7 ms·

Are fisheries guilty? Are regulators and governments guilty? I think the guilty side are end-consumers, particularly in rich countries, people themselves and t

Are fisheries guilty? Are regulators and governments guilty? I think the guilty side are end-consumers, particularly in rich countries, people themselves and their lifestyle (ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#Impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#Impact) note: I haven't eat a gram of fish or meat since more than a decade (mostly because I don't feel the need, being already full with local products: fruits, plants, legumes, rice

gambiting 6y ago
I'm sorry, but I refuse to feel guilty and I don't see why anyone should. When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation, regular customer shouldn't be worried about that. The same with meat - when I buy some I expect that animals weren't abused and beaten at farms, if they were then there's an issue in the system.
- jMyles 6y ago
  > When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. Why do you expect this, when there is evidence to the contrary? > regular customer shouldn't be worried about that Nobody is asking you to single-handedly save the oceans. Start by installing Seafood Watch and do your best to select a sustainable option any time you're eating seafood. > If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation This is why crony capitalism is forever bound to a love affair with the state; it relieves us of any responsibility for building real communities. Governments have never - and I believe will never - regulate society into behavior befitting the respect due to the Earth. We have given profiteers and their lobbyists access to a single point of failure; we can't be surprised when they utilize it.
- graeme 6y ago
  That’s kind of a silly assumption frankly. Even on fish cans in the grocery store some advertise themselves as sustainably fished with certifications, and some don’t. Some egg cartons advertise themselves as “free range” and some don’t. Some meat advertises itself as “grass fed” and others don’t. The products themselves are telling you there are a variety of production standards and it is almost willful blindness to say you believe there is nothing going on because there ought to be nothing going on. You could make an analogous argument about gasoline “Look if this was harming the atmosphere why would governments allow it to be sold? I refuse to feel guilty”
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Grass-fed beef is advertised that way primarily for nutritional and taste claims and to support/explain the higher prices charged.
    - graeme 6y ago
      That’s one reason. It’s also widely known it is healthier for the cattle and has them out on pasture rather than in cages. The reason people argue the meat is more nutritious is because the cows are healthier via eating their natural diet. Corn diets cause health problems and bacterial infections requiring antibiotics. Some of this will literally be on the websites of farms selling pastured beef. It’s not a big secret and if you seek out pastured beef it’s likely familiar. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.h...
- sorokod 6y ago
  But you (plural form if you wish) are part of the system. Without you the system would not exist.
- usrusr 6y ago
  Tuna is hunted wildlife, an international commons. It's clearly evident that no regulation will happen anytime soon that will actually make a difference. If you buy it, you are part of the problem, either ignorantly or knowingly. Occasionally I find myself in some gastronomy setting were nothing in the menu appeals to me other than the dishes containing tuna and then I eat it, and enjoy it a lot. It happens less than once a year. (I do actually share your position wrt farmed meat, those farms are infinitely more regulateable than international fishing and I think we should regulate it hard, hard enough to solve big parts of the inherent inefficiency of putting nutrients though animals before they reach a human mouth by price)
  - gambiting 6y ago
    I'm sorry, but tuna being farmed in international waters shouldn't be an obstacle. In all EU countries and UK there are quotas of what a fishing vessel can bring into port. So it doesn't matter where the fish was actually caught, if the country ran out of annual quota for tuna for instance, then no fishing vessel can bring any tuna to any port. It's not an insurmountable problem.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - usrusr 6y ago
      Agreeing on sustainable quotas apparently is. Whaling wasn't stopped (mostly stopped) thanks to people insisting on buying whale products until regulation happens.
- ____throwaway6 6y ago
  > I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation I eat canned tuna also, but that logic doesn’t work generally. By the same logic you could say that if you could buy a BB gun, it’s ok to shoot people with it, because it must not be harmful. Come to think of it, that’s what kids did to each other when I was growing up.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    But a BB gun specifically comes with a warning not to shoot people because it might cause harm, not to mention that regulations around fake and/or air guns are pretty hardcore already. To maybe give another example - as a consumer I shouldn't care if a phone I'm buying was made using child labour or not - I expect the authorities in every country involved in its production to enforce laws against child labour.
