The idea that you can beat the differential equations describing large population dynamics with trying to convince individuals is preposterous to begin with.
Since the equations playing out most likely leads to overshoot and collapse of human population through pestilence, war, and famine, to far lower than it is now, in a polluted world, possibly unable to sustain modern society, and that many populations have sustained populations in equilibrium, it seems worth trying to replicate their success.
Re:Protecting its own interests (Score:5, Insightful)
Solution: Don't eat fish.
There are plenty of fish species that are harvested responsibly. Learn which they are. As a general rule, eating small fish is better than eating big fish.
Good choices:
Catfish
Tilapia
Wild Pacific salmon
Pacific cod
Trout
Bad choices:
Atlantic cod
Bluefin Tuna
Rockfish
Atlantic halibut
Swordfish
Shark
Many of the big bad fish also have a lot of mercury, and should be avoided even if you don't care about overfishing.
Seafood Watch Consumer Guide [seafoodwatch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We're being told the Western demographic is undergoing a population decline, so apparently we figured this out already. What's the response from the Left? Open borders so groups of people who HAVEN'T figured this out yet can come flooding in and reintroduce the problem.
You guys are absolute bastions of hypocrisy and ignorance.
Until our economic system is changed, we don't have a choice. It has nothing to do with left and right, you dummy.
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides seem intent on doing this, though each side will say it's for a different reason. Each side also proposes a different sort of 'open border', i.e. who it is open to.
Re:Protecting its own interests (Score:5, Informative)
No, it isn't. It is sensationalist headline bullshit.
The article -- which is very good -- is referring to enforcing international agreements about fishing in U.S. exclusive economic zones (EEZ). According to the various international agreements on the seas, fishing, etc. -- it is up to the boundary nation to take care of these things.
It points out the China not only frequently fishes near U.S. borders (among other locations), they haven't ratified key U.N. agreements on international fishing. They are also aggressively using their military to protect illegal fishing in other nation's territorial waters (Indonesia & the Philippines comes to mind). Let's not forget manufacturing artificial islands so they can use them as a basis for territorial claims. (South China Sea)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything old is new again (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, the exclusivity of our times — surely, nothing like this has ever happened before. Except around Newfoundland [marianopolis.edu]:
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, do you mean that we are NOT all that special in the history of humanity, and we are merely acting in ways very similar to those societies that came before us, showing only a tiny bit of evolution despite our extremely technological advancement?
I call hate crime on that! I am a special snowflake, mommy said so, so I can't be driven by the same weaknesses or strengths as other people. Our times are unique and we have never had to fight such evil (like hearing opinions we don't like or fight
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Look up "demographic transition" in the social science sense, then get back to me.
The situation you describe is no different from many others, and other species - population expands to the limit of the resources as a rule. The human race is the first to lift a significant fraction of the population of the species above survival level, first, a tiny fraction as the result of the agricultural revolution, and now a significant fraction as the result of the industrial revolution.
Living on
Re:Everything old is new again (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people pull something out of the past and just say, "See it happened before so we have nothing to worry about."
Things are different now. The World's fisheries are teetering on the brink of collapse. As one species gets fished out, another one is fished. There are fish in my super market's case that I've never seen before.
And the prices of what is still being fished is obscene. $30/lb for wild caught CoHo Salmon.
And farmed fish - they feed farmed salmon with wild caught fish. There is no such thing as sustainable fish farming in reality - just in the industry's PR.
And with government subsidies around the industrialized World for fisherman to haul more in, it's just accelerating the problem.
Also, show us where in the past there was over 7.2 BILLION people on Earth? And you're gonna point and say this happened before?
It's not Doom and Gloom yet, but we're getting there real fast. And people get hungry and thirsty, they go where the food is and fight for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Farmed carp should work fine. Has been for milennia, making it domesticated. And these buggers eat all konds of crap so they can be fed like chickens.
Re: (Score:2)
Marinating carp in vinegar dissolves the bones. Even without vinegar, there is no need to grind the meat, it is enough to cut it in a certain way [landeinkauf.com].
And as for very few people eating it, carp is a very common Christmas meal for the Czech.
Re: (Score:2)
...And people get hungry and thirsty, they go where the food is and fight for it.
Sounds like a wall on our Southern border isn't such a bad idea
Re:Everything old is new again (Score:4)
What we are seeing is real, unprecedented and will cause many human catastrophes.
Re: (Score:2)
And Iceland [wikipedia.org].
Hey, it's Iceland. Cue Rei to come in complaining (quite rightly) about not being able to type the thorn in "ÃzorskastrÃÃin".
