That whole scenario above is totally dependent on a world popupation growing more than linearly, almost exponentially, and is a statement of belief in a green catastrophist religion . If that is his belief, then so be it, only the passage of time will prove him right or wrong. BUT there is an alternative viewpoint, best expressed in the book "The Rational Optimist", by Matt Ridley. which discusses demographic trends, and resource matters / management, as indicators towards the future of our species on this planet, and the relative wellbeing of those members of our species in the future. The discussion there points to a levelling out of population growth, and then some reduction in the total world population. The book is readily available, or cheaply available for online download. Without doubt, the supply and cost of fishmeal is a problem for aquaculture in the first world, and a problem for subsistence of poor people in the third world. Unquestionably, we in the first world need to find our own replacement for the specifically targeted fisheries for fishmeal, and to better utilise bycatch and fish wastes. In short, we need to grow our own, The alienation of land to produce biofuels, not food for the world's population, whole fisheries to produce fishmeal, not fish protein for the poorest, is a conceit of the most affluent, most educated, and most misinformed and misdirected, in our first world community. That is a scientific quest, not an incantation of the Green catastrophist religion. It needs to be addressed. If the demographic trends in the book mentioned are correct, then increases in efficiency which flow from proper targeting of scientific effort and utilisation of ideas from people working day to day in the industry, will with work produce a better outcome than suggested in this paper.