- whatastory 6y ago
  You can expect anything you want. Doesn’t make your expectations realistic or absolve you of responsibility, though. Nobody’s going to step in and change things if it’s easy money and people will keep buying it and shifting blame. It doesn’t work that way.
- shlant 6y ago
  "The consumer is completely to blame" is definitely ridiculous. "As a consumer I have no responsibility in what products I choose to buy" is equally ridiculous.
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
  "There's an issue in the system" doesn't absolve you of responsibility. Right now, unless you take it on yourself to do some research and pay a premium, you know for a fact that any tuna you buy will have been irresponsibly fished and any meat you buy will come from animals that were abused. That is why they're so cheap and everyone knows it. You cannot "expect" anything when you know the opposite for a fact. You can want it, but evidently not enough to lift a finger. I wonder what you would do if you lived in a slave state or fascist regime. Would you buy slave-made goods and justify it because, sure, it's evil, but it's not your job to fix?
- 0xbadcafebee 6y ago
  > I'm sorry, but I refuse to feel guilty Then you're not sorry. > When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation, regular customer shouldn't be worried about that. How do you think regulations come to be? If a consumer wants a product, a company finds a way to provide it. The company will poison the land, sea and sky in order to provide it to you, they don't give a shit. The government allows it until the people demand regulations to stop it. But you are the people - if you don't want it stopped, it won't be. And so there are no regulations made. There is no parental overlord making sure that what you purchase is sustainable or cruelty-free. Sitting around saying "somebody should stop me from ruining the earth" doesn't actually make it happen. I know you don't want to have any personal responsibility or culpability for the shitty way the world works, but you do. Ultimately, you, and everyone like you, are the reason we can't have nice things.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    >>Ultimately, you, and everyone like you, are the reason we can't have nice things. Because I expect to live in a country with a strong regulatory framework where if I buy something in a store I don't have to worry whether it was produced in an ethical way? You're right, I'm the problem. Thanks mate.
    - 0xbadcafebee 6y ago
      You've already admitted you won't lift a finger to actually help the situation. Why would you expect your government to do anything if they're made up of people like you? Do you believe all those government workers exist on some other plane of moral relativism? Or do you think that laws and regulations magically come into being, like the zeitgeist just wills regulations into place? The government does not sit around reading your mind and then make regulations to match it. Even if it could, it wouldn't. The government only creates a regulation when either a corporation or a very vocal coalition of people demand it. And those two parties are working against each other anyway, making it even less likely. I really don't know how to explain it in simple enough terms. If you don't care, then neither does the society, and thus the government. Ergo, people like you are the reason the regulations don't exist and aren't enforced when they do.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make it morally right. > there's an issue in the system. But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no incentive to ever change anything. You say, "The government should ban this!" and the government says, "People are buying and eating this, so in a Democratic system we can't ban this!" You slough off responsibility on them - they slough it off on you - you all convince yourselves you have no possibility at all. Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your representatives? Asked them to do anything about it? I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's everyone else's fault."
  - gambiting 6y ago
    >>No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make it morally right. Wait, are you replying to the right comment? >>Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your representatives? Asked them to do anything about it? Yes, I have. Have you? >>But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no incentive to ever change anything. Again, I feel like you're replying to the wrong comment. I feel like I live in a country with a very strong regulatory framework and things like fishing are treated very seriously with strong quotas on what can be caught not to overfish, and canned fish has to be clearly labeled where it came from and how it was caught. So I'm not sure which part of what I said comes across as apathetic to you. >>I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's everyone else's fault." I'll definitely say that it's the fault of the agencies tasked with protecting the flora and fauna that they are responsible for, not the consumers for eating tuna.
- SamBam 6y ago
  "I refuse to feel guilty. When I fill my Hummer at the pump, I expect it to be filled with renewable corn oil. If it isn't, there's an issue with the system."
