A sad piece on the near certainty that corals are basically already gone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/a-world-without-coral-reefs.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

"Overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution are pushing coral reefs into oblivion. Each of those forces alone is fully capable of causing the global collapse of coral reefs; together, they assure it. The scientific evidence for this is compelling and unequivocal, but there seems to be a collective reluctance to accept the logical conclusion — that there is no hope of saving the global coral reef ecosystem."

How far behind the reefs will other ecosystems be? How can you feed 7 billion and growing on a rapidly shrinking food supply?

Another view..... http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/news/JCU_099903

While humans certainly have a devastating effect on our planet, our planet itself has a very destructive (or constructive depending on how you look at it) history of its own long before we posed any significance.

The coral reef system we know now may be fragile but its gone from virtually non-existent to what we know today in only a several thousand year process (making it pretty new and I think far more resilient than the original author above gives it credit). Of course, he's also trying to make sure his research continues to be funded. Regardless, the situation should be addressed, but sadly the over fishing is most likely only going to get worse.

---
---
---
---
but sadly the over fishing is most likely only going to get worse.

The tragedy of commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) receives far too little attention. The lesson to be gleaned from this economic law is that common resources, which everyone may access, leads to a rapid depletion and destruction of those resources as the public attempts to horde as much as they can before the resources are depleted.


If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is used without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns — lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil — do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation. For them, erosion of the soil, depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output. They cut down trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation. In hunting and fishing, they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds.

-Ludwig von Mises




Where have all the fishes gone? (http://www.textbookleague.org/34cmmns.htm)

[T]he rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another . . . . But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited.

The same perfect logic dictates the destruction of any and every resource, without exception, if the resource functions as a commons -- that is, if it is controlled by nobody and can be exploited by everybody. In the case of a high-seas fishery, the resource is a stock of fish instead of a stand of grass, and the people are fishing-boat captains instead of herdsmen, but the reasoning is identical. If a captain takes one more haul of fish, the economic benefits will be his alone, but the economic harm (arising from depletion of the stock and impairment of the stock's ability to produce future generations) will be spread among all the captains who fish the same waters. Hence the captain's behavior is quite predictable: He will take the additional haul of fish; then he will take another; then another . . . . Taking one more haul will always be sensible, for it always will promise him more individual benefit than individual harm.

The other captains will think and behave in the same way, and the destruction of the fishery will be inevitable. Moreover, all this destruction will be done by men who are acting rationally and intelligently, not crazily or stupidly. They will continue their rational work until the stock of fish is so small that fishing no longer pays. Then they will sail away and look for a new stock, a new commons, that they can exploit in the same way..."



Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

–John Adams (1814)

Another view..... http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/news/JCU_099903

While humans certainly have a devastating effect on our planet, our planet itself has a very destructive (or constructive depending on how you look at it) history of its own long before we posed any significance.

The coral reef system we know now may be fragile but its gone from virtually non-existent to what we know today in only a several thousand year process (making it pretty new and I think far more resilient than the original author above gives it credit). Of course, he's also trying to make sure his research continues to be funded. Regardless, the situation should be addressed, but sadly the over fishing is most likely only going to get worse.

Yes I'm sure some corals will survive, but coral refers as diversity hotspots and breeding grounds is probably going to be a thing of the past. I wouldn't really say those views are opposing.

One is certainly more 'doomsday' than the other. Considering how drastically our climate and eco-system has changed over Earth's life, the loss (again) of the reef system will IMO be far more devastating to people than the planet - maybe eventually it will just get rid of us (and who could blame it, really).