How many fish would flood the earth?

[Representing_Tromba]

Let's say, hypothetically, that all of humanity collectively stopped catching fish and the world could sustain the population on non-sea life. How long would it take for the breeding of fish to cause a complete flooding of the earth from water displacement of ever growing sea life? Assume, for the sake of the hypothetical, that no more pollution is added to the ocean.

 

[Deleted member 206441]

Let's say, hypothetically, that all of humanity collectively stopped catching fish and the world could sustain the population on non-sea life. How long would it take for the breeding of fish to cause a complete flooding of the earth from water displacement of ever growing sea life? Assume, for the sake of the hypothetical, that no more pollution is added to the ocean.

Do humans actively aid the breeding process?

 

[Hoshino]

3.18×10²¹ kg in about ~3,057 years.

 

[Representing_Tromba]

Do humans actively aid the breeding process?

I would say, no. We do not touch the oceans at all.

 

[RivCA]

Even with humanity cutting itself off from the ocean, the predator/prey balance would eventually hit an equilibrium. Factor in that even without violent tendencies from humans, everything eventually dies, and an equilibrium will be established in a century or two.

What if we factor out the predators?

You can’t. Something will rise to take over for the biological niche that is intended to vacate the need for this. If you continue to strike out the “apex predator” each time it’s made apparent, even the sine-cell organisms would be struck out. It’s not that life finds a way, it’s that an ecological niche got left wide open, and nature, being the ever-pragmatic bitch that it is, will fill that niche. Life will always be sustained by consuming life, in its own way

 

[Representing_Tromba]

3.18×10²¹ kg in about ~3,057 years.

Even with humanity cutting itself off from the ocean, the predator/prey balance would eventually hit an equilibrium. Factor in that even without violent tendencies from humans, everything eventually dies, and an equilibrium will be established in a century or two.

What if we factor out the predators?

You can’t. Something will rise to take over for the biological niche that is intended to vacate the need for this. If you continue to strike out the “apex predator” each time it’s made apparent, even the sine-cell organisms would be struck out. It’s not that life finds a way, it’s that an ecological niche got left wide open, and nature, being the ever-pragmatic bitch that it is, will fill that niche. Life will always be sustained by consuming life, in its own way

These conflict. Though I can understand the prey, predator balance having effect. Even so, with growth only being hindered by predators, wouldn't that have an effect on how long and how many can live?

 

[Jerynboe]

Sharks, dolphins, and bigger fish would have a population boom, possibly overcorrecting the ecosystem, but would eventually reach equilibrium long before the world flooded. The number of fish would also be capped by the plant life, and if they spawned too much they would end up eating all the food. Many ecosystems would be impacted, some would even collapse, but on the whole everything would work out if you zoomed out far enough.

Continents existed before humans even existed. Even in this hypothetical, global warming would have more of an effect on rising sea levels than the amount of sea life (even by the estimates of people who think global warming is overhyped).

 

[Piisfun]

The one thing I am certain about is that it's less than a mol of fish.

 

[Deleted member 206441]

I am not a scientist but I am of the opinion it will never happen without human intervention.

As others have mentioned it would balance itself out, even when predators are removed or even if we only have fish that don't eat other fish in the ocean, (not possible, cannibalistic bastards).

Eventually, breadding will out pace food. Fish reduce pop and coz less fish will reach adulthood to breed.

Ultimately, fish will eat other fish...

 

[Placeholder]

Do humans actively aid the breeding process?

I would say, no.

It's more complicated than that. You're ignoring the Harkness test and McAfee's dictum.

 

[Representing_Tromba]

It's more complicated than that. You're ignoring the Harkness test and McAfee's dictum.
View attachment 40953

Do not give give the harkness test to the fish, please.

 

[Placeholder]

> Sharks, dolphins, and bigger fish would have a population boom, possibly overcorrecting the ecosystem, but would eventually reach equilibrium long before the world flooded.

Plus parasites and every type of microbe.

Do not give give the harkness test to the fish, please.