____throwaway6 6y ago
My family is good friends with a vegetarian that has had health problems. She’s been a vegetarian for the past fifteen years after a previous 25+ years as a vegetarian since she made the choice as a child. She used to buy fast food cheese sandwiches (hamburger with no burger, pickles, onions, or ketchup) for her child because that’s all her child would eat and could eat when they were busy, as she enforced vegetarianism on her also. I sympathize with vegans and vegetarians like her, and I don’t like thinking of the machines some fast food chains use in their supply chain to slaughter massive numbers of animals, as humanely as you could do such a thing, with an automated spike that goes through their heads after they squeeze their hips to stimulate comfort. I know caged hens may get excessively fat and maybe aren’t as happy, because I’m not happy when I’m fat. Cage-free egg can mean that chickens are packed into an ever more stressful pen, which is similar to the chick pens, where dead chicks have to be plucked up regularly from the moving masses. Free-range chickens may not have a temperature-controlled environment. I like to eat chicken, and I’m told it’s healthy. But I spent time with a chicken yesterday that seemed like it wanted to talk with us and ask for food or other help, and it seemed to be patient with us, but eventually raised it’s voice when we weren’t understanding it. Before I eat, I pray by quickly thinking of the sacrifices made for us and our comfort- the chicken that provided her egg, those that harvested the vegetables, and anything else I think of. I don’t want to cause harm, but until I understand how I can eat in a healthy way with the least negative impact, I eat meat. I understand from others we may be eating unsustainably, and food may not be shared to all of those who need it. Some of those considered in poverty level in richer countries eat too much of poor nutrients that lead to obesity and health problems, and education alone is not the answer, as it’s the only food that’s affordable; being richer and fatter than others globally with much less food and money, they may be the least healthy. Where do we go from here? I’m told fish, eggs, chicken, and beef are good for me, but I should eat more vegetables. Greenpeace can tell us how to choose tuna: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/eat-tuna-know-fish/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/eat-tuna-know-fish/ So long and thanks for all the fish.
atleta 6y ago
Finger pointing doesn't help. Whataboutism doesn't help. It doesn't matter who is guilty. There are obviously multiple actors with different (but seemingly aligned) interests acting in concert and causing the problem. What what matters is where you can efficiently intervene in the process. Telling every customer to change their habits (or just feel guilty) sounds good, probably has some effect but it's not enough. Controlling e.g. the much smaller number of producers is a lot simpler. Also, taxing the product (the end product that the guilty consumers can buy) may also work. Most likely you need to apply multiple measures at multiple points in this process. E.g. I think convincing the customers works best in the long run and more like for general purposes. I.e. understand that you should consume less, use a smaller footprint in general, as you mentioned. But that doesn't necessarily easily translate to "don't buy tuna and milk". It's easier to translate it into "vote for the guy who promises to handle this case even if it means tax raises". And then you can simply go to the store and expect that whatever you see there is OK to buy at that price. Yes, tuna will be say 10x more expensive and thus you'll buy it less frequently (and maybe not feed it to your cat).
the-dude 6y ago
If you don't eat fish, it will just drive down the price and be fed to your cat.
- 11235813213455 6y ago
  consider fruit in the supermarket, that came in plane from another continent. By not buying them, in the short term, there'll be a bit of waste and donations to associations. In the mid/long term supermakets reshape their strategy, stop buying them as well, exporters then reduce their shippings, etc.. same goes for fish/meat productions, if you cut down the consumer stream, the producers will be forced to adapt, takes time sure.. About pets, our planet is overpopulated (at least over-consuming), the fact there are over a billion of pets is already a nonsense, it's like virtually increasing human population by 5-10%, do we really need this?
Tarq0n 6y ago
This is a typical collective action problem. If you believe individual change in behaviour can fix it you're centuries behind on your sociology.
rozab 6y ago
The claims in that wikipedia article and the cited news article seem unbelievable. >Studies suggest pets consume about a fifth of the world’s meat and fish, and a dog’s carbon footprint is more than twice that of a 4x4 car, according to Yora. Can anyone find the study which makes this claim? It kind of seems like a garbled version of this one: >As calculated, US dogs and cats consume as much dietary energy as ~62 million Americans, which is approximately one-fifth of the US population. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181301 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
SamBam 6y ago
Seems like there's a huge opportunity for someone to nail the greener meat market for pets. Rat meat? Mouse meat? Crickets and other bugs? The fact that we feed our cats need, pork and salmon, meat from beasts that they'd never have a hope of taking down in nature, is ridiculous.

