9 ms·
> I guess the complexity is that.. there doesn't seem to be a good answer, currently. Encouraging people to eat less fish might be the easiest (and thereby bes
by hnusrv8 6y ago
> I guess the complexity is that.. there doesn't seem to be a good answer, currently.
Encouraging people to eat less fish might be the easiest (and thereby best) solution.
I'm not saying humans should eat /no/ fish – indeed there are many human communities which rely on fishing, and for which fishing plays a key role in their culture. Similarly, some people may need to eat fish for health reasons.
However, it seems to me that /reducing/ consumption by cutting consumption of fish for pleasure/taste would likely benefit both the environment and people; for example, indigeneous groups which traditionally rely on fishing would face less competition from industrial-scale fishing. From an environmental standpoint, most things, even whaling it seems, are inherently sustainable in smaller scales.
Again, I don't mean to say that everyone needs to comsume zero fish. But if those of us who can, which likely includes many HN readers, cut down our consumption it may benefit everyone at quite a small cost to ourselves; as a middle class Northern European, I can testify that me not having consumed fish in the last 5 years has had 0 immediate impact on my health or happiness levels.
Note: Of course this is all assuming that there are more eco-friendly alternative protein/fat/omegas sources available. Again, I do not mean to say that this is applicable for everyone.
- jakewins 6y agoAgree. This is what we do. Try to opt for species that have low impact (trout and farmed arctic char, for instance) and otherwise treat fish the way we do beef: As a luxury saved for special occasions.
- PeterisP 6y agoI was under impression that it was a green policy to recommend people eat more fish, acting as a replacement for e.g. beef which (if I recall correctly, I'm not certain) has more harmful environmental effects than fishing.
- jamil7 6y agoMaybe it's marketed that way by some but it doesn't really make sense given the current state of our oceans.
- distances 6y agoThose are not conflicting statements. Reducing fish for environmental reasons should not come with increased animal consumption.
- masklinn 6y agoIt often feels like we think fishing is less environmentally harmful but we don't actually know it, because the ocean is extremely opaque to us, and has very high buffers both ways. Numerous stocks have crashed and most times the collapse has been extremely brutal, similar to the passenger pigeon, going from "it's everywhere" to "it's nowhere" in a few years. And even with what we know at least 1/3rd of current stocks are being overfished.
- lizknope 6y agoI've eaten less than 10 fish in my entire life. I don't like it at all. I haven't eaten any meat in 15 years. I don't miss it at all. I also don't miss any of the health problems that went away after I stopped eating meat.