Ocean Frontier Fertility: The Near Term Possibility of Bluefin Tuna Production

Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 09:47.

Having previously discussed the theoretic global potential of iron fertilization to peacefully increase the population of whites, the immediate problem is how to bring this theoretic potential into actual practice in the near term. In all likelihood this new regime will be opened up in the same way other new regimes are opened: with high value products or services that are under increasing demand and/or decreasing availability. With over-harvesting of natural ocean fisheries and the increasing demand from growing Asian markets, a point is rapidly approaching where oceanic cultivation of some of the higher value products will be capitalized. This essay is about one such potential and how it can seed the iron fertilization potential for white population increase: Oceanic Cultivation of Bluefin Tuna.

Once a staple of the Scandinavian peoples, the bluefin tuna is now largely depleted in the North Sea. But the demand for bluefin tuna is still increasing, and it is, pound for pound, the most valuable wild product from the oceans.

At a recent auction in Japan, a single bluefin tuna sold for $90,000.

While this was a record high price—remember that this is for a fish, currently available almost solely from wild sources, that is in both decreasing supply and increasing demand.

The obvious question is: If there is so much money to be made from ocean-going cultivation to sell into such a market—why are there no businesses pursuing it?

The answer is that there are. Currently, however, these efforts depend on costly structures located in high-value coastal areas that also tend to be environmentally sensitive. An incremental step toward more profitable bluefin tuna production would be to make the structures ocean-going so they can relocate to less expensive and less environmentally sensitive areas that may in fact be more optimal in temperature and other factors for the bluefin’s maturation.

And there is at least one company currently pursuing such an ocean-going structure:

Itzasi Aquaculture

Itzasi’s proposed ocean-going structure is similar to an oil tanker in appearance, but is designed to provide a stable ocean platform and captive growth environment for the tuna. Their website has a number of illustrations and animations of their platform in operation along with some description of the overall process.

Itzasi’s proposed platform hasn’t been built to the best of my knowledge but it is something that is a logical progression from the current trend toward cultivation of bluefin tuna combined with environmental and real estate constraints. Even if their design isn’t successful, another probably will prove successful.

Once such platforms go into profitable operation, a logical series of events is probable:

As bluefin tuna production rises within ocean-going farms, the learning curve will lower the cost of producing those ocean-going farms.
This, in turn, will make ocean-going production of lower-price marine foods, not just bluefin tuna, economic.
Eventually, the limits on feedstocks for these ocean-going farms will drive iron fertilization as a way of increasing photosynthesis. The most rational place for this to occur will be lower-latitude ocean deserts due to high solar availability.
As the experience with iron fertilization progresses in these productive environments, it will prove practical to exploit more marginal environments at high latitudes, with their lower total solar flux.
It is probably at this point, of high latitude exploitation of iron fertilization, that the ocean-going cultures of the North Sea peoples will lead the way to significant population explosion among Whites.
A variety of experiments will emerge as the area of Earth available for habitation exponentiates with additional learning. By comparing the results of such experiments under the constraints implied by artificial ecosystems, humans will necessarily learn much more about themselves and what is sustainable.
Ultimately, such artificial ecosystems are a dress-rehearsal for migration to an artificially created heliocentric biosphere—a destiny that appears to be more natural and sustainable for technological civilization than operating among natural ecosystems.

The future is not in violation of Malthus—it potentially postpones the day of reckoning with Malthus long enough to recover some of our sanity and footing prior to once again having to deal with an invasion of other peoples coveting our creation.

Tags: Demographics

Comments:

Posted by John Ray on Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:02 | #

James
I guess you know that fish farming is plagued by piracy of various sorts

And I think the iron seeding experiment in the Indian Ocean did not work very well—from memory

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:49 | #

Piracy is mainly a problem for operations where the structures are immobile and left unguarded due to the low value. Although the bluefin tuna platforms are slow moving they most certainly would not be low value and left unguarded—indeed the entire idea of frontier population growth is to find an economic use for whites.

While there are historic reasons to believe whites are incapable of solving the political problems associated with their replacement, there are just as many historic reasons to believe that when given a fighting chance, as in a real fight using weapons, whites will win. This is particularly true of their operations on the high seas. We are either going to learn to play to our strengths or we will perish.

As for the veracity of iron fertilization itself—this was previously covered. The link given in the article to the prior article on global potential is where you can find the history of iron fertilization experiments. They have been stongly supportive of the iron hypothesis. Experimentation is growing. From [url=“http://chemoce.mlml.calstate.edu/past.htm#ironex1”>the Wikipedia article on iron fertilization</a>:

...<a class=“external text” title=“http://chemoce.mlml.calstate.edu/past.htm#ironex1”]Ironex I[/url], a proof of concept research voyage, which was successfully carried out near the Galapagos Islands in 1993 by his colleagues at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. Since then 9 other international ocean trials have confirmed the iron fertilization effect: Ironex (Iron Experiment) II, ‘95; SOIREE (Southern Ocean Iron RElease Experiment), ‘99; EisenEx (Eisen Experiment), ‘00; SEEDS (Subarctic Pacific Iron Experiment for Ecosystem Dynamics Study), ‘01; SOFeX (Southern Ocean Iron Experiments - North & South), ‘02; SERIES (Subarctic Ecosystem Response to Iron Enrichment Study), ‘02; SEEDS-II, ‘04; EIFEX (European Iron Fertilization Experiment); ‘04; and CROZEX (CROZet natural iron bloom and EXport experiment), ‘05.

