Mercy mercy me

Some of these environmental predictions are starting to scare me:

The apocalypse has a new date: 2048.

That’s when the world’s oceans will be empty of fish, predicts an international team of ecologists and economists. The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change.

98 replies
  1. 1
    Amir Khalid says:

    I’d be very surprised to live to 87, so it’s not my problem.

    /There actually are people who think like that, aren’t there?

  2. 2
    aimai says:

    Thats weird, 2048 was when I was planning to start eating fish, because my children would be finally out of the house.

  3. 3
    Cassidy says:

    Guess I can skip those cooking lessons.

  4. 4
    ruemara says:

    Grain of salt, take it with. I did a talk with two biologists on this last year and the outlook based on their studies and others was much less dire.

  5. 5
    BretH says:

    That’s OK, corporate America will get right to work on it in Q4 2047.

  6. 6
    C.V. Danes says:

    So, from the Koch point of view, we’ve got another whole generation left until we have to do something…

  7. 7
    LanceThruster says:

    This will certainly help move that along.

  8. 8
    dedc79 says:

    better start getting some practice on those jellyfish recipes, because that’s all that will be left.

  9. 9
    WaterGirl says:

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think this is a real attention getter!

    when the world’s oceans will be empty of fish

    I read that and I think “holy fuck, when are we going to start taking this seriously as a country?”

  10. 10
    NonyNony says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    I’d be very surprised to live to 87, so it’s not my problem.

    /There actually are people who think like that, aren’t there?

    Yes. In fact, I think more people are sympathetic to the “world we leave our children/grandchildren” appeal than they are to the “do you want to world to be shit when you’re 90?” one. Because, while nobody wants to die, nobody really thinks they’re going to live to be 90 either.

    @WaterGirl:

    I read that and I think “holy fuck, when are we going to start taking this seriously as a country?”

    When the ocean really is out of fish. And even then, someone will say “well, there are fish in privately stocked fishery lake X, so I don’t see why this is a problem”. Because people suck.

  11. 11
    MikeJ says:

    Of course there will be water shortages the way people waste it. Happily the privacy loving Russians will save us:

    Dmitry Kozak, the deputy prime minister responsible for the Olympic preparations, reflected the view held among many Russian officials that some Western visitors are deliberately trying to sabotage Sochi’s big debut out of bias against Russia. “We have surveillance video from the hotels that shows people turn on the shower, direct the nozzle at the wall and then leave the room for the whole day,”

    http://online.wsj.com/news/art.....2107461956

  12. 12
    aimai says:

    @dedc79: On the plus side the Jellyfish of the future will probably have evolved to come right up on land, to your door, and possibly to sit down at your table. Though who will be for dinner might be up for grabs.

  13. 13
    Glidwrith says:

    @ruemara: Citations please. The linked article cites the actual scientific article published in Science, a peer-reviewed journal. IANA(Climate scientist), but the one thing I keep hearing consistently from them is that events and changes are happening faster than the models predict.

  14. 14
    catclub says:

    “starting to scare me”

    1. They were always scary
    2. The arrival date is getting much closer.
    3. The arrival predictions are consistently outdone by the next years facts – see climate change.
    4. William Simon(?) was right in the 1970’s but wrong going forward.
    5. It is no longer scary predictions, but scary reports of facts on the ground.

  15. 15
    catclub says:

    @NonyNony: “well, there are fish in privately stocked fishery lake X, so I don’t see why this is a problem”

    Nature is of course extremely complicated, and all the systems that support that lake are going to be gone also. In ways we will not know how to fix.

  16. 16
    Comrade Jake says:

    Unfortunately, many wankers view this as something the Bible predicted, and of course there’s nothing we can do about it, because it’s God’s will.

  17. 17
    catclub says:

    A quote from Dean Baker, taken from Political Animal:
    ” Assuming normal economic growth, real wages will be on average more than 40 percent higher in 2040 than they are today.

    If we sustain decent economic growth there is no plausible story in which workers twenty or thirty years from now won’t be far wealthier on average than they are today.”

    Those assumptions might go down the tubes if the oceans are dead or dying.

  18. 18
    Anoniminous says:

    All comes down to Ecology: modify the environment and the species dependent thereon go away.

    (Of course that is icky science stuff.)

  19. 19
  20. 20
    srv says:

    Isn’t that the same year Social Security goes bankrupt?

    What the hell will I eat if there’s no fish for the catfood?

