4 ms·

You are simply wrong. I am vegetarian now for 10 years, I have been hearing the same de-motivational talk since I started. (but less so now) Ten years ago ther

You are simply wrong. I am vegetarian now for 10 years, I have been hearing the same de-motivational talk since I started. (but less so now) Ten years ago there were not so many vegetarians or vegans, now Israel (I read) is one of the leading countries in the ratio of vegetarians in the population. Don't be discouraged, if you stop eating fish, friends will hear and some will get inspired and do the same. Eventually many will make the same decision. These processes take time.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
"Just stop eating fish" is not a solution, in the same sense that one brick does not make a building. You need very many bricks, and you need a very significant amount of people to stop eating fish for the problem to be solved. Popularizing fish abstinence - now, that's an outline of a solution.
- ramblerman 8y ago
  Perhaps, but bringing your own house in order before marching on to tackle the world is not bad advice. There is a lot of 'feigned indignation' in this world, and big plans whereby everyone has to change, and then we will see progress. I couldn't give up fish, not right now. So I applaud anybody who would actually take that step, over writing a few bullet points as to how we should tackle the problem.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  I think we just need to accept that a portion of the population will not follow these rules, and that this portion alone is enough not to reach the critical mass required to reach that solution "inflexion point". Even if I'm wrong saying that... how long will it take to reach critical mass? How much destruction will be caused attempting to reach it? Individual-centered solutions can't work efficiently enough for these things to change without personal incentives. We need incentives, replacements, regulations. Look at the difference between those two worlds: World 1: "Don't use those free plastic bags! Buy a reusable bag instead for more money! It's the responsible thing to do!" World 2: "Plastic bags cost $0.06 each." Which one has less plastic floating in the sea?
  - lenocinor 8y ago
    But only rarely do these laws come out of nowhere. People already practicing these ideas show that they're viable, and starts giving those ideas mindshare.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

"Just stop eating fish" is not a solution, in the same sense that one brick does not make a building. You need very many bricks, and you need a very significant amount of people to stop eating fish for the problem to be solved. Popularizing fish abstinence - now, that's an outline of a solution.

ramblerman 8y ago
Perhaps, but bringing your own house in order before marching on to tackle the world is not bad advice. There is a lot of 'feigned indignation' in this world, and big plans whereby everyone has to change, and then we will see progress. I couldn't give up fish, not right now. So I applaud anybody who would actually take that step, over writing a few bullet points as to how we should tackle the problem.
scrollaway 8y ago
I think we just need to accept that a portion of the population will not follow these rules, and that this portion alone is enough not to reach the critical mass required to reach that solution "inflexion point". Even if I'm wrong saying that... how long will it take to reach critical mass? How much destruction will be caused attempting to reach it? Individual-centered solutions can't work efficiently enough for these things to change without personal incentives. We need incentives, replacements, regulations. Look at the difference between those two worlds: World 1: "Don't use those free plastic bags! Buy a reusable bag instead for more money! It's the responsible thing to do!" World 2: "Plastic bags cost $0.06 each." Which one has less plastic floating in the sea?
- lenocinor 8y ago
  But only rarely do these laws come out of nowhere. People already practicing these ideas show that they're viable, and starts giving those ideas mindshare.