4 ms·

> Author will be on the right side of history. Nope. The author wants to pay top dollar to eat fish and chips while people with less means go hungry. The au

by Verdex 6y ago

> Author will be on the right side of history. Nope. The author wants to pay top dollar to eat fish and chips while people with less means go hungry. The author wants somebody to feel bad enough about the whales so that they will figure out how to actually save the whales. The author doesn't want to actually figure out how to save the whales themselves. The author may appear to be on the right side of history. And maybe that's all that matters. What people mis-believe about you after you're dead. On HN I don't want to hear about how the whales are having a hard time. I already know about that. I watched Voyage Home. I know about how all the whales had a great time when we temporarily shut down shipping after 9/11 and they didn't have to deal with all the noise pollution. I know about the 52-hertz whale. And I know about the 3 billion people who need fish to not stave. On HN I want to hear about how they're going to save the whales and also prevent mass starvation. The "Right Side of History" doesn't mean the "Good Side of History". Maybe the save the whale people figure out how to convince the rest of us to let the people who need to eat fish to live just starve. Everyone will agree the author was on the right side, but I would rather be said to have been on the wrong side of history in that scenario.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
And I know about the 3 billion people who need fish to not stave. Is that really true? I find it hard to believe.
- Verdex 6y ago
  Top of the google search. https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-seafood#:~:text=As%20the%20largest%20traded%20food,a%20primary%20source%20of%20protein https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-seafood.... From a website that's trying to support sustainable fishing practices. (I actually thought the number was 2 billion until I looked it up before making my previous post. It shouldn't be too surprising considering how much of the world's population lives on the coast AND fish basically take care of themselves, so it's an easy to way get your food.)
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    That doesn't say anything about starving, just that those people use fish as their primary source of protein. Presumably they could get that protein from poultry or even beans and pulses.
    - Verdex 6y ago
      I don't know dude. "You can't fish anymore." "Then what are we going to eat?" "Well, I presume that instead of going fishing once a day you can start a farm. Watch over and feed some chickens. Whatever." And, like I said in my other post. If you can find a way to actually save the whales and let everyone still eat, then I'll be right there with you. But right now this looks like rich people who have time to go whale watching wanting the poor people who barely have time to get enough food to eat to stop eating so that they can still go whale watching. Give me some actual numbers that show that people who rely on fish can actually farm to make up the difference and I'll be convinced. But right now I'm on the side of caution that says "let's not do something that might starve some percentage of 3 billion people" and the article is saying "eh, 3 billion people can probably find something else to eat".
      - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
        That's OK as far as it goes but ultimately we are destroying yet another resource that people rely on. You can make a choice to change direction or get forced to further down the road. Being forced to do something is more painful than making a choice.

by Verdex 6y ago

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

And I know about the 3 billion people who need fish to not stave. Is that really true? I find it hard to believe.

Verdex 6y ago
Top of the google search. https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-seafood#:~:text=As%20the%20largest%20traded%20food,a%20primary%20source%20of%20protein https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-seafood.... From a website that's trying to support sustainable fishing practices. (I actually thought the number was 2 billion until I looked it up before making my previous post. It shouldn't be too surprising considering how much of the world's population lives on the coast AND fish basically take care of themselves, so it's an easy to way get your food.)
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  That doesn't say anything about starving, just that those people use fish as their primary source of protein. Presumably they could get that protein from poultry or even beans and pulses.
  - Verdex 6y ago
    I don't know dude. "You can't fish anymore." "Then what are we going to eat?" "Well, I presume that instead of going fishing once a day you can start a farm. Watch over and feed some chickens. Whatever." And, like I said in my other post. If you can find a way to actually save the whales and let everyone still eat, then I'll be right there with you. But right now this looks like rich people who have time to go whale watching wanting the poor people who barely have time to get enough food to eat to stop eating so that they can still go whale watching. Give me some actual numbers that show that people who rely on fish can actually farm to make up the difference and I'll be convinced. But right now I'm on the side of caution that says "let's not do something that might starve some percentage of 3 billion people" and the article is saying "eh, 3 billion people can probably find something else to eat".
    - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
      That's OK as far as it goes but ultimately we are destroying yet another resource that people rely on. You can make a choice to change direction or get forced to further down the road. Being forced to do something is more painful than making a choice.