gambiting 6y ago

I'm sorry, but I refuse to feel guilty and I don't see why anyone should. When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation, regular customer shouldn't be worried about that. The same with meat - when I buy some I expect that animals weren't abused and beaten at farms, if they were then there's an issue in the system.

jMyles 6y ago
> When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. Why do you expect this, when there is evidence to the contrary? > regular customer shouldn't be worried about that Nobody is asking you to single-handedly save the oceans. Start by installing Seafood Watch and do your best to select a sustainable option any time you're eating seafood. > If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation This is why crony capitalism is forever bound to a love affair with the state; it relieves us of any responsibility for building real communities. Governments have never - and I believe will never - regulate society into behavior befitting the respect due to the Earth. We have given profiteers and their lobbyists access to a single point of failure; we can't be surprised when they utilize it.
graeme 6y ago
That’s kind of a silly assumption frankly. Even on fish cans in the grocery store some advertise themselves as sustainably fished with certifications, and some don’t. Some egg cartons advertise themselves as “free range” and some don’t. Some meat advertises itself as “grass fed” and others don’t. The products themselves are telling you there are a variety of production standards and it is almost willful blindness to say you believe there is nothing going on because there ought to be nothing going on. You could make an analogous argument about gasoline “Look if this was harming the atmosphere why would governments allow it to be sold? I refuse to feel guilty”
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Grass-fed beef is advertised that way primarily for nutritional and taste claims and to support/explain the higher prices charged.
  - graeme 6y ago
    That’s one reason. It’s also widely known it is healthier for the cattle and has them out on pasture rather than in cages. The reason people argue the meat is more nutritious is because the cows are healthier via eating their natural diet. Corn diets cause health problems and bacterial infections requiring antibiotics. Some of this will literally be on the websites of farms selling pastured beef. It’s not a big secret and if you seek out pastured beef it’s likely familiar. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.h...
sorokod 6y ago
But you (plural form if you wish) are part of the system. Without you the system would not exist.
usrusr 6y ago
Tuna is hunted wildlife, an international commons. It's clearly evident that no regulation will happen anytime soon that will actually make a difference. If you buy it, you are part of the problem, either ignorantly or knowingly. Occasionally I find myself in some gastronomy setting were nothing in the menu appeals to me other than the dishes containing tuna and then I eat it, and enjoy it a lot. It happens less than once a year. (I do actually share your position wrt farmed meat, those farms are infinitely more regulateable than international fishing and I think we should regulate it hard, hard enough to solve big parts of the inherent inefficiency of putting nutrients though animals before they reach a human mouth by price)
- gambiting 6y ago
  I'm sorry, but tuna being farmed in international waters shouldn't be an obstacle. In all EU countries and UK there are quotas of what a fishing vessel can bring into port. So it doesn't matter where the fish was actually caught, if the country ran out of annual quota for tuna for instance, then no fishing vessel can bring any tuna to any port. It's not an insurmountable problem.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - usrusr 6y ago
    Agreeing on sustainable quotas apparently is. Whaling wasn't stopped (mostly stopped) thanks to people insisting on buying whale products until regulation happens.
____throwaway6 6y ago
> I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation I eat canned tuna also, but that logic doesn’t work generally. By the same logic you could say that if you could buy a BB gun, it’s ok to shoot people with it, because it must not be harmful. Come to think of it, that’s what kids did to each other when I was growing up.
- gambiting 6y ago
  But a BB gun specifically comes with a warning not to shoot people because it might cause harm, not to mention that regulations around fake and/or air guns are pretty hardcore already. To maybe give another example - as a consumer I shouldn't care if a phone I'm buying was made using child labour or not - I expect the authorities in every country involved in its production to enforce laws against child labour.
whatastory 6y ago
You can expect anything you want. Doesn’t make your expectations realistic or absolve you of responsibility, though. Nobody’s going to step in and change things if it’s easy money and people will keep buying it and shifting blame. It doesn’t work that way.
