8 ms·

> I hope in the future they teach children to find out where there food comes from and what impact it has on their environment before purchasing it. This stuff

> I hope in the future they teach children to find out where there food comes from and what impact it has on their environment before purchasing it. This stuff isn't cool. What's are the alternatives here? The ocean is overfished, mammals and birds require large amounts of water and either large areas of land or bring welfare concerns. I can't clearly see that fish farming is any better than farming of any other animals. Did I understand you right?

sedachv 9y ago
> What's are the alternatives here? The alternative is to stop eating carcinogenic, heart disease-causing foods made out of animals and animal secretions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ
- Oletros 9y ago
  Comments like yours is a good way to discredit veganism
  - bananicorn 9y ago
    Why exactly? He just provided you with some facts, along with a logical suggestion.
    - Oletros 9y ago
      He didn't provide any fact, he made hyperbolic claims and and illogical suggestion. Please, provide evidence that all ANIMAL products are carcinogenic and causes heart diseases. The logical conclusion is not stop eating any animal product, is eating less meat.
jussij 9y ago
I don't disagree with you as such. The problem comes when the fish farming industry doesn't stick to the rules and the government, who are meant to be overseeing the industry, decide to look the other way. That exact situation has been going on in Tasmania for many years now and that type of neglect can only end badly. More details: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/how-salmon-farming-got-to-push-macquarie-harbour-to-the-limit/8349342 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/how-salmon-farming-got...
- bamboozled 9y ago
  Thanks for sharing that story, it was really interesting!
bamboozled 9y ago
Fish farming is just as bad as anything else IMO. Theoretical alternatives to the status quo are: * Higher taxes and fines for those using detrimental and high-risk farming practices, thus driving up the price of meat, fish and poultry to deter over-consumption, people don't need to eat animals 7 days a week. Food is simply "too cheap". * Public education and further studies into mostly plant based diets so people aren't afraid to face the stigma and uncertainty about not having animals every night of the week. It's ok to cut back. * Eating food grown or caught as close to your residence as possible. * Mandatory food labelling of products, detailed information about the origin and production methods used to produce said product. * Monetary incentives to have less children.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > Monetary incentives to have less children. Gross.
  - catmanjan 9y ago
    Why is that? Australia did (or still does?) have monetary incentives to have more children, completely backwards...
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      I think that is maybe distasteful. A monetary incentive to not have children is like advocating state-sponsored neutering of people. And since its money, who do you think would be affected for such things? the rich? So basically its the very concept of paying poor people not to procreate, so that the current existing people have a 'nicer time' (which is actually also economically incorrect). Its super gross.
- sweep4r 9y ago
  > * Monetary incentives to have less children. Is this some kind of a joke? How will society support itself with fewer kids?
  - 9y ago
pvaldes 9y ago
Fish farming has bassically the same problems than traditional farming (problems that must be solved), but wins clearly in some aspects. First of all is more efficient. We produce human food via cold blooded animals so we need to provide less animal food to obtain 1Kg of high quality human food. Mammals and birds instead will use a considerable amount of this energy just to keep itselves several degrees warmer than the environmental temperature day and night. Is better also because reduces waste. Fishes are aquatic and have swimming bladders. Its bodyweight is carried by the water, so you are not investing in growing several Kg of heavy unedible skeletons that will end in the trash. There is more food in 100Kg of entire fishes than in a pig of 100Kg, and you'll need to allocate less volume of garbage dump. At difference of agriculture or industry, if you have a farm fish you need to care for keeping the quality of the water in reasonable levels for life beings. This water is still available to other animals and plants. More efficient use of energy and water and less waste is the definition of environmentally friendly. The ugly truth is that the number of humans is ever increasing but resources are limited. Cows, sheeps, pigs and poultry use also antibiotics and spreaded parasites and diseases in the past and of course the arrival of massive quantities of them 200 years ago was also a neverending 'environmental nightmare' for lots of species of trees, flowers or insects (and a bless to other, just like salmon farms). The difference is that you can have more people with aquaculture in the end.
belorn 9y ago
What overfished means today is that the very few species that we want to eat is overfished. I have heard several estimates of how much fish is fished but then discarded, and the number is general around 75%. If we look at lakes, there are plenty that is over populated because of eutrophication, but the type of fish that thrives in that environment also eats fish eggs of the fish we want to eat. Predators can actually go extinct by a combination of prey either the eggs and humans eating the adults. Much of this could be solved if we just wanted to eat more divers selection of fish.

