Aquaculture

[SPC]

What is your opinion about this issue? Do you think that this private enterprise should be encouraged (does not mean subsidized), or should public fishing be encouraged? Frankly, I think that Aquaculture is good for the economy, because it lowers the price of seafood and creates jobs, and the environment, as it increases the fish population and reduces pollution. WDYT?

[Sensei]

This also takes away the livelihoods of many rural fisherman who come from families who have been fishermen by trade for generations.

[John Dibble]

I'm all for it. It decreases the stress on wild populations, lowers prices, and creates new jobs. I'm not necessarily for giving it subsidies, but it seems profitable enough without them that it's being done anyways.

This also takes away the livelihoods of many rural fisherman who come from families who have been fishermen by trade for generations.

So would overfishing. Even without that factor it's not a very relevant argument unless you're a Luddite of some sort. Advances in technology will always changes what jobs are practical to pursue. Farmers used to be a major chunk of the workers in this country, with the farms being passed down from generation to generation, but ultimately as farming techniques improved with scientific understanding and farming tools were mechanized most of them had to find work elsewhere. And way, way before that I'm sure agriculture took away jobs from a good number of hunter-gatherers who had been doing that for generations.

[Sensei]

I'm all for it. It decreases the stress on wild populations, lowers prices, and creates new jobs. I'm not necessarily for giving it subsidies, but it seems profitable enough without them that it's being done anyways.

This also takes away the livelihoods of many rural fisherman who come from families who have been fishermen by trade for generations.

So would overfishing. Even without that factor it's not a very relevant argument unless you're a Luddite of some sort. Advances in technology will always changes what jobs are practical to pursue. Farmers used to be a major chunk of the workers in this country, with the farms being passed down from generation to generation, but ultimately as farming techniques improved with scientific understanding and farming tools were mechanized most of them had to find work elsewhere. And way, way before that I'm sure agriculture took away jobs from a good number of hunter-gatherers who had been doing that for generations.

I agree and I think aquaculture is generally good, because of the aforementioned price reductions and environmental benefits, but it is still true than an effect is villages of men unable to feed their families, and on top of that, rural areas who don't have any seafood to eat because its all being farmed and sent to more prosperous nations. A good example of this is what happens in pastoral areas of Panama and other Central American countries.

[Verily]

I'm all for it. It decreases the stress on wild populations, lowers prices, and creates new jobs. I'm not necessarily for giving it subsidies, but it seems profitable enough without them that it's being done anyways.

This also takes away the livelihoods of many rural fisherman who come from families who have been fishermen by trade for generations.

So would overfishing. Even without that factor it's not a very relevant argument unless you're a Luddite of some sort. Advances in technology will always changes what jobs are practical to pursue. Farmers used to be a major chunk of the workers in this country, with the farms being passed down from generation to generation, but ultimately as farming techniques improved with scientific understanding and farming tools were mechanized most of them had to find work elsewhere. And way, way before that I'm sure agriculture took away jobs from a good number of hunter-gatherers who had been doing that for generations.

I agree and I think aquaculture is generally good, because of the aforementioned price reductions and environmental benefits, but it is still true than an effect is villages of men unable to feed their families, and on top of that, rural areas who don't have any seafood to eat because its all being farmed and sent to more prosperous nations. A good example of this is what happens in pastoral areas of Panama and other Central American countries.

I don't see how aquaculture in the US will affect fishermen in Panama, who will still be able to sell their fish much more cheaply than any US aquaculture company ever could, and, if aquaculture moves into Panama, then its expansion will both provide replacement jobs and lower the price of food in Panama to the point where the fishermen can live off of other jobs.

[Sensei]

I'm all for it. It decreases the stress on wild populations, lowers prices, and creates new jobs. I'm not necessarily for giving it subsidies, but it seems profitable enough without them that it's being done anyways.

This also takes away the livelihoods of many rural fisherman who come from families who have been fishermen by trade for generations.

So would overfishing. Even without that factor it's not a very relevant argument unless you're a Luddite of some sort. Advances in technology will always changes what jobs are practical to pursue. Farmers used to be a major chunk of the workers in this country, with the farms being passed down from generation to generation, but ultimately as farming techniques improved with scientific understanding and farming tools were mechanized most of them had to find work elsewhere. And way, way before that I'm sure agriculture took away jobs from a good number of hunter-gatherers who had been doing that for generations.

I agree and I think aquaculture is generally good, because of the aforementioned price reductions and environmental benefits, but it is still true than an effect is villages of men unable to feed their families, and on top of that, rural areas who don't have any seafood to eat because its all being farmed and sent to more prosperous nations. A good example of this is what happens in pastoral areas of Panama and other Central American countries.

I don't see how aquaculture in the US will affect fishermen in Panama, who will still be able to sell their fish much more cheaply than any US aquaculture company ever could, and, if aquaculture moves into Panama, then its expansion will both provide replacement jobs and lower the price of food in Panama to the point where the fishermen can live off of other jobs.

  I was talking about Panamanian aquaculture. The fishermen there have nothing to catch, due to fish farms taking up the places where they found the most success. My mother's birthplace in Panama, an hour from the Canal Zone, is a small town, which for many years had several roving salesmen on bikes who could sell you a bucket of fish for two bucks, now, due in part to aquaculture, the townsfolk eat very little seafood, because of the high prices they now have to pay because of the low supply. Before, 75¢/lb was considered a lot of money to pay. Now, it is the norm, and many of the impoverished residents, and even ones with completely respectable jobs [teachers, store proprietors, etc] are not able to buy at the volume they once did. However, when I go to the local fish market and see the vast array of seafood available, I see that much of it comes from places like Panama, Costa Rica, and Mexico, where the same thing is likely occurring.