Tragedy of the Commons (Score:5, Informative)
This is a literal example of the case example known in economics as "tragedy of the commons."
Re:Tragedy of the Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, and there are two ways I see to fix this.
The first possible solution requires a government entity to enforce limits on individuals. This enforcement must mean punishment harsh enough that people cannot simply pay a fine and still come out ahead.
A second possible solution is to divide up the commons into places that an individual has near complete control. That way if they overuse then they are just putting themselves out of business.
My dad would rent out land to neighboring farmers but never for less than three years. The reason he said was because if they rented for just a year or two then they'd tend to not care for the property. They'd plant a crop, and not bother with weed control or fertilizer. If they had "ownership" of the land for three years then they'd have to take care of it the first year if they expected a crop that third year.
Giving people ownership, of anything really, doesn't seem popular though. It seems people would rather live in the mess that a commons inevitably becomes than see some individual actually own something.
Re:Tragedy of the Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving people ownership, of anything really, doesn't seem popular though. It seems people would rather live in the mess that a commons inevitably becomes than see some individual actually own something.
The problem is that the economic systems tend towards runaway effects. Whether they're climatological, or just money helping already-wealthy people get more of the money, it almost doesn't matter. The fact is that ownership begets ownership. In and of itself, it is not enough. There's always someone who can afford to accrue property with the intention of crapping it up.
I don't know what the answer is, but I know that more people have to become more involved. I don't think that letting a few people ultimately own everything is going to foster that.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at commune farms versus private farms. In the Soviet era the farmers would have the government fields but were allowed small plots for themselves.
That sounds exactly like feudalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When large corporate-owned farm plots do not raise any food, the corporation sells off the land.
Corporation buys field. Corporation farms field continuously, without even letting it lie fallow, let alone with crop rotation. Soil is depleted and incapable of producing food. Corporation sells field to... a housing development, because its time in food production is over.
The USA consumed record quantities of ethanol fuel [biofuelsdigest.com] last year, and over 90% of fuel ethanol is produced from corn. Virtually 100% of corn ethanol feedstock is grown continuously. Once used for this purpose, the land will not support crops
Re: (Score:3)
AS for your claim that there is nothing corporations do that co-ops couldn't accomplish is true...except that history shows that co-ops rarely do so.
More importantly, I was responding to someone who asked the difference between large government-owned plots and large corporate-owned plots. The fact of the matter is that history teaches us that government-owned farming leads to starvation and depletion of the land (the same resul
Re: (Score:3)
My point was that if you're going to try to use ownership to solve the problem, that you're going to have to solve the problem of ownership tending to concentrate in the hands of a few who don't actually give a damn about the land. Remember, farmers created the dust bowl, and it was government organizations that educated them on such subjects as crop rotation. It's actually government intervention that made America an agricultural powerhouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tragedy of the Commons (Score:4)
The enclosure worked out really well for a few wealthy people. Not so much for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly do you plan on parceling out the ocean for ownership? And what about the movement of fish?
Also, even if individuals do own parcels of the ocean, they still need some sort of navy to protect their parcels. It's not possible for people to manage small portions of the ocean. So, they will sell their parcels to a big corp. And now, you have big corps that own the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you "own" a few square miles of sea, can you prohibit your neighbour from pumping the fish out of your part of the sea?
obhvious to anyone (Score:1)
Anyone with half a brain, has seen this coming. Fish stock declining, half assed attempts at increasing them. Growing world population.
The west subsidizing poor countries to have more kids.
Halibut in my neck of the woods (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of what I've gone through with bison. Two years ago I was buying it for $5/lb.. Two months later my grocery store stopped selling it because they said the price got too high. A few months later they got it back in...at $10/lb.
The reason: The meat manager said it was being bought up by all of the restaurants. So it was entirely due to supply and demand.
This was about two years ago. And the price is still $10/lb. with no end in sight. Just like your fish, does this mean no one thought of incre
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of what I've gone through with bison. Two years ago I was buying it for $5/lb.
Bison is typically 2 to 3 times the price of beef. I have a friend who tried to raise them in Wyoming. He installed powerful electric fences, and still had problems with them breaking through. Cattle can be artificially inseminated, but bison cannot, so he kept a few bulls, which are big and mean. Loading a herd of yearling bison into a truck to go to the slaughterhouse can be ... challenging, and not so good for the truck.
