[anymouse]

Capitalism can indeed overcome this, but the fish need owners first.

Somehow I think the fish have done quite well over the millenia without "owners."

Forget about Willie, Free the Fishes! ;)

Does Jesse know about your plan to enslave the altitudely challenged? :)

[anymouse]

Almost forgot, "One dorsal fin, one vote." :)

"Eat fish-free dolphin." :)

[Mark Bahner]

Somehow I think the fish have done quite well over the millenia without 'owners.'

No, without owners, if the demand for fish is more than the fish can supply themselves, the number of fish will go down. If the fish have owners, the owners have an incentive to: 1) grow more fish, and 2) not let the number of fish be less than the amount that makes the most money.

A wise man once said something like, "Both jayhawks and humans eat chickens. But if you have more jayhawks, you have less chickens. If you have more humans you have more chickens." This bit of wisdom is absolutely true for chickens...because people OWN chickens. It's NOT true for fish...UNLESS people own the fish.

[Physicist]

Somehow I think the fish have done quite well over the millenia without "owners."

Forsooth, but that was before people discovered how delicious they were.

Does Jesse know about your plan to enslave the altitudely challenged?

I prefer to call them "vertebrates of different..."

(...wait for it...)

"...aspirations".