I love eating Tilapia. Guess what they eat?

Fish shit. Tilapia are used to clean aquaculture tanks after they've become fouled with excess excrement and food debris.

Disgusting? Maybe, but they still taste damn good to me!

We need to start shifting our appetites to fish that can be farmed efficiently and economically, and leave the wild stocks as a special treat.

It's probably better for Orcas to live on a diet of wild-caught salmon than it is for us to consume them. Just keep the Atlantic salmon farms in the Atlantic, and learn to farm Pacific varieties (or Char, or something else yummy) in the Pacific so we don't screw up species isolation.

Also, don't over-concentrate fish farms (although, compared to current agriculturally-generated estuary dead zones, fish farms are small potatoes).

We gotta get smart.

Also, contraception for humans is an extremely good idea.

Unfortunately, this isn't going to change. We're too greedy and shortsighted as a race to do anything preventive about problems like fisheries collapse and climate change. We're going to noodle about, pass resolutions, enact toothless laws and practice business as usual until millions of people die. Then we might actually take urgent action such as global birth control, suspension of non-subsistence fishing, massive reforestation and solar power on an unprecedented scale.

We're a crisis-driven species. Sad but true. Now get used to eating tofu shaped like salmon.

Whenever someone mentions at a dinner party that fish may be gone from our tables by 2050, there are mostly blank faces. Like, what on earth are you talking about? Pre-stunned as it were. It's such a gut-level subject, especially in seafood-rich climes and cuisines, that it's hard to know what to do, where to turn, right off the bat.

Thanks for articles like these - it's really what I look to Salon to provide. The political stuff is entertaining, in it's own useless sort of way, but this is essential to know.

who put shark, blue fin tuna, and other endangered fish, on the menu. The "Eat Local" movement got a boost from chefs adopting it, so they have the power to make an impact.

"We need to start shifting our appetites to fish that can be farmed efficiently and economically, and leave the wild stocks as a special treat."

This is obvious, but too bad that the oh-so-concerned-about-everything Greens decided to reject this solution the moment it appeared. They would rather have the oceans turn into solid jellyfish than support the farming of the species we eat. Perhaps someone out there can explain this.

If it's a choice between solid jellyfish (how did I miss THAT opportunity!) and fish farming, I'm gonna have to go with the farming.

Good idea.

A simple way to help save ocean life, literally save it, is to stop eating it. Unless a person lives in a culture where he or she absolutely must eat fish to survive, then that person can stop eating fish.

I know, it's a crazy suggestion and people won't do it. But I haven't eaten fish since 1983, and millions of other people around the world do likewise. It is possible; it's just a matter of choosing to do so.

What will probably happen, though, is that we humans will fish the oceans dry. Ocean life will crash, with predictably dire results for life on land (that's us). Meanwhile, there will be no real action on global climate change. People will continue overpopulating the planet and taking increasingly scarce habitat from the larger non-human species, and they will disappear. We'll deplete fresh water supplies and relentlessly poison what fresh water we have left. Wars and starvation and plague will be the logical outcome (am I missing a horseman? Ah yes...death). And one day, a future dying generation will curse us, and rightfully so.

There are solutions to the problems facing us, but we will not enact them. So it goes.

Google "tragedy of the commons"

It is possible to farm fish responsibly and in an ecologically sustainable way. But it costs more. This year I read a thesis by a student at the University of Michigan that detailed the vast ecological damage being caused by salmon farms in Chile (the main source of salmon in the US, and the main reason why salmon today costs a small fraction of what it did twenty years ago). Some of the major problems:

* Runoff from the vast amounts of salmon waste, which creates dead zones in the southern Pacific.

* The usual problem of monocultures anywhere, the salmon concentrated in a small area are susceptible to disease (especially lice -- who knew) and are treated with vast quantities of antibiotics, which also run off and do their usual damage.

* Salmon are carnivorous fish, so farming them requires enormous quantities of other fish as feed. You may think that you are sparing the wild sea fish by eating farmed salmon, but in fact every pound of farmed salmon was created by devouring eight or ten pounds of wild sea fish caught by long-net trawlers, the very mechanism that is scouring the oceans clean of all fish life.

* Salmon farms in the ocean can and do get free, with the result that North Atlantic fish stock (the kind grown in farms) are taking over what is left of the ecosystem of southern Pacific oceans.

Etc. It is important to note that each of these problems can be and has been solved in Norway, which operates model salmon fisheries (keeping the salmons in ponds isolated from each other and the ocean, feeding them with protein from non-wild sources, etc.) But that costs more. The irony is that the ecologically devastating Chilean salmon farms are owned and operated by... Norwegians. Oh well.

The upshot of all this is that I have simply opted to give up all fish "for the time being" -- that is, until the oceans recover. Though the rate we're going, that probably won't be for a long, long time.

According to a national Vegetarian Resource Group Poll conducted by Harris Interactive, nearly 15 percent of Americans say they never eat fish or seafood.

The pacific sardine lives along the coasts of North America from Alaska to southern California. Sardines, once a major part of the California fishing industry, are now considered to be "commercially extinct." Another species classified as "commercially extinct" is the New England haddock. Ecologists have also been concerned about the significant reduction in finfish, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Lake Erie cisco, and blackfins that inhabit Lakes Huron and Michigan.

Over 200,000 porpoises are killed every year by fishermen seeking tuna in the Pacific. Sea turtles are similarly killed in Caribbean shrimp operations.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

It makes sense to eat lower on the food chain. Some animals are killed because, as carnivores, they compete with the human predator for the right to kill other animals for food, including wild game and domesticated species raised by livestock ranchers. Alaskan hunters are eager to reduce the wolf population in their state because this animal is a predator of moose.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

Nor can fish provide any help in alleviating global hunger. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas. And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world's inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, the human race has lived on "vegetarian or near vegetarian diets," and meat has traditionally been a luxury. Studies show the healthiest human populations on the globe live almost entirely on plant foods--useful data, given our skyrocketing healthcare costs. Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients who had already suffered a heart attack.

In A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), author Keith Akers observes:

"Much has been made over the virtues of chicken and fish in comparison to red meats such as beef and pork. It has been said that eating chicken and fish will aid in the prevention of heart disease, because these meats are relatively lower in fat and contain more unsaturated than saturated fat, thus helping to lower cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, these claims are not supported by the evidence. Studies in which human volunteers switched from diets including beef and eggs, to one including fish and chicken showed that serum cholesterol levels were not appreciably lowered by switching to chicken and fish.

"And an examination of the nutritional data suggests an explanation: while it is true that chicken and fish contain less fat than beef, it is also true that chicken and fish contain about twice as much cholesterol per calorie as does beef. Indeed, some seafoods (such as crab, shrimp, and lobster) are exceptionally high in cholesterol content.

"All of these diverse theories have roughly the same dietary implications. Meat is high in cholesterol, saturated fat, and total fat. Plant foods, by contrast, are usually low in saturated fat and total fat, and contain zero cholesterol. Vegetarians have lower levels of serum cholesterol than do meat-eaters, with total vegetarians (vegans) having the lowest levels of all."

Obviously, then, the idea of providing the entire world with a Western diet is quite absurd. But what about satisfying today's demand for meat--which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet? If the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water, topsoil and energy already. Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc...modest increases in the world population during the next generation would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption. On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans.

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.