  21. 21
    p.a. says:

    How exciting to be alive during a major extinction event! Not every generation gets to live in worldwide historically significant times. As the proverb curse says, “may you live in interesting times.”

  22. 22
    Paul in KY says:

    @dedc79: Maybe Lampreys & hagfish. Lampreys are supposed to be pretty good.

  23. 23
    Anoniminous says:

    @catclub:

    Assuming cubical cows we can decrease energy use by tighter packing in box cars.

  24. 24
    Paul in KY says:

    @raven: I’m going to burn one later in his honor.

  25. 25
    monkeyfister says:

    Jellyfish will rule the oceans. Until the Japanese learn how to make sushi out of them.

  26. 26
    Arclite says:

    Eh, fish, who needs ’em. As long as I gots me internet porn, I’m set.

  27. 27
    Arclite says:

    Actually, I thought that we’d pretty much already depleted the oceans of fish. I remember reading somewhere that fish stocks were down 95% compared to 1970.

  28. 28
    Calouste says:

    @catclub:

    Isn’t it that even though (on average) there was normal economic growth for the last 30 years, real wages for the working class have actually declined during that period? So the only thing Mr. Baker has to do to see that he is wrong is to look back a bit.

  29. 29
    eric says:

    So now liberals dont want us to eat meat AND fish? Soon obambi will issue an executive order requiring us all to be vegans to conform to his muslim dietary restrictions. Good job King Obama lovers.

  30. 30
    eric says:

    @Arclite: context matters. The number of fish species are up infinitely from 252 million years ago. alarmists.

  31. 31
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Last time I checked, Soylent Green doesn’t have fish in it.

  32. 32
    SatanicPanic says:

    @monkeyfister: Jellyfish already are used in Japanese food. And since we’re on the subject, overfishing is one reason why I feel like an asshole eating sushi, and generally don’t. Ramen is better anyway.

  33. 33

    Last year I read this book, Arcadia, by Lauren Goff. It’s fiction, so I get that’s different, but the last part of the book takes place in the not-too-distant future and describes what seems to me to be a very plausible climate-change ravaged world where bizarro diseases morph quickly into pandemics and the cities are filled with homeless people uprooted from their homes, and food becomes scarce and expensive — and let me add, that’s not even the point of the book, the book is about something else, it’s just the world she created but damn it seems entirely real to me.

    If you want to get scared, read that.

  34. 34
  35. 35
    scav says:

    @MikeJ: I was thinking after reading about the Jamaican Boblsed teams gear going awol and reappearing with protein powder left open after security that this is a prime opportunity for low-level dissatisfaction to be ‘voiced’ adjacent to rather effective megaphones. Grumpy hotel staff and airport flunkies don’t usually have such an International stage to play with.

  36. 36
    beltane says:

    @eric: Wingnuts tend to group fish along with arugula and brown mustard as Scary Liberal food that depletes one’s vital essences. If it’s not some form of pink slime from the freezer section, they’re not eating it.

  37. 37
    eric says:

    @beltane: allow me to retort: filet-o-fish

    ETA :)

  38. 38
    kbuttle says:

    The oceans are in trouble, but the date is bullshit–more so the idea that we could bound a date by a decade on either side. Supportable extrapolating from current trends, but more another unproductive scare tactic from the scientific community than any reasonably likely depiction of the future. There are so many uncertainties that go into projections like these, not least the unknown unknowns that should have scientists more careful about making these kinds of predictions. It’s far off enough that there’s no accountability; a publishable, high profile result from simple math that has no chance of being true in the real world. Ahh modern ecology.

  39. 39
    srv says:

    Pat Robertson goes nuts:

    “Let’s face it,” Robertson said, “there was a Bishop [Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years.”

    “There ain’t no way that’s possible,” he continued. “To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”

    “Let’s be real, let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

    “We’ve got to be realistic,” he concluded, and admit “that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that is found in science and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”

    The Wingularity is Nigh

  40. 40
    Paul in KY says:

    @Arclite: You do know that most lubricants are derived from fish oil…

  41. 41
    eric says:

    @Paul in KY: that explains that smell!!! (duck and cover)

  42. 42
    Paul in KY says:

    @raven: I tried some of that BHO stuff recently & the smallest bit had me hhhhaaaaaammmmmmmeeerrreeeeeddddddd. That is some powerful shit. Just about too strong for this old man.

