Not enough fish in the sea

3. What is the state of fishery resources?

3.1 The quantities fished in seas and oceans increased from 1998 to 2000, and stabilized at a slightly lower level since 2001 (84 million tonnes). This slight decrease is mainly due to lower catches in the Southeast and Northwest Pacific, but trends vary greatly between regions. Tuna is the single most important exploited resource in the high seas, particularly in the Pacific Ocean. More...

3.2 In many areas, traditional stocks have been depleted and less valuable species are being targeted by fishers. About half of all monitored stocks are now fully exploited and another quarter are overexploited, depleted, or slowly recovering. The remaining quarter are under- or moderately exploited. Available data leads to the conclusion that the global maximum potential for marine capture fisheries has been reached and that restrictive management measures are needed. More...

3.3 Fishery policies and management have usually focussed on single fishery stocks. Growing concerns about ecosystems have prompted a call for increased research into processes that affect, or are affected by, fisheries. Much more needs to be known about interactions with habitats, aquatic communities, land-based activities, climatic changes, and so on. However, the current state of fishery resources and their ecosystems allows little room for delay in management actions that should have been taken in the last three decades. More...

3.4 Fish stocks in inland waters are more difficult to monitor and very few countries can afford to supply complete data. Inland fishery resources are often undervalued and under threat from unsustainable fishing activities as well as from habitat alteration or degradation. Many river basins, especially in developing countries, support intensive fisheries, and in many cases catches are increasing. Inland fish are considered to be the most threatened group among all the vertebrates used by humans. Nevertheless, efforts have been made in many areas to enhance fish stocks in inland waters. More...

 

Start with a charity in your own backyard.

nepalese backwhack

nepalese backwhack is a Google Whack. I dug this one up on my 3rd try, right after I finished watching Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure, probably the funniest video I have seen in a long time.

Dave Gorman, whose 15 minutes of fame include trying to track down all the Dave Gormans in the world and meet up with them, decides to take on a bet by his friend, also Dave Gorman, to start a chain. It would be a chain of Googlewhacking that would take him around the world a few times, spending his book publishers advances on a quest to get 2 Googlewhacks from every Googlewhacker.

All these mentions of Google whacking should either get me banned or put me in the first page of search results on Google.

Here's a link to his book that I will probably try and pick up soon.

Another book Amazon suggests customers ultimately buy after viewing this item is:
8% buy The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World by A. J. Jacobs $11.20

So instead of buying Dave's book, they picked up AJ Jacobs? I really enjoyed his book, it was another one of those quirky, hilarious, idiotic but strangely purposeful reads. AJ decides to go about reading the dictionary, turning it into an obsession and ultimately a book.

I think I have a similar obsessive personality trait to these two... at one point early this year I was asking everyone I knew 3 ways they thought they could get rich. This was most likely because of the books I was buying at the time: Pay Yourself First, Grow Rich Slowly, Rich Dad, Poor Dad, Eat The Rich, and Homemade Money (not a book on counterfeiting) to name a few.

Most people suggested playing the lottery, marrying wealth, or selling real estate. Since I was married and didn't own any real estate, the answer was to buy lotto tickets. I didn't go crazy and spend all my money on quickpicks and scratch 'n wins, but I did use some of my pocket change to pick up tickets on a regular basis. How much did I win?

$3 I think.

I didn't measure how much I lost, which really didn't matter to me that much. It was the fact that so many people think the lotto was the way to gain wealth, and it isn't.

Another obsession of late has been the stock market, which is the king of all gambles. Like the casinos, banks and brokeragehouses all have the upper hand and whether you win or lose they will make money. It is only when you step away from the table that they really do lose.

According to Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, "Gambling offers the near-certainty of completely losing the original stake over the long term, even if it offers regular wins along the way."

The "get rich slowly" way, according to all the other books I have read that don't have "rich" in the title is this:

Start your own business
Work hard
Fail, sometimes many times
Get noticed
Become successful.

This seemed to play out well for those with the Youtube view of things. Youtube probably would have been sued into Napster oblivion if it hadn't been for Google coming by with a chunk of change. Google set the trend and opened the coiffers of many venture capitalists who were once-bitten twice-shy about the dot com craze.

Quoting from the story Google's Abject Failure

"In its 21-month life, YouTube has created value at the rate of $80 million dollars a month, sending every venture capitalist and smart kid searching for the "next big thing" in Web 2.0 "

November has seen a huge amount of Web 2.0 sites trying to capitalize on the craze. Remember the Million Dollar Homepage? There's a bunch of copycats. One red paperclip? There's Swapace. Web 2.0?

Well, what really is Web 2.0, but Web 1.0 with less clicks? Youtube's success was probably moving the play button from the toobar to the middle of the screen. The television's success was the remote. The computer's success was the mouse.

Simplification of great ideas and bringing them to life could be the way to success.