shlant 6y ago
"The consumer is completely to blame" is definitely ridiculous. "As a consumer I have no responsibility in what products I choose to buy" is equally ridiculous.
xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
"There's an issue in the system" doesn't absolve you of responsibility. Right now, unless you take it on yourself to do some research and pay a premium, you know for a fact that any tuna you buy will have been irresponsibly fished and any meat you buy will come from animals that were abused. That is why they're so cheap and everyone knows it. You cannot "expect" anything when you know the opposite for a fact. You can want it, but evidently not enough to lift a finger. I wonder what you would do if you lived in a slave state or fascist regime. Would you buy slave-made goods and justify it because, sure, it's evil, but it's not your job to fix?
0xbadcafebee 6y ago
> I'm sorry, but I refuse to feel guilty Then you're not sorry. > When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation, regular customer shouldn't be worried about that. How do you think regulations come to be? If a consumer wants a product, a company finds a way to provide it. The company will poison the land, sea and sky in order to provide it to you, they don't give a shit. The government allows it until the people demand regulations to stop it. But you are the people - if you don't want it stopped, it won't be. And so there are no regulations made. There is no parental overlord making sure that what you purchase is sustainable or cruelty-free. Sitting around saying "somebody should stop me from ruining the earth" doesn't actually make it happen. I know you don't want to have any personal responsibility or culpability for the shitty way the world works, but you do. Ultimately, you, and everyone like you, are the reason we can't have nice things.
- gambiting 6y ago
  >>Ultimately, you, and everyone like you, are the reason we can't have nice things. Because I expect to live in a country with a strong regulatory framework where if I buy something in a store I don't have to worry whether it was produced in an ethical way? You're right, I'm the problem. Thanks mate.
  - 0xbadcafebee 6y ago
    You've already admitted you won't lift a finger to actually help the situation. Why would you expect your government to do anything if they're made up of people like you? Do you believe all those government workers exist on some other plane of moral relativism? Or do you think that laws and regulations magically come into being, like the zeitgeist just wills regulations into place? The government does not sit around reading your mind and then make regulations to match it. Even if it could, it wouldn't. The government only creates a regulation when either a corporation or a very vocal coalition of people demand it. And those two parties are working against each other anyway, making it even less likely. I really don't know how to explain it in simple enough terms. If you don't care, then neither does the society, and thus the government. Ergo, people like you are the reason the regulations don't exist and aren't enforced when they do.
TomSwirly 6y ago
No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make it morally right. > there's an issue in the system. But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no incentive to ever change anything. You say, "The government should ban this!" and the government says, "People are buying and eating this, so in a Democratic system we can't ban this!" You slough off responsibility on them - they slough it off on you - you all convince yourselves you have no possibility at all. Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your representatives? Asked them to do anything about it? I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's everyone else's fault."
- gambiting 6y ago
  >>No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make it morally right. Wait, are you replying to the right comment? >>Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your representatives? Asked them to do anything about it? Yes, I have. Have you? >>But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no incentive to ever change anything. Again, I feel like you're replying to the wrong comment. I feel like I live in a country with a very strong regulatory framework and things like fishing are treated very seriously with strong quotas on what can be caught not to overfish, and canned fish has to be clearly labeled where it came from and how it was caught. So I'm not sure which part of what I said comes across as apathetic to you. >>I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's everyone else's fault." I'll definitely say that it's the fault of the agencies tasked with protecting the flora and fauna that they are responsible for, not the consumers for eating tuna.
SamBam 6y ago
"I refuse to feel guilty. When I fill my Hummer at the pump, I expect it to be filled with renewable corn oil. If it isn't, there's an issue with the system."

