smead
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by smead on Oct 8, 2010 17:47:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Eugene on Oct 9, 2010 12:35:30 GMT -5
An awesome (and delicious) success story. One result of such limited access to the fishery is higher costs. Frankly, fish populations should be sustainable. If that means they cost more, I'm all for it. Also, a little dated, but check out this article: ehistory.osu.edu/osu/origins/article.cfm?articleid=18
|
|
smead
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by smead on Oct 10, 2010 6:51:31 GMT -5
Well, seems like a multitude wants things cheap...evidence all the jobs gone to China and the like due to much lower labor costs...yet the true cost of that is very high...penny wise and dollar foolish.
I fear that resources of all sorts are the same...sustainable costs more in a tactical sense...but what is the cost of something driven into the ground until it's not just unsustainable...but gone altogether???
I'll pay more for both American goods and sustainable resources...yet we have a planet of nearly 7 billion people who may not share that sentiment.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene on Oct 11, 2010 8:40:06 GMT -5
Alas!
|
|