There are some advantages. They can graze on crappy pasture contaminated with lo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Notaproblem. (Score:1)
In the next century or so, when temperatures continue to react to carbon levels in the atmosphere, and ocean temperatures continue to shift, the oceans may release enormous amounts of trapped methane, leading to mass extinctions.
It's happened a few times in Earth's history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If we don't cut back on the fossil fuels, we might want to focus our technology on developing enclosed fungus/mushroom growing techniques. Because about the only way we large mammals survive such a scenar
Re:Notaproblem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Similar to border conflicts (Score:2)
Small, sometimes violent confrontations along borders are common when relations between the neighbouring countries are tense, but are not the cause of bad relations.
Fish Wars (Score:3)
My money is on the sharks. I don't think there's any question they're going to win the fish wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Hollywood is any indicator, they may have their time but in the end it doesn't look too good for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Fish war documentary (Score:1)
We can't allow this! (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. President, we must not allow a fish gap!
Like the trade war? (Score:1)
Every day we hear this or that policy could start a trade war. But the last "trade war" was like 40+ years ago. They've predicted hundreds of trade wars since then and none have occurred.
Why should we listen to people telling stories about what they imagine the future might be like? Stop crying wolf all day every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So "trade war" means "any disagreement at all about trade policies" then? Or even potential disagreements that might become disagreements because the sides haven't addressed them at all yet?
It's still crying wolf if you conveniently decide to call every plant and animal and insect "wolf".
Good time for a proxy war (Score:3, Funny)
The US could give a fire and forget torpedo to every one person fishing rowboat in Malaysia and similar places. Something they can just point towards any Chinese trawler and dump overboard. That'll win via attrition and help solve China's habit of randomly scrawling lines all over the map and saying it's theirs.
Something fishy going on (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Backwards barbarian countries don't GAF, and are just out to smash and grab as much as they can. There will be no sea life, the oceans will die, we will die, but they won't care, because a few well-connected mafia types got to make a bit of easy money.
Long live American and Western hegemony. Because it may be the last line of defence between us, and oblivion triggered by greedy, selfish barbarians.
I know that it's trendy to blame the west but the most irresponsible fishing is coming from Asia.
I was thinking more like this (Score:3)
Did someone say fish fighting? (Score:2)
Classic Asterix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
fish war?? (Score:2)
call that a fish war?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] now that's what i call a fish war...
Or a more limited war, along these lines (Score:2)
Once we faced the same problem on land (Score:2)
Hunting and gathering works as a lifestyle only for small nomadic bands that are used to constantly subsisting at the edge of starvation. We escaped the trap by inventing agriculture, it only assuring our long term survival but allowing us to build large permanent settlements, with all the civilizing potential they carry.
Now it's time for us to stop hunting and gathering at sea. Fish farming has already outgrown its startup problems. It's time to support the idea in a major way.
America needs to stop buying from Chinese boats (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way to stop this is to prohibit their selling in America, or importing from Canada/Mexico if China sells there. Then no more licenses for CHinese boats to be in American economic zone.
As it is, they are fishing our waters and destroying these faster than their own.
Re:America needs to stop buying from Chinese boats (Score:4)
Seriously, what is going on, is that Chinese boats come across the pacific filling up, and then sells in America. This is what allows them to then sell fish DIRT CHEAP at home. The worst part is, that not only do they do their legal limits on the way over, but then fill up again, with fish from American waters that they do not have a license for.
The only way to stop this is to prohibit their selling in America, or importing from Canada/Mexico if China sells there. Then no more licenses for CHinese boats to be in American economic zone.
As it is, they are fishing our waters and destroying these faster than their own.
Do you have sources for this? I have no doubt that China is doing a poor job of managing its fishery, but I'm really skeptical that they "fill up again, with fish from American waters that they do not have a license for".
The one thing the US is really good at is military, and foreign vessels illegally fishing in US waters is something the US Coast Guard would care about.
Re:America needs to stop buying from Chinese boats (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure it won't surprise you to know that NMFS and the Chinese government have different ideas about resource conservation, considering that even as our fertile soil exceeds theirs by 3:1, our fishing EEZ exceeds theirs in area by more than 12:1. Whereas, their population exceeds ours by 4:1 leading to a per capita fishing EEZ disparity between USA and China of more than 48:1.
Re: America needs to stop buying from Chinese boat (Score:3)
But this is pretty good, but talks about China's action all around rather just American water. And yes, China deploys driftnets in our waters on way out.
our real issue is that coast guard is severely undermanned since we send too many to the middle East. Now
Which Faction to Support? (Score:4, Funny)
If there is a fish war coming, who will be the belligerents, and which faction should I support?