  43. 43
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Last time I checked, Soylent Green doesn’t have fish in it.

    Anyone have a scan of the ingredients list and nutrition information for Soylent Green?

  44. 44
    Davis X. Machina says:

    I grew up around fishermen. Tell them this and they’re all saying to themselves “That’s too bad. But the guy who pulls in the last one will be rich as f*ck, though….”

  45. 45
    Paul in KY says:

    @srv: Time is meaningless to the Lord.

  46. 46
    Paul in KY says:

    @eric: LOL!!!

  47. 47
    Trollhattan says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Before the spotted owl ruined America and stole our precious Freedoms, the scramble to “harvest” the scant remaining stands of western old growth timber was mindboggling. It was bascally a mob coming to the sudden realization: “Holy shit, we missed a spot!” and sprinting at full tilt with running chainsaws to see who’d get their firstest.

    I’d ask, “Have you taken time to think this through, at least a little?” Yeah, I’m a scamp.

  48. 48
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Trollhattan: Saw it happen in Maine with urchins, and shrimp, and now scallops, and elvers, all of which were going to make everyone whole after the collapse of the groundfish fishery.

  49. 49
    JW says:

    Delurking fish biologist here…this is an older study (2006) that was controversial at the time due to many flaws. For one thing, they were counting the number of fish stocks that had collapsed, but did not account for the fact that many of them had been able to recover under better management. (not to mention that putting a 2048 date on things is just pretty sensationalistic) A later study by the same lead author and some of his critics showed that many global fisheries are healthy and sustainable, even if a lot of them are in trouble.

  50. 50
    NotMax says:

    @NonyNony

    nobody really thinks they’re going to live to be 90 either.

    Being in a family in which, outside of death via suicide, war, accidents and Nazis, every member on both sides has lived well past 90 for at least the past 4 generations, we expect it.

  51. 51
    Bill Arnold says:

    Fish farming is big. A story in 2009 gave the percentage as >50% farmed. Downside according to that article is that a lot of the farming uses fishmeal and fish oil as feed. I imagine that is partially a matter of economics though.
    The point is that if farming is cheaper than harvesting wild fish and stays that way, then it will dominate, maybe take some of the pressure off the wild stocks. (Yes, there are environmental problems with farming, including disease.)

  52. 52
    giova says:

    @Glidwrith: The paper cited by DougJ is from 2006. A later paper (also by B. Worm et al) from science in 2009 is less grim. Not good, certainly, but not as grim as the 2006 paper suggests. I’ve linked to Worm et al 2009 below. The US has actually done a decent job (relatively speaking and recently) of maintaining and protecting fish stocks, to the best of my limited knowledge. The issue is figuring out the best regulatory framework for different types of fisheries and different communities.

    http://palumbi.stanford.edu/ma.....cience.pdf

  53. 53
    Ernest Pikeman says:

    I’m glad DougJ has caught up to 2006 in his reading list. Imagine the discussions if he was actually reading today’s news!

  54. 54
    jl says:

    Good day for this post. The GOP is trying to squeeze a few more votes out of the increasing purple Central Valley*, so the House, mostly on GOP votes passed a bill to ‘help’ California with its drought. Basically to decide from Washington DC what is the best way for California to split the inadequate water supply between the coast and Central Valley agriculture.

    It is almost entirely a rerun of ‘Fish or Farmers’ theme from past California droughts. Heard a Central Valley House GOPer saying on news this morning (this is a close paraphrase), forget the salmon, they’re gone for a hundred years’. Bascially he was saying to just eff it and let CA salmon and steelhead go extinct.

    It would be interesting to see how well Central Valley mega-agri-corps, say in the Westlands Water District make out in this bill, compared to small vegetable, fruit and tree nut farmers. I wonder how much some Hmong farmers down by Fresno with 40 acres of veggies fair in the GOP bill.

    Boehner kicked off the effort late last week when he visited the Central Valley to do some rabble rousing (er… I mean, Congressional research and listening tour). (Edit: so you know a whole lot of research and thought went into the bill, at least in terms of 2014 elections if nothing else).

    But, it is DOA in the Senate. But interesting case study in how low the GOP will go.

    Meanwhile, meteorologists say half a foot of water coming CA’s way between now and next Monday. First storm in the series passed by coast last night. Two or three more of these, and CA will be in standard major drought disaster mode (a la 1970s) not total mega drought disaster mode. So, I hope for a few more storms over next 7 weeks.