Not giving the harkness test to the fish is a major ethics violation.

 

[C.Details]

Even if you factor out all past and current pollution to the ocean, it's getting hotter, currents changes and the ocean can get more acidic. Certain marine life will die out like corals. Plus considering invasive species that humans actively try to remove like lionfish and purple sea urchins. They will have a boom in growth and destroy ecosystems, so certain species won't be able to come back.

It's possible there will be a big boom of life in some cases but unless something evolves to take the place of wiped out/going extinct species, there might just be random dead zones for a long time.

Of course if the world gets hot enough to the point places like Florida sinks under the water then certain groups of fish, crustaceans and other invertebrates could have more space. Creating new ecosystems and possibly down the line, a new species or two. Also certain whales and porpoise species will have a chance to expand and reclaim old hunting grounds, i know a certain porpoise in baja California is nearing extinction because of human boats. And we wouldn't have to worry about anyone hitting and killing manatees either.

 

[DeepWater]

Let's say, hypothetically, that all of humanity collectively stopped catching fish and the world could sustain the population on non-sea life. How long would it take for the breeding of fish to cause a complete flooding of the earth from water displacement of ever growing sea life? Assume, for the sake of the hypothetical, that no more pollution is added to the ocean.

I think the destruction of earth and the heat death of the universe would happen first.

 

[Terrate]

I guess we can forget about the fishes for now and first calculate how much weight do you need to displace the ocean to cause a complete flooding.

Then we calculate the smallest fish in the food chain(Use its weight as a base, once there's abundance of them, the rest would be abundant as well), then we could go incremental on size increase to displacing it.

As for how long that could take, probably use math on each species birth/growth rate.

And finally, there won't be a specific number on how long that would actually take considering other factors like rain, coral reefs multiplying, underwater plant growth, increase in oxygen production(will affect size in time), ice bergs melting, volcanoes erupting, land displacement, etc. so just estimate away.

(I literally don't know precise math, I just like figuring things that need to be done and I might even be wrong about this.)

 

[Placeholder]

> math

Fish need to breathe (effectively), eat, shit. Microbes need to take up those wastes, and so on. You need a functioning ecosystem. Big fish eating small fish eating plankton and algae, and both of the former needing spaces for their eggs to survive. Both of the latter needing nutrient and sunlight inputs.

All four needing a minimum necessary quantities of sufficiently poop-free saltwater, oxygen, and nutrient inputs to survive and have a replacement offspring.

So that lack of sea water, of living space, would check and bound reproduction as much as predators would, as much as lack of prey would, as much as viruses would, as much as parasites would, and so on. Also inputs like sunlight, silicon, calcium, iron, yadda yadda.

Pick one species. Kelp bass. Wikipedia says they lay "a fuckload of eggs". Or rather it will, after the admins quit nuking my edits.

But there are reasons why kelp bass aren't so numerous there's more kelp bass than water.

Similar reasons for every other species.

> How long would it take for the breeding of fish to cause a complete flooding of the earth from water displacement of ever growing sea life?

Were this a thing, we'd have seen it during prehuman eras. Sooo... ask a prehuman about it. And/or an earth studies scholar.

 

[JayMark]

A fishes body is eighty percent water. Most of the rest is minerals and biological material already in the ocean, which is constantly being drained by evaporation and renewed by runnoff and rain. A new fish does not change water displacement.

 

[BearlyAlive]

Transforming it into fish sticks, so the murricans and rizz kids know what those fish things are. You'd still need like a supergigazillion of burgers to even think about filling a part of the ocean, that's like 5 times the likes of the most famous influencer, so unless fishes got phones there's no way they aura farm the deedlings to those numbors.


(I had a few dozen strokes writing this, so I hope you get as well.)

 

[Corty]

Yeah, this is a 4am-type thread, alright.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

Mass doesn't pop out of nowhere. Where's all that fish mass coming from? Last time I checked, a fish's food source is in the water not out of the water, so the fish only eat the mass that's in the water anyway, so there wouldn't be a net increase of underwater mass.