[AngegepeM]

ECONOMICS DO NOT PRODUCE ALWAYS AN EFFICENT OUTCOME, I thought this was common knowledge but obviously it is not

Economics in its purest form is... perfect. However, it is but a model, and that's what I was assuming everyone knew.

What exactly is an efficient outcome? That everything on this planet stays the same? In balance? Since equilibrium obviously doesn't work in my econonomic example, why should it be applied to nature? Nothing is in equilibrium then; and we shouldn't assume so.

Doomsayers preach and critizise, but the fact of the matter is; we're getting smarter, and we'll develop the technologies to survive. I'm not trying to disagree with you guys, I'm simply observing from a different angle.

[CaseyFronczek]

[yes] Exactly!

Synthetic and farming= Yuck! I would prefer the real thing. I know farming is becoming more and more common with shrimp and salmon, but I still would like to know the real thing is out there available and uncontaminated. If this is a possible feat then I would like to pursue it with maximum effort! If not lets start farming.

Both QFT. The fish livestocks are indeed extremely threatened at the moment, and the danger of losing species such as cod is a very real threat despite all the laughing you guys are having.

Even in my lifetime you will notice that the size of the fish you get even from the fish and chip shop are dramatically smaller than they used to be. Talk to any fisherman round the UK and they will tell you the same thing, they are catching much less, and much smaller fish year on year.

This is especilly bad when trawling it concerned, where in many areas they drag the nets on the seabed when they have no idea whats down there - especially the very deep trawling when they get fish like those black scabbards

Why do we always have to invent something to stop something happening? Why cant we just leave it alone?