    *Still red as an old fashioned fire engine in extreme north and south, but quite purple in between.

  55. 55

    <snark>Oh, that’s all right; the antibiotic-resistant diseases will reduce the number of humans quite effectively.</snark>

    Could we get started already? We know that we as a species are creating multiple disasters. It’s time for a crash program to respond. So where is that program in our politics?

  56. 56
    evinfuilt says:

    @Bill Arnold:
    Well maybe not the green variety.

    I guess, just drink it with a green goddess type drink.

  57. 57
    eric says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: The human race has survived disco, it can survive this.

  58. 58
    Mandalay says:

    The apocalypse has a new date: 2048. That’s when the world’s oceans will be empty of fish

    You might have mentioned that you are linking to an article over seven years that has been ridculed and debunked. You might also have mentioned that one of the authors of that paper later contributed to another article which contradicted its findings.

    Or are you just fishing while you still can?

  59. 59
    Trollhattan says:

    @jl:

    There’s a subplot at work too, with westside farmersagribusinesses trying to pry water away from the eastsiders. Fun times.

  60. 60
    Mandalay says:

    @Ernest Pikeman:

    I’m glad DougJ has caught up to 2006 in his reading list.

    Exactly. Next he’ll be announcing that we have a black president, and telling us that Tim Russert has died.

  61. 61
    cermet says:

    Appears the movie Soylent Green was far more correct about the future than any other movie – worse, Soylent Green’s predictions are getting more accurate every passing year; lets see, the top 0.01% own most all the wealth, global warming is occurring big time, oceans are failing … brings new meaning to the old line “Bring out your dead … .”

  62. 62
    jonas says:

    This oceans aren’t going to be “empty of fish” — it’s just that there will be few or no commercially viable fisheries left in a couple of decades if overfishing and climate change aren’t checked. And if stocks of fish like sardine and anchovy also collapse, as they have in a lot of places, you can also kiss most aquaculture goodbye. Where do you think all the farmed salmon you’re eating gets its feed? So there will be fish, just not any you can buy in a store anymore, or afford even if they did have it.

  63. 63
    LABiker says:

    The process started some decades ago:

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulw.....ng-littler

  64. 64
    jl says:

    @Trollhattan: yes. that is true. Been a few new water districts established around the Central Valley near the Westlands corporate welfare project, to get ready to do that battle. Some relatives signed up for one of the new ones established to firm up claims on some the water they might go after.

    I hope for three or four more storm systems between now and middle of April to ease the drought to standard CA drought disaster levels.

    Heard on the news CA has a pineapple express system on its way. Not sure whether that is one of the fronts coming through this weekend, or another one.

    BJers whould pray to the God or FSM of their choice now, not only will it help CA, but deflate a cheap ruthless immoral GOP plan at election year pandering..

  65. 65
  66. 66
    NotMax says:

    @jl

    If what’s coming your way is what we in Hawaii had over the past week, batten down the hatches.

  67. 67
    raven says:

    @Paul in KY: Not a whif in 20 years, U wouldn’t know.

  68. 68
    jl says:

    @NotMax: Thanks. I won’t get my hopes up, but will remember your kind warning if it dumps a load of water on us.

  69. 69
    boatboy_srq says:

    @WaterGirl: I read that and instantly heard the wingnuttosphere bleat “but what about the lakes and rivers?” Because there’s just no way we can fish all the trout out of the stream fishing the way Grandpa showed us donchano.

  70. 70
    Seanly says:

    @catclub:

    Umm, if you assume just 2% inflation, then in 25 years, prices will be 64% higher.

    But the planet will be pretty much dead at that point so who cares if we can then afford all the crap we make?

  71. 71
    Bill Gates says:

    Well, since 2047 is when we run out of “years”, no biggie.

    Because no one should need more than 2K of years, amirite?

  72. 72
    Captain C says:

    @MikeJ: Regardless of the truth of this allegation, announcing to tourists that there are suveillance cameras in their bathrooms is probably not a good way to keep people coming to your resort town

  73. 73
    Captain C says:

    OK…what just tripped moderation for my previous comment…?

  74. 74
    Chris says:

    @NonyNony:

    When the ocean really is out of fish. And even then, someone will say “well, there are fish in privately stocked fishery lake X, so I don’t see why this is a problem”. Because people suck.

    This.