There are two that will most likely be involved, but I am torn between backing the sea bass and the sharks.
Re: (Score:2)
Kick his ass, sea bass!
Re: (Score:2)
But how is their temperament?
Re: (Score:3)
And, do the sharks have lasers on their heads?
Re:Which Faction to Support? (Score:4)
Probably worse than that (Score:2, Informative)
Either we all cut down on the fishing now, or pretty soon nobody'll fish anything at all, forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You fish your bit, I'll fish mine (Score:4, Informative)
You do understand the oceans are all connected right?
Re: (Score:1)
So what you're saying is: we need to build some kind of ocean wall. Maybe we can have Mexico pay for it too.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You do understand the oceans are all connected right?
All the more reason why global policy shouldn't be "enforced" or interpreted by the most belligerent asshole with the most guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the oceans are connected. The thing is that fish can thrive in one area of the ocean even if they are effectively extinct in another area.
We see this in Africa with all the connected lands where wildlife can roam. One nation might not have hunting licenses and conservation officers to enforce hunting regulations. Another will have sanctioned hunting, licenses, and officers to enforce the law. The nation with enforcement will have a thriving wildlife because the animals have value, if the animals
Re: (Score:2)
What works for some species will not work for others. Many fish are migratory, which makes them much different than large territorial African animals.
Re: (Score:2)
How I mine for fish?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Fuck the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's a good thing that "forcing their laws on the rest of the world" has never been something that Europeans were into. Oh... Wait...
Look. The species hasn't evolved. That simply cannot happen in such short a time span. There's nothing particularly special about people, in Europe or anywhere else, that prevents imperialism. It's just not en vogue, politically or socially, in Europe these days. But Europe has, in fact, been rediscovering a taste for exporting their laws beyond their own borders of late. See, for example, the notion that the concept of a "right to be forgotten" includes censoring what Americans are allowed to see on google.com vs. just what the Spanish, for instance, are allowed to see on google.es.
It's really just what's socially acceptable. And humans, on the whole, can regress into utter bastardry fairly quickly; especially if they can be persuaded that an: "If it's us against them, I vote us." situation exists. "President" 45, and the Charlottesville types are the obvious evidence of the backslide here. But you people aren't immune. The UK has taken massive steps back into darkness with Brexit. And even though she was defeated, the fact that Le Pen did as well as she did in the recent election says very bad things about France as well. And don't forget that the important bits of Russia are also in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
And even though she was defeated, the fact that Le Pen did as well as she did in the recent election says very bad things about France as well.
Marine Le Pen did not have that many voters. Consider her score among all citizen, and not just the one who cast a vote, and it gets less terrifying.
The problem with french elections is that people have the feeling their vote has no impact on political decisions, hence they stop voting. People voted for Sarkozy and Hollande to get some change and still had the same economical policy: the one that gets decided at EU level.
Re: (Score:2)
Beware the IKEA weapons. They even come with ("english") instructions:
Thank you purchase Sweden flat-pack bomb. Please assembly in timely maner follow instructiones step 1 to 40 and pressing button "detonate". Thanks you.
Re: (Score:2)
Stick to your principals [dictionary.com]? What?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like in, say, Syria, where the US did everything in their power to destabilize the region and leaving Europe now to deal with the fallout?
Re: (Score:3)
If we go back far enough we can surely blame it all on the Mongols, but let's stay in the here and now if you don't mind.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read the link you provided, did you?
Re:And the human cancer continues to spread.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Equating humanity to a disease is just going to lead to bad thinking, because your solution is that humanity should be wiped out. That's what any person would tell you they'd want to do if they had cancer. So if you think humanity is a cancer, why haven't you taken the first logical step towards fixing the problem and ended your own existence? If you won't even do that, then what makes you think you get to demand that the lives' of others is ended?
Re: (Score:2)
Any other species whether predator, prey, or somewhere in between will just multiply endlessly with the only thing limiting their growth being the ability for the environment to support the population.
well the problem is that we are way too smart and way too successful, and also have modern medicine. other species grow to fill what their environment will support. we, on the other hand, just keep changing our environment (and ourselves!) to support more and more of us. and those changes are becoming more and more worrisome. we are also terribly adaptable, and when one food source dries up we start exploiting a new one. it is not a sustainable pattern and at some point we are going to be well and truly fuc
Re: (Score:1)
Well, looking at the kind of humans that pump out units like there's no tomorrow, the "doesn't think" analogy stays valid.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to. Just stay the hell out of the continent and it will work out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to perish anyway, may as well have a good steak first.