The values prescribed to things by economists and environmentalists rarely align. From my understanding (admittedly, limited) both ocean trawling and aquacultu

The values prescribed to things by economists and environmentalists rarely align. From my understanding (admittedly, limited) both ocean trawling and aquaculture are both unsustainable. Over-fishing isn't sustainable, but that's what we're doing at the moment. Aquaculture uses 'earth' resources to farm fish, which includes fossil fuel expenditure for feeding and transport (based on current energy networks). It also produces waste products in the form of environmentally deleterious nitrogen-rich effluent which is out-flowed into the wider ecosystem. An economist might label that a better proposition. Generally less depleting of a finite resource... more 'taming' a resource and using other resources to enable that. An environmentalist would label both destructive (and while they're at it, the farming of methane emitting grain-fed animals for food is equally destructive compared to just eating the grains instead). Me personally? I'm going to continue to eat meat. Irrationally (from an economists perspective) I don't think I can enjoy eating ocean caught fish anymore though... it seems like we're really approaching the limits on harvesting that resource more than any other today. Farm-raised fish seem somewhat on the same scale of "bad for the environment" as eating steak (so I'm 'selfishly' ok with that). The fact that these fish don't have Omega-3 oils or are described as 'the tofu of fish'? ...makes me think we should probably just eat tofu instead.