Name: 應該把海洋封鎖來救魚嗎？ (Should We Close The Ocean To Save Fish?)
Uploaded: 2016-10-17T06:17:56.000Z
Duration: 3 min 48 s

程度副詞

Here's an awesome way to stop overfishing guys. Let's just close the oceans! Easy peasy! Right?

這邊有一個超棒的方法來停止過度捕撈: 把海洋關上就好拉！非常簡單，是吧？

Hey piscivores, Trace here for DNews -- We're killing the oceans. In the middle of the last

各位食魚動物好，我是Trace，您正在收看DNews -- 我們正在將海洋毀滅殆盡

century, aggressive commercial fishing really hit the oceans hard, trying to get high-protein

上世紀中因為人們想在飲食中攝取高蛋白質的魚類而開始進行激烈的大規模捕魚確實對海洋造成嚴重的傷害

fish into our diet. In 1989, 90 million metric tons of fish were taken from the ocean. Since

光在1989年，我們就從海洋中捕捉了9千萬噸的魚類

that peak, the number of fish caught has decreased every year since, and not because we don't

但自從那年達到頂峰後，往後的漁獲量就每年一直下滑

WANT more fish, but because they're simply -- not there.

原因並不是我們不再需要漁獲，而原因只是 -- 沒有魚了

In the year 2000, the BBC assumed genetically farmed fish would be sustaining the world

2000年時，BBC預估了基因改良的養殖魚塭能供應全球的需求到2025年

by 2025, that's not far from now. At the time, the United Nations estimated 70 percent of

這並不太久。聯合國預估，到那時，占全球百分之七十的海洋會因為過度捕撈

the world was threatened by overfishing. Then, in 2003 the journal Nature estimated of the

造成威脅。在2003年，Nature期刊推估了

biomass of all fish in the ocean, only 10% of all of that is left. Thanks to commercial fishing.

海洋中所有魚類的總量，因為大規模捕撈，只剩下原有數量的百分之十

It's sort of like, we HAD 10 fish, and we ate 9 of them. So now what? At the moment, the international

這就像是，我們有十種魚類，而我們已經把其中九種吃光了。所以現下

community agreed to fish in seasons, with catch quotas and minimum size limits -- with

全球同意只有某些季節可捕魚，並且有配額跟體型大小的限制 --

the hope this would allow time for the fish to mature, spawn and build the population back.

希望利用這些機制能夠讓魚群有時間成長，產卵，讓數量再回升

News flash, it ain't workin'. Why? Because we're not really managing the fisheries, it's

新聞快報，結果沒有用。為什麼？因為我們沒有真正對漁業有所管理

essentially a free for all once ships are in international waters. According to the

基本上漁船航行到了公海就不受管制

World Wildlife Federation, "the global fishing fleet is 2-3 times larger than what the oceans

根據世界野生動物基金會，「全球的捕漁船隊是超過海洋能持續負荷的兩三倍之多」

can sustainably support." So what do we do?!

A new plan published in PLOS Biology has a pretty radical solution that they say will

PLOS 生物期刊中提出了一個非常激進的方法，他們說

sustain the fish population forever... CLOSE THE OCEANS ! OKAY EVERYONE, CLOSE IT UP,

這方法能夠讓魚群永續生存...關閉海洋！好的各位，關閉它吧

WE HAD A GOOD RUN. Close it up, we're done.

Seriously? Close the oceans? Is this gonna work? According to the researchers' models, Yeah.

真的嗎？關閉海洋？這有用嗎？根據研究模型的結果，是的

Not only would it work, but we'd end up make money in the long run. Their plan is close the high

它不僅有用，而且長遠來看還能讓我們賺到錢。他們的計畫是關閉深海域

seas --- which are real, it's not just a pirate joke. The United Nations Food and Agriculture

--- 這是真的，不是鬧著玩。聯合國糧食及農業組織定義

Organization define the high seas as international waters more than 200 miles from land. If you

深海域為遠離陸地超過200海浬的國際海域

do the math, that's 64 percent of ocean's surface and 95 percent of its volume, all

如果你有算過，等於是百分之64的海平面以及百分之95的體積，都關閉，不可捕魚

unfishable. Closed. But only for a few years, then when they're opening again under new

但只需關閉數年，然後在新法規之下，這些海域又能重新開放捕魚

regulations, we can fish sustainably FOREVER!

Yes, it sounds a little far fetched, but last month, the director of the international consulting

是的，這聽起來有些牽強，但上個月，國際顧問公司，麥肯錫公司，的執行長

firm McKinsey & Company said the SAME THING! He said, we're SUBSIDIZING high seas fishing already,

也說了一樣的話！他說，我們已補助深海捕魚

which increasingly is not a profitable enterprise. Ships meander around the oceans, looking for

結果漁業卻越來越無利可圖。船隻來回在海洋中航行，

remaining populations. If we designated the high seas as conservation areas it would cost

找尋剩餘的漁獲。假如我們指定深海為保護區

us on average $2 per person for everybody on the planet, but we'd get $4 back in the long run. Once populations

平均每人可能需多花2美元，但長遠來看，我們能夠回收4美元

rebounded, there would be more fish to catch, which would be  good for business AND conservationists.

一旦魚群數重新建立起來，就有更多的魚可以抓，這對企業以及保育人士都有幫助

A study in Science from 2006 says if we don't do SOMETHING then by 2050, doesn't matter, it's all over; we're

科學人期刊從2006年開始做了項研究，假如我們甚麼都不做的話，無論如何，到了2050年就甚麼都沒有了

going to have no more fish to eat, all the populations would have collapsed. Under the PLOS Biology plan, each country could regulate

我們將無魚可吃，所有魚群將被消滅。在PLOS Biology計畫之下，每個國家都可以規範

its own 200 miles of fishing waters, and thus maintain healthy populations of local fish

其可自行捕魚的200海浬，這樣不僅可以維持區域性健康的魚群數目

and allow for the global population to rebound. Iceland, Australia, New Zealand and the United

還可以讓全球的魚群數再重新建立起來。線在冰島，澳大利亞，紐西蘭和美國

States have already begun attempts to rebuild their fishing stock, but there's a LOT more to do.

已經開始試圖去重建他們的魚群數量，但還有很多工作要去做

Would this mean you CAN'T have sushi for a while? No , Not really, but the sushi you have

那麼這表示大家短時間內不可以吃握壽司嗎？不盡然，但你可能需要

might be more expensive as only a small number of the fish will wander into the acceptable

多付點錢來吃握壽司，因為只有一小部分的魚

fishing areas for some of the fancier wants. Yes, there WOULD be economic impact around the planet, but if we don't

會因為新鮮感而游進可捕撈的區域。是的，這將對整個星球的經濟造成衝擊

do SOMETHING we're on track to hunt fish to extinction.

但如果我們不做點事，我們將會把魚捕到滅絕

Go ahead. Put your comment down below, and thanks for watching

到下面留言吧，並且感謝您觀看今天的DNews

DNews today! Subscribe for daily videos! 7 days a week.

字幕列表影片播放

應該把海洋封鎖來救魚嗎？ (Should We Close The Ocean To Save Fish?)

assume

world

fancy

planet