←back to thread

144 points scubakid | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
profsummergig ◴[] No.44417273[source]
FWIW, China also produces enormous (enormous) quantities of seafood from caged underwater oceanic farms. It's the future of fishing IMHO.

The rich, everywhere in the world, will continue to seek wild-caught though. (While they publicly rail against the poor eating wild-caught. Such is how the wheels turn.).

replies(4): >>44417845 #>>44417940 #>>44418011 #>>44420706 #
Nursie ◴[] No.44418011[source]
Tasmania produces a lot of caged salmon.

It’s bad for the salmon (in terms of animal welfare) and it’s wrecking the local ecosystems. It’s not any sort of panacea.

We need to stop destroying ocean ecosystems, not just shift the damage around. Overfishing of wild stock, habitat destruction through bottom-trawling and intensive fish farming all need to be properly looked at.

replies(2): >>44418196 #>>44424663 #
HDThoreaun ◴[] No.44424663[source]
The reality is that people are going to eat salmon. If you say all the ways of growing salmon are unacceptable people will just ignore you and go for the cheapest one. If you convince the government to tax salmon consumption the government will be removed. People really, really do not like to decrease consumption.
replies(1): >>44429383 #
Nursie ◴[] No.44429383[source]
The reality is also that keeping on doing that and other activities like bottom-trawling is going to continue to wreck ecosystems.

Both of these things can be true.

You don’t get to push away the environmental damage these things cause because you like a fish fillet and won’t hear otherwise.

All I’m saying (and what conservationists are saying) is that if we carry on down this path we’re going to destroy the ocean ecosystems, and if we don’t want that we should stop. You seem to be replying indignantly that we are going to carry on regardless. OK, well that’s the choice humanity faces, isn’t it?

replies(1): >>44432543 #
1. HDThoreaun ◴[] No.44432543[source]
Humanity isn’t going to make the decision we want it to here. That’s why it’s so important to find ethical alternatives, it’s the only way to prevent bottom trawling. Nature shows and heartfelt appeals are not enough.
replies(1): >>44440260 #
2. Nursie ◴[] No.44440260[source]
They are starting to work, in some countries, where it has been realised that these things are incompatible with sustainable fisheries.

Alternatives are definitely good, and yes, it will be easier to move people away from destructive practices with them in place.

My annoyance is that sometimes things are necessary regardless of their being an alternative, and saying "Herp derp unless you have a solution then shut up" isn't very helpful (I'm not accusing you of this).

It's not wrong to state "we have a serious problem, if we don't change course things are going to get bad" without having all the answers to changing that course.

replies(1): >>44441839 #
3. HDThoreaun ◴[] No.44441839[source]
> My annoyance is that sometimes things are necessary regardless of their being an alternative

Sometimes things that are necessary arent done.

> "Herp derp unless you have a solution then shut up" isn't very helpful

Saying something is necessary when it wont be done without a replacement isnt very helpful either.

> They are starting to work, in some countries, where it has been realised that these things are incompatible with sustainable fisheries.

My understanding is that China is by far the biggest culprit when it comes to bottom trawling and they will not stop without an alternative way to feed 1.4 billion people seafood.

Of course its right to point out the problem but I think it is also necessary to go beyond that. The problem will not be fixed without a solution, and eat less seafood unfortunately is not on the table.