Bro fish pops are dying in the future fish is going to be for millionaires only I remember when tuna cans cost 25 cents...

Attached: costanza.jpg (200x200, 11.64K)

meant to write ecological, instead of economic

...

It turned Uzbekistan into the second largest exporter of cotton, a cash crop (just like corn), which helped foreign currency reserves of the Soviet Union to carry out trade and keep its economy running. Now imagine a world where Soviets didn't need to make such a decision.

Instead of the world we live in now, where USA got Saudis to dump oil, to destroy USSR's oil export revenues.

it was a flawed ecological decision for economic purposes
if the soviet union had survived it would have had to pay for the costs of this disaster, (the increase in health problems, from the dust, the loss of the fishing industry), the only reason it didn't end up paying for it, is because it it passed the cost onto its successor states, irresponsible ecological decisions made for economic reasons, are one of the features of capitalism, theoretically, a planned economy would improve on this aspect by being able to consciously take into account
ecological concerns, but if planners chose not to take ecological damage into account, the damages is quite similar as it is under capitalism

meant for

i wonder what source of investment in farmed fish would reserved this trend

is farming fish a thing?

yes, ids called aquaculture :DDDDDDDDDD so OP is an alarmist and probably ghey :DDDD

Attached: 750px-Global_total_fish_harvest.svg.png (750x490, 40.97K)

wild is always going to be better you dont know what chemicals the jews inject those farmed fish with

its easier to stop the jews from injecting chemicals than to clean the oceans.

*i wonder how much investment would it take to farm fish in an amount that reverse's this trend
god i am stupid

eat insects instead, be a good prole :^)

Attached: 57011685dd08952a138b46ef-750-563.jpg (750x563, 59.23K)

The Aral Sea was entirely because of the PRIVATIZATION that was going on.

File:Shrinking Aral Sea.ogvPlay media
Satellite images show the changing water levels in the Aral Sea from 2000 to 2011.
Timeline of shrinking

In the early 1960s,[17] the Soviet government decided the two rivers that fed the Aral Sea, the Amu Darya in the south and the Syr Darya in the east, would be diverted to irrigate the desert, in an attempt to grow rice, melons, cereals, and cotton.

The disappearance of the lake was no surprise to the Soviets; they expected it to happen long before. As early as 1964, Aleksandr Asarin at the Hydroproject Institute pointed out that the lake was doomed, explaining, "It was part of the five-year plans, approved by the council of ministers and the Politburo. Nobody on a lower level would dare to say a word contradicting those plans, even if it was the fate of the Aral Sea."[20]
looks like the rivers were diverted in soviet times at the direction of a 5 year plan

why do all think tank infographs use this exact color palette?

Look I know you're memeing but what actually happened was that we agreed lifestylism is neither revolutionary nor political but if you wanted to do it anyway that was on you; but you had to acknowledge that ethical consumption didn't exist. We also agreed that the only actual logical argument for Veganism was one of sustainability, given that humans can survive on food from lower trophic levels exclusively, and it simply wouldn't be possible to keep such a large population fed with meat, fish, eggs etc. in the fact of ecological collapse. The problem was that both edgy retards started trying to derail with "reeee but I like bacon" and edgy vegans started spewing reactionary anarcho-primitivist or anti-natalist bullshit, and this is more or less what happens EVERY time Veganism comes up on this board.

Probably focus grouped & researched to be the most impactful/attention grabbing

The Aral Sea is the only known example of human caused environmental collapse and is a testament to the hubris of economic planners which is why we must talk about it in every thread about environmental degradation under capitalism, which is actually naturally caused and really not so bad.

Unironically this, OP needs to join VEGAN GANG

OK The thing is that the USSR had plans to save the sea, after the 60s and the Sea's dissaperace only began after the 1980s when the USSR had fallen apart. Literally compare 1989 to 2003 and 2009 satellite imagery

Soviet researchers predicted the complete evaporation of the body of water, and a river used to irrigate farmland had the excess water siphoned into the lake. This was, however, expensive, and during the privitisations (and subsequent economic catastrophe) of the 1980s, the plan was abandoned. After Kazakhstan seceded, ultra-intensive cotton farming practices and infrastructure mismanagement (most water running through irrigation to the farms evaporated on the way there) accelerated the shrinkage. Most of the former Aral Sea is a desert.

"Shut up and consume your absolutely luxurious insect-spiced soylent green paste in silence, Prole. Can't you be happy you're allotted a whole hundred grams of synthetic meat for Christmas? You're damn difficult to please, you know that?"

Attached: Soylent Green.mp4 (480x358, 2.61M)

point to where I actually said any of that.
protip you can't because I never did. don't put words in my mouth, you imbecile.
my point is that central planning wont alleviate ecological problems unless the planners chose to take enviromental effects into account when planning, if they don't the damage will be the same as capitalism.

As someone who works in the electrical industry, solar and wind are both shit-tier sources of energy. Solar isn't good unless you live in a desert, and wind is a shit all around unless built out in the ocean (at which point you have to build additional environmentally harmful transformers and containers to transport it. The wind lobby specifically lobbied to hide data because when you include the creation of wind turbines, they're actually more polluting than using coal with modern scrubbers in terms of carbon footprint, space taken up, and other factors. It would take a wind farm the size of six New York Cities including suburbs in order to meet the energy requirements of the US, and about 80% of that energy would need to be transported across large distances. As an aside, solar panels are relatively neutral if used in a proper environment at only a net negative footprint of something like -3%, comparable to coal's -5%. In regions that don't get enough sunlight at the correct angle for moderate efficiency, such as Germany, they're as if not more pollutant than wind turbines. Geothermal and Nuclear are the only two energy sources that aren't complete shit, and geothermal is a meme because of how expensive it is. The only place wind is useful is in Canadian-style nuclear reactors that bleed off the excess heat to create "miniature tornadoes" to produce a little extra power naturally from the waste product. All that being said, waste product is lost profits, so really the environmental benefit of being eco-friendly IN A PROPER MANNER is that you're wasting less money as a producer using the waste for other by-products, but then hippies bitch a fit about said by-products because they're made from waste products.

Comrades it is time to go nuclear

Thorium reactors will line the world from Beijing to Toronto

lol stick this prince philip's bullshit in your anus