>>2085332
SOON.

>>2085332
1 that assumes it won't level off
2 it says "seafood" not "fish"

>>2085379
To be fair, Sea food is pretty much anything that can be eaten or sold.

1) Your graph is more than a decade out of date.
2) Ahh yes, the twentieth century. A haven of sustainability. Not like there have been rampant and widespread development of any protocols whatsoever to increase the viability of pretty much all industries.
Hmm.


Did you intentionally choose that graph to mislead, or was that just indicative of your ignorance?

>>2085332
Not long enough. Fuck fish.

>>2085379
there's no reason why it would level off.
Odds are it will become even more steep. Once a species gets beneath a viable population, it's usually just a matter of time until extinction.
Humans are driving most edible fish stocks towards that end.