sedachv 9y ago

> What's are the alternatives here? The alternative is to stop eating carcinogenic, heart disease-causing foods made out of animals and animal secretions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ

Oletros 9y ago
Comments like yours is a good way to discredit veganism
- bananicorn 9y ago
  Why exactly? He just provided you with some facts, along with a logical suggestion.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    He didn't provide any fact, he made hyperbolic claims and and illogical suggestion. Please, provide evidence that all ANIMAL products are carcinogenic and causes heart diseases. The logical conclusion is not stop eating any animal product, is eating less meat.

jussij 9y ago

I don't disagree with you as such. The problem comes when the fish farming industry doesn't stick to the rules and the government, who are meant to be overseeing the industry, decide to look the other way. That exact situation has been going on in Tasmania for many years now and that type of neglect can only end badly. More details: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/how-salmon-farming-got-to-push-macquarie-harbour-to-the-limit/8349342 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/how-salmon-farming-got...

bamboozled 9y ago
Thanks for sharing that story, it was really interesting!

bamboozled 9y ago

Fish farming is just as bad as anything else IMO. Theoretical alternatives to the status quo are: * Higher taxes and fines for those using detrimental and high-risk farming practices, thus driving up the price of meat, fish and poultry to deter over-consumption, people don't need to eat animals 7 days a week. Food is simply "too cheap". * Public education and further studies into mostly plant based diets so people aren't afraid to face the stigma and uncertainty about not having animals every night of the week. It's ok to cut back. * Eating food grown or caught as close to your residence as possible. * Mandatory food labelling of products, detailed information about the origin and production methods used to produce said product. * Monetary incentives to have less children.

conanbatt 9y ago
> Monetary incentives to have less children. Gross.
- catmanjan 9y ago
  Why is that? Australia did (or still does?) have monetary incentives to have more children, completely backwards...
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    I think that is maybe distasteful. A monetary incentive to not have children is like advocating state-sponsored neutering of people. And since its money, who do you think would be affected for such things? the rich? So basically its the very concept of paying poor people not to procreate, so that the current existing people have a 'nicer time' (which is actually also economically incorrect). Its super gross.
sweep4r 9y ago
> * Monetary incentives to have less children. Is this some kind of a joke? How will society support itself with fewer kids?
- 9y ago

pvaldes 9y ago

Fish farming has bassically the same problems than traditional farming (problems that must be solved), but wins clearly in some aspects. First of all is more efficient. We produce human food via cold blooded animals so we need to provide less animal food to obtain 1Kg of high quality human food. Mammals and birds instead will use a considerable amount of this energy just to keep itselves several degrees warmer than the environmental temperature day and night. Is better also because reduces waste. Fishes are aquatic and have swimming bladders. Its bodyweight is carried by the water, so you are not investing in growing several Kg of heavy unedible skeletons that will end in the trash. There is more food in 100Kg of entire fishes than in a pig of 100Kg, and you'll need to allocate less volume of garbage dump. At difference of agriculture or industry, if you have a farm fish you need to care for keeping the quality of the water in reasonable levels for life beings. This water is still available to other animals and plants. More efficient use of energy and water and less waste is the definition of environmentally friendly. The ugly truth is that the number of humans is ever increasing but resources are limited. Cows, sheeps, pigs and poultry use also antibiotics and spreaded parasites and diseases in the past and of course the arrival of massive quantities of them 200 years ago was also a neverending 'environmental nightmare' for lots of species of trees, flowers or insects (and a bless to other, just like salmon farms). The difference is that you can have more people with aquaculture in the end.

belorn 9y ago

What overfished means today is that the very few species that we want to eat is overfished. I have heard several estimates of how much fish is fished but then discarded, and the number is general around 75%. If we look at lakes, there are plenty that is over populated because of eutrophication, but the type of fish that thrives in that environment also eats fish eggs of the fish we want to eat. Predators can actually go extinct by a combination of prey either the eggs and humans eating the adults. Much of this could be solved if we just wanted to eat more divers selection of fish.