As far as the fish are concerned, the least damaging thing to do would
be to leave them in the sea. As said in the (otherwise not terribly
relevant) film Nemo, long, long ago: “fish are friends, not food” 
We have the luxury of not eating fish.
Over a billion people rely on fish as their key source of protein, particularly those in poorer, developing countries where 70% of the world’s malnourished children live.
Fish are food. Especially ones like black fin sharks that are not currently a risk caught in a sustainable manner.
If we want to safeguard food security for people around the world today, and let future generations enjoy the rich choice of fresh, healthy seafood that we know today, we need to ensure our oceans remain productive. At the MSC we believe that the best way to do this is to recognise and reward sustainable fishing, not to exclude fish from our diets
Grouper are known colloquially as “jewfish” (in South Florida). Apparently they also are hermaphroditic.
And hey, they’re endangered, so the idiot fishermen could always claim they were ‘helping’ an endangered species.
The dude in the video doesn’t look malnourished.
we need to ensure our oceans remain productive. At the MSC we believe that the best way to do this is to recognise and reward sustainable fishing, not to exclude fish from our diets
Hm, the idea that the fish count would stay the same or increase if we continue eating them – this is triggering my extremely-hard-to-believe sensor. Let me put it this way: how is not eating fish going to decrease biodiversity and population (and i’m not referring to fish farms of course)?
edit: Also, on the MSC and their certifications: a smear
The MSC may be a bad industry shill, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have sustainable fisheries, and their facts on this page check out. We have http://www.oceanwise.ca/ out here.
How about this one: How would not killing yourself reduce your impact on the environment? We should really just kill all the humans, Rwandan-genocide style to avoid the use of chemicals and environmentally damaging weapons.
Meanwhile, plants respond defensively to sounds of caterpillars chewing leaves, and are put out by anaesthetic. “the line between plants and animals might be a little softer than we traditionally think of it as.”
This is a good question, and is something i grapple with, indeed. At least i didn’t put myself on Earth, but for every resource i consume, i must take responsibility. However, i refuse to follow the line of thinking that goes “we’re damaging the environment just by being alive => oh well, i’ll stop making an effort to reduce my footprint”.
So why don’t i hear more about grouper attacks? They just stay further out?
No survivors.
3 Likes
I agree, it’s important to make choices to minimize our impact, and to encourage others to do so as well.
It gets complex.
Some evidence is implying that a vegetarian diet is less healthy, in spite of superior indicators of health including reduced BMI, smoking, and alcohol consumption, and increased wealth and physical activity.
Vegetarianism, I suspect to a lesser extent than raw food, organic, and high meat diets, is a preoccupation of the wealthy.
There is a certain amount of fish we can eat. All ecosystems have a certain capacity; this is why we manage hunting too. Responsible fishing, particularly line fishing, is a relatively low impact way to get protein compared to cattle and chicken. Responsible enough that I can forgive them for torturing a fish - as long as they eat it! Nature isn’t much kinder anyway.
Meanwhile, land raised fish are very promising, and cause none of the issues traditionally associated with farmed fish.
You probably would have seen a cloud of “ink” emanating from my posterior…
3 Likes
Heard the voice of this guy say that:
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
