I have more feelings about the second story. I believe the power imbalance in fisheries management and the injustice caused by climate change is a fascinating case study. Regarding economic sustainability, fish as income will take precedence over biological sustainability. I believe that fisheries with high social satisfaction are less relevant to biological sustainability, which would create a paradoxical point of environmental injustice and social injustice. But there is an irony that social sustainability always takes precedence over achieving biological sustainability, and some institutions or scientists will wrongly place the responsibility of biological sustainability on individual fishermen. I think these discriminatory perspectives deviate from ecologically sustainable development approaches and lack consideration of the social impact of justice decisions.
I envision a world where justice enhances equity by rebalancing power and agency to the marginalized, as do natural resources. There is a close correlation between natural resources and society, which can be seen in the actions of fisheries and coastal animal protection. I personally agree that social and environmental justice outcomes require multiple perspectives that balance history, capital, and/or cultural dynamics to maintain a balance within the ecology.
I support transparency in public fisheries to identify illegally caught fish, as well as public pressure on politicians to improve policies to balance natural ecological equity, and there is a need for social scientists to propose standards of social responsibility to regulate and mediate human-nature harmony on an ethical level.
Yes I agree with your first point, fishermen on their own often struggles to meet their ends, and end up pressured to harvest more fish at the cost of sustainability. Therefore, pressures using top-down approach is necessary to protect the sustainability, as well as mitigation for fishermen who will end up paying for the cost of policies.
Your ideas and thoughts is exactly the same as mine! The principle behind the second story is a tragedy that the government is fully capable to dabble in these things and can pass the related legal policy to limit the people on the ecological environment of harmful behavior and also the ecological protective policies, but the problem is under capitalism and interests they don't want to do so, or it's hard to do, because they are conflict, they must be very clear about these but the harm to the environment than they are about to get the benefit, it may be just a little sacrifice, and finally they push the responsibility to those who can obey the policy of helpless fishermen, It's a total injustice and it's everywhere. I really want it to be eradicated but I honestly don't know how to do it. I think it is not enough to do it alone or with small groups or parties.
Hi Qihan, I definitely agree that this bottom to top systems approach has been adopted for far too long and we need to deviate away from it. Without governmental intervention and policy change, the individual will continually be burdened and blamed for what is truly a global issue at stake. Your notion that increased transparency and the integration of a multitude of voices is necessary to institute just change.