CROEX was conducted in the extreme south western Indian Ocean and was an observation of natural blooms. Even though the Indian Ocean in general is not a good candidate as its nitrogen content is too low (see the previously linked MR article and the map of high nitrogen low chlorophyll oceanic surface regions) CROZEX found that natural iron blooms supported th

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:10 | #

(I’m not sure why the prior response got cut off but here is a continuation.)

CROZEX found that the natural iron blooms supported the iron hypothesis.

Indeed, the strongest support for the iron hypothesis comes from the highest latitudes where, for example, the SEEDS experiment found a 40-fold increase in chlorophyll. This indicates that when the learning curve leads to making the higher latitudes more accessible the potential for white population explosion there is great.

PS: Soren, what I find risible is the idea that we are going to overcome our problems politically. We have a track recod there and it is to lose, lose, lose. Don’t be a loser while deriding those who think outside the box we’re trapped by. At the very least come up with a plausible scenario of how we are going to start a global war so we can fight.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:07 | #

Soren, I apologize for misreading your poetic license.

Here’s my answer in seirousnes:

Starting with space colonization (not the lunar surface but cis-lunar space greenhouses) might have been viable if the momentum of the space race had not been diverted inward to the computer industry at the same time the barriers protecting the cultures that created that race were battered down by vectorist policies.

As for the far future of a heliocentric collection surface (ie: Dyson sphere)—I suspect it will initially appear as an extension of cis-lunar orbital green houses. There will be a large population of green “cells” in various heliocentric orbits that favor the availability of materials from current heliocentric mass (the asteroids and planets). Beyond that, I have heard some proposals for stellar husbandry that involve extracting mass from the sun through very far-out macroengineering projcts but the big gains in carrying capacity will have been achieved before then I suspect.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:52 | #

James what if we don’t want to move to a heliocentric biosphere? I’d rather make the race-replacers move to one of those, and our side take back the land we’ve always had and keep it.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:09 | #

Fred, there is certainly a lot to be said for returning lands to their rightful owners but the real problem is sustainability.

A rational view of the potential here places the carrying capacity of the Earth at a disappearingly small percentage of the future population. I don’t want our folk to be left out of that potential. The Earth really should be viewed more as a museum piece or nature preserve and activities thereupon should be kept at a level of technology consistent with long-range biological evolution rather than technological civilization.

Yes, I certainly want to see Europe returned to our people but I think that is more likely if we have some base of operation for ourselves. Right now the European homelands are so infected by a pathological form of “civilization” that it is necessary to tear the whole thing down.

I also think restrictions against the use of nonrenewable resources need to be placed upon the entire planet.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:16 | #

OK but for my part I’ll concentrate on speaking out in favor of keeping the land we’ve always had, and if anyone’s to be launched into orbit let it be the other side. In fact, I can’t wait to push the launch button—I hereby volunteer.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:37 | #

The question of man, Nature and technology is very fascinating, and not, of course, without deep political implications. These certainly extend to environmental and, therefore, civilisational sustainability.

Clearly, the character of that civilisation - what it is for - determines its standing with regard to sustainability and also its potential for change. Thus, the strength of our free enterprise model lies in its efficiency at translating individual desires into reality. Its weakness, however, lies in it inefficiency at incorporating constraints on individual desires in a wider interest.

These characteristics are extraordinarily hard to change. To repeat my favourite scary mental image, which I’ve applied to liberalism in the past, we are flying down a railway track at breakneck speed, and it seems to be increasing. The horror of our situation, as we are only just discovering, is that there is no driver on the platform of the engine. Even worse, as we peer into the countryside ahead of us it is clear that there is no track, nothing but virgin earth. The insane machine is hammering down the sleepers and rails before itself as it goes.

We do not know what it is we are really doing, for the sum total of self-interested free enterprise is selfishness. Issues of sustainability do not figure because individualism cannot count higher than 1. In an ethnocentric society civilisational aims would necessarily include sustainability, since our ethnic genetic interests lie with our children.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:45 | #

You might be taking fembots with you.

My wife thinks she made the ultimate sacrifice by agreeing to move just 20 minutes away from the inner suburbs (to a comfortable, well-established, affordable, leafy, middle-class, Anglo suburb with a nice shopping centre).

Just on Sunday my grandmother came to visit for the first time and burst into tears at the sight of a gum tree. “How could you have found this place?” she asked accusingly.

I sometimes tease my wife when we pass through small country towns and see a For Sale sign. I’ll stop the car and pretend to be interested. It’s guaranteed to spark a panic.

So, if I decide to go and live on an oil rig or in some lunar biosphere the one certainty is that I’d be going alone.

(BTW, GW, nice comment.)

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 30 Mar 2006 02:07 | #

So, if I decide to go and live on an oil rig or in some lunar biosphere the one certainty is that I’d be going alone.

And the male to female ratio of the frontiersmen was similarly large—so large that the primary form of reproduction with via de facto polyandry brothels.

The real fertility expansion occurred with pioneer families.

You have to ask yourself, which is more artificial: A city or a family farm?

You then have to ask yourself: If it is possible to have so much control over the environment that life will be suppored where there previously was no life, why wouldn’t the men so controlling the environment do so such that it would be attractive to fertile females?

Posted by Best Oil Rig Jobs on Mon, 13 Dec 2010 02:46 | #

Engaged on the oil rigs is a superb career with many opportunities.