I was just going to write in to say that overfishing was leading us to Soylent Green. Someone's blaming environmentalism for it, though? Whew. I would blame industrial damage, and lack of concern for environmental sustainability, because of impatience with anything that slows the flow of dollars to those making money from such damage.

I'm glad that Britain has finally created good domestic gastronomy. Now that what was formerly their only good dish, Fish and Chips, is about to become Blank and Chips, it would only take another Potato Famine to make it Blank and Blank. But I guess we can all eat "Saffron-infused Oxygen," as they did in the trendy bar on 30 Rock.

I have not been a Salon premium member for years, but for reasons unknown, the star remains.

I corrected two grammatical errors, which is why I reposted.

You are among the most obtuse of Salon's gang of trolls.

DurianJoe says: "for whatever reason, it does take a crisis to get people to wake up".

The reason is natural selection. The fallacy here is the notion that a crisis - natural or man-made civil disobedience - somehow will trigger a permanent sea-change. No matter how extreme the crisis, people will eventually relax from their alert status.

Rather than relying on any permanent revolution - of the left or of the right - a sustainable civilization requires numerous small changes in the simple boring logistics of governance. Markets don't fail because of greed - greed is simply a fact of life. Markets fail because the appropriate feedback and controls weren't engineered into the system.

The lesson the right wing takes from the Tragedy of the Commons is that ownership should extend to the very oceans and atmosphere. The marketplace will then ensure that overfishing is punished since each fish will have a self-enlightened owner. The lesson the left wing takes is to stage another appeal to people's better natures - maybe this time the Republicans will cut a fair deal. An engineer might instead suggest that someone be hired to keep track of the community's fish to prevent overgrazing.

The solution to overfishing is to police the oceans and stops the violators. Relying on corporate good behavior is laughable. For citizens of rich countries to forgo fish in their diet may be the correct personal choice, but is simply not a scalable solution. Organizations like Greenpeace have a role in this, but ultimately a coalition of world governments have to actually spend enough money to solve the problem.

For those who demand a free market answer to every question - the fundamental problem is that corporations never pay - and customer never expect to pay - the full life cycle cost of any item. The degradation of the oceans has a cost. The price of cleaning it up should be shared between the consumers of every fish stick, shrimp and shellfish.

terkoy and other Bushian level intelligence right wingers love to mock liberals for their "fancy" degrees and intellectualism (as if being smart were a bad thing)...and then mock them for being "stupid" because of submitting the same post twice.

So are we stupid or not?

And you're right about the double clicking. It's often and widely acknowledged as being a sign of stupidity. It's even included on the Mensa test. Those who don't double click are rated geniuses. And as we all know, right wingers are all geniuses...except when they're shagging women who aren't their wives.

Idiots.

Pony up the cash, big boy. I'm sure you've got plenty - having had the prerequisite bidnez success to embrace the GOP.

Wait, you DID know that all the star means is that someone paid for a premium membership, right Terkoy-without-the-Star? Or did you think it was Hitler-ish? Your answer to those questions should tell you a lot about yourself.

Sorry, I don't take any "conservative" who drives and brags about driving a little red 10 year old Volkswagen.

Of course you would, Joe, because vegetarianism is your perpetual axe to grind. I agree that the way we eat meat is completely out of wack with environmental and dietary needs, but the entire food supply being cheap is the problem I'm talking about, however.

Corn being too cheap gives us corn syrup. This is proving to be a problem. Crops are so cheap all the time because we use petroleum to ship them insane distances and now several countries can no longer create sufficient food to keep their populations alive. That's insane. We use petroleum (which is also far too cheap) to fertilize the crops. Both of these cause immense pollution. The cheap corn is used to raise cheap hogs and cows and chickens on an enormous scale. This mass production causes pollution and causes animals to suffer. It's not good.

You do know what used to fertilzie most of our crops, right? Animal waste. Raising livestock used to contribute to growing crops in an instrumental way. I always want to ask some of the more militant vegetarians how they think their organic produce is grown. What do they think happens to all the animals that make manure? Do they think they live in petting zoos? Human agriculture evolved as an entwined thing.

We mass produce crops over here (then pick them green and refrigerate them -- oooh tasty!) so we can mass produce livestock over there and then ship everything half way around the world to countries that can't feed themselves polluting wildly all the while. And we throw so much away. It's mind boggling the good food that gets discarded. It's a broken system. It produces crummy food.

"In poor countries, there was a lot of corruption going on," explains Mora. "In rich countries, there were more political and economic pressures on the policymaking."

Not to change the subject of an otherwise excellent article, but I found funny the quoted assertion that there's a difference between corruption in poor countries and corruption in wealthy ones.

So when I wrote, "I would qualify that as certain foods have become too cheap, especially meat," you wrote, Of course you would, Joe, because vegetarianism is your perpetual axe to grind. I agree that the way we eat meat is completely out of wack with environmental and dietary needs, but the entire food supply being cheap is the problem I'm talking about, however.

So you agree with me about meat. That's good.

However, unlike you, I do not consider all food being inexpensive to be a problem. Expensive food = malnourished people. The problem is that the foods that are inexpensive are bad foods, especially factory farmed meat. Conversely, healthy foods like fresh vegetables and fresh fruit are too expensive for many people to purchase.

By the way, my perpetual axe to grind transcends meat: it is all about cruelty to animals, and because animals are treated so viciously by people, my axe is exceedingly sharp, and getting sharper every day.