    Climate change is one of these issues I don’t talk about much because I really don’t know what the fuck to do. Anything that could be done is contingent on enough people pulling their heads out of their asses for long enough to start paying attention to the science, and in a country where half the country flat-out refuses to believe in evolution (of any kind, including “intelligent design” where you think it happens but there’s still a God who made it happen that way) and thinks scientists are a liberal conspiracy to turn America socialist, that just isn’t happening. And because people are used to seeing the weather as something completely beyond their control, fewer of them make the connection than they do when you’re talking about, say, economic conditions.

    And on the other hand, global warming’s effects on the planet make for a problem several orders of magnitude larger than anything economic or political. At least when I look at the state of the economy, I can tell myself that if we ever do finally pull our heads out of our asses (as we did in the first half of the 20th century), we’ll be able to make things better. I’m not at all certain that that’ll be the case with global warming.

  75. 75
    MomSense says:

    From what I’ve read, a big reason for the decline and death of fish populations is because of the anticipated loss of phytoplankton. Phytoplankton provides at least 50% of the world’s oxygen. This is a dire situation.

  76. 76
    Andrey says:

    @MikeJ: Wait, did they just admit they have surveillance cameras in the showers?

  77. 77
    Jebediah, RBG says:

    @Paul in KY:

    I tried some of that BHO stuff recently & the smallest bit had me hhhhaaaaaammmmmmmeeerrreeeeeddddddd.

    POTUS is smokeable? Maybe I should try some. My tolerance has gotten annoyingly high.

  78. 78
    slippytoad says:

    @catclub:

    Nature is of course extremely complicated, and all the systems that support that lake are going to be gone also. In ways we will not know how to fix.

    Oh, but just spend 20 seconds debating this with a colossal jackass like Rush Limbaugh, and you’ll learn he already has all the answers figured out. And he’ll be happy to lecture you from the vast depth of his biological sciences degree and knowledge of animal husbandry he picked up while sitting on his butt in front of a microphone.

  79. 79
    Soonergrunt says:

    Don’t know, but I cleared it.
    SG

  80. 80
    Jebediah, RBG says:

    @Bill Gates:

    Well, since 2047 is when we run out of “years”, no biggie.

    Because no one should need more than 2K of years, amirite?

    Well, Mr Gates, since you were right about 64K of memory, I am going to take your word on this.

  81. 81
    catclub says:

    @Bill Gates: I thought Unix time runs out in 2037. Although that was 32 bit. I think we may be on a larger size word those days.

  82. 82
    wvng says:

    Appreciate the people who noticed that this was an older article and the author has provided decidedly less grim predictions in later papers. I just don’t see “an ocean devoid of fish” happening, ever. It may not have a lot of fish, and the remaining fish may be tough and nasty and unpalatable to us, but there will be fish of some kind. Hell, they’ve made it through rough conditions in the past. http://www.skepticalscience.co.....rming.html

  83. 83
    Paul in KY says:

    @Jebediah, RBG: He’s so hot he smokes!

    BHO in this instance = ‘Butane Hash Oil’.

    Very powerful stuff.

  84. 84
    kbuttle says:

    @JW: Word. Too many sensational fish stories from Worm and Myers. I wish the collaboration with Hilborn had begun when Myers was still alive.

  85. 85
    scav says:

    @Andrey: Totally not wide-stance and, moreover, implicitly Snowden approved. Move along and watch the shiny medals being handed out by the bare-chested hunk of all the months.

  86. 86
    jl says:

    @wvng:

    I was glad too, but I wanted to comment on GOPer pandering over CA drought.

    Lot’s of interesting things will survive in the oceans as they respond to carbon dioxide driven global warming. From a geologist’s point of view, these funny life forms come and go through the ages as the rocks, fluids (mainly water) and gases do their thing.

    On the other hand, from the point of view of human economics, there are problems with fisheries and extinctions right now, you don’t have to make fancy prediction models to see those.

    So, not sure what the point is, of focusing on these dramatic predictions, which are just predictions of models that cannot be directly verified. And if you wait until they are directly verified, it is long too late. Because for an economic and humanitarian catastrophe for humankind, you don’t have to wait until extinction. Just until it gets too expensive to catch all the fish you need to feed people in various parts of the world, or the fish become so rare and populations so small and isolated, there is high probability that they will go extinct no matter what humans do.

