3 ms·

To add to this: If you don't eat meat because of ethical & environmental reasons, but still consume fish I ask you to take a good long look into the impact we'

To add to this: If you don't eat meat because of ethical & environmental reasons, but still consume fish I ask you to take a good long look into the impact we've had on global fisheries.

fiblye 8y ago
In terms of environmental sustainability, chicken is the best value of any meat. It's about as an efficient feed:meat ratio as you can get, their waste is reusable, and they're certainly not going extinct. The moral problem, though, is it takes more chicken deaths to get an equal amount of meat as almost any other farm animal. One cow gives you as much meat as a few hundred chickens, so you're killing hundreds more chickens each year to feed a family than if you fed them beef. So if you are eating meat (I do) and you want to try being ethical about it, total environmental harm and total death numbers are generally on polar opposite sides. Justifying regular animal consumption in any environmental or ethical sense is pretty much impossible, unless people start eating exclusively overpopulated invasive species--but cannibalism generally isn't socially acceptable. :)
- TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
  > Justifying regular animal consumption in any environmental or ethical sense is pretty much impossible My issue is most people overlook the impact we've had on fisheries. It's much harder for fish populations to get back to where they need to be without massive regulation. Which is extremely hard on a global scale considering the economical impact it can have on some areas. The PBS documentary "Fish on my Plate" (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate...) goes over this a bit in various ways, but one story they highlight is how Peru fixed their anchovy problem. Never mind the issue of byproduct waste when it comes to line & trolling boats. Raising chickens & cows have an impact, but byproduct kill has an entire ecosystem impact.

To add to this: If you don't eat meat because of ethical & environmental reasons, but still consume fish I ask you to take a good long look into the impact we've had on global fisheries.

fiblye 8y ago

In terms of environmental sustainability, chicken is the best value of any meat. It's about as an efficient feed:meat ratio as you can get, their waste is reusable, and they're certainly not going extinct. The moral problem, though, is it takes more chicken deaths to get an equal amount of meat as almost any other farm animal. One cow gives you as much meat as a few hundred chickens, so you're killing hundreds more chickens each year to feed a family than if you fed them beef. So if you are eating meat (I do) and you want to try being ethical about it, total environmental harm and total death numbers are generally on polar opposite sides. Justifying regular animal consumption in any environmental or ethical sense is pretty much impossible, unless people start eating exclusively overpopulated invasive species--but cannibalism generally isn't socially acceptable. :)

TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
> Justifying regular animal consumption in any environmental or ethical sense is pretty much impossible My issue is most people overlook the impact we've had on fisheries. It's much harder for fish populations to get back to where they need to be without massive regulation. Which is extremely hard on a global scale considering the economical impact it can have on some areas. The PBS documentary "Fish on my Plate" (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate...) goes over this a bit in various ways, but one story they highlight is how Peru fixed their anchovy problem. Never mind the issue of byproduct waste when it comes to line & trolling boats. Raising chickens & cows have an impact, but byproduct kill has an entire ecosystem impact.