  87. 87
    brettvk says:

    @Bill Arnold: I own this shirt, but have yet to wear it to work a GIant Evil Corporation, where it would be appropriate:

    http://www.teefury.com/gallery.....ent_Green/

  88. 88

    Luckily for us, Ragnarok is scheduled for the 22nd of this month.

  89. 89
    Matt says:

    Ultimately the projections are really tricky because a key component (melting of permafrost releasing methane) has an incredible exponential behavior (some melting -> moar greenhouse -> moar melting) which means that very slight variations of when the process is estimated to take hold mean large variations of conditions a while later.

    I’m sure some RW loons will pick up on this to try to discredit the result, but ultimately it’s more like a man who’s sitting on a barrel of nitroglycerin and pounding it with a hammer deciding that – since it’s hard to predict EXACTLY when it will explode – that doing so is somehow “safe” and he should keep it up. Works right up until it doesn’t…

  90. 90
    giovanni da procida says:

    @MomSense: I think you are thinking of the 2010 paper Boyce et al (also with Worm as a coauthor) which claimed that there had been a drastic decline in phytoplankton over the past century (about 1% loss per year). This was an interesting paper, and a good effort to combine the current satellite based global observations to a longer term data set of Secchi disk measurements, but was basically problematic for a couple of reasons.

    1. The long term time-series sites (in the Sargasso sea at the Bermuda Atlantic Time-Series and the Hawaii Ocean Time-series in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre) have about 25 years of data and don’t show declines in chlorophyll over that time period. CALCOFI has a longer data set and also doesn’t show a declining trend. Data are available at the respective websites of the programs.

    2. The work of Boyce et al used secchi disk measurements to get historical phytoplankton biomass (using chlorophyll as a proxy). One problem is that they used one equation to fit a line between secchi disk measurements and chlorophyll for all ocean basins. Each ocean basin is unique and different things contribute unequally to Secchi disk measurements in each ocean basin (like the amount of minerals and colored dissolved organic matter), which is likely to bias the resulting fit.

    See responses (also in Nature) by Mackas, Rykaczewski and Dunne, and McQuatters et al.

  91. 91
    slippytoad says:

    I just don’t see “an ocean devoid of fish” happening, ever.

    Well, it sounds like an awful lot of fish to kill off. But, it isn’t that much ocean to poison. I can see it happening. I can see it happening with terrifying speed. Don’t think to yourself that something is too big for us to destroy. I think it was Teller who said our extinction will come from our inability to comprehend exponential growth, and we definitely have the potential to exponentially spread some noxious problem across our planet in no time, these days.

  92. 92
    Mnemosyne says:

    @slippytoad:

    I think “an ocean devoid of fish” is highly unlikely, but I could easily see “an ocean devoid of fish edible by humans.” Fish like this guy are probably safe from over-fishing (though they will probably have issues with their prey fish).

    ETA: Also, too, “an ocean devoid of fish” would necessarily mean “an ocean completely devoid of life.” No dolphins, no whales, no pelicans, no penguins, no squid, no octopuses, nada, nothing. That’s what makes me skeptical of the “devoid of fish” claim — it’s actually a claim that there would be no ocean life at all since so many non-fish ocean dwellers eat fish.

  93. 93
    Trollhattan says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I think of the whole kerfuffle as a rounding error. “None” versus “hardly any” are effectively the same thing. It’s a stone fact we’re conducting our time here on the planet as a mass-extinction event quite like a meteor strike. Taken on the right time scale, they’re identical.

  94. 94
    chrome agnomen says:

    @raven:

    late to the game, but that’s ‘irie’, mon.

  95. 95
    Bill Arnold says:

    @brettvk:

    …this shirt,…

    Kinda subtle. I do like the “Free Range” and “100% Organic” bits.
    Should have gone all the way, made the first ingredient “People”, or maybe “Long pork”, Salt, Black Pepper, etc

  96. 96
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Trollhattan:

    I do think there’s a difference between “none” and “none edible by humans,” though. Once there are none edible by humans, things go bad for humans pretty fast, but the angler fish won’t really care.

  97. 97

    @Bill Arnold: You know what? If this is really the world that my generation leaves to my son’s generation, I will be the first volunteer to hop into the giant blender at the Soylent Green factory because I’ll deserve it.

  98. 98
    Stentor says:

    @catclub:

    Yeah, & after the apocalypse, there will always be douchebags like this one:

    As I recall the reason they had to start growing plankton for Soylent Green was because the worlds oceans had been overfished to the point of collapse.

Comments are closed.