____throwaway6 6y ago

My family is good friends with a vegetarian that has had health problems. She’s been a vegetarian for the past fifteen years after a previous 25+ years as a vegetarian since she made the choice as a child. She used to buy fast food cheese sandwiches (hamburger with no burger, pickles, onions, or ketchup) for her child because that’s all her child would eat and could eat when they were busy, as she enforced vegetarianism on her also. I sympathize with vegans and vegetarians like her, and I don’t like thinking of the machines some fast food chains use in their supply chain to slaughter massive numbers of animals, as humanely as you could do such a thing, with an automated spike that goes through their heads after they squeeze their hips to stimulate comfort. I know caged hens may get excessively fat and maybe aren’t as happy, because I’m not happy when I’m fat. Cage-free egg can mean that chickens are packed into an ever more stressful pen, which is similar to the chick pens, where dead chicks have to be plucked up regularly from the moving masses. Free-range chickens may not have a temperature-controlled environment. I like to eat chicken, and I’m told it’s healthy. But I spent time with a chicken yesterday that seemed like it wanted to talk with us and ask for food or other help, and it seemed to be patient with us, but eventually raised it’s voice when we weren’t understanding it. Before I eat, I pray by quickly thinking of the sacrifices made for us and our comfort- the chicken that provided her egg, those that harvested the vegetables, and anything else I think of. I don’t want to cause harm, but until I understand how I can eat in a healthy way with the least negative impact, I eat meat. I understand from others we may be eating unsustainably, and food may not be shared to all of those who need it. Some of those considered in poverty level in richer countries eat too much of poor nutrients that lead to obesity and health problems, and education alone is not the answer, as it’s the only food that’s affordable; being richer and fatter than others globally with much less food and money, they may be the least healthy. Where do we go from here? I’m told fish, eggs, chicken, and beef are good for me, but I should eat more vegetables. Greenpeace can tell us how to choose tuna: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/eat-tuna-know-fish/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/eat-tuna-know-fish/ So long and thanks for all the fish.

atleta 6y ago

Finger pointing doesn't help. Whataboutism doesn't help. It doesn't matter who is guilty. There are obviously multiple actors with different (but seemingly aligned) interests acting in concert and causing the problem. What what matters is where you can efficiently intervene in the process. Telling every customer to change their habits (or just feel guilty) sounds good, probably has some effect but it's not enough. Controlling e.g. the much smaller number of producers is a lot simpler. Also, taxing the product (the end product that the guilty consumers can buy) may also work. Most likely you need to apply multiple measures at multiple points in this process. E.g. I think convincing the customers works best in the long run and more like for general purposes. I.e. understand that you should consume less, use a smaller footprint in general, as you mentioned. But that doesn't necessarily easily translate to "don't buy tuna and milk". It's easier to translate it into "vote for the guy who promises to handle this case even if it means tax raises". And then you can simply go to the store and expect that whatever you see there is OK to buy at that price. Yes, tuna will be say 10x more expensive and thus you'll buy it less frequently (and maybe not feed it to your cat).

the-dude 6y ago

If you don't eat fish, it will just drive down the price and be fed to your cat.

11235813213455 6y ago
consider fruit in the supermarket, that came in plane from another continent. By not buying them, in the short term, there'll be a bit of waste and donations to associations. In the mid/long term supermakets reshape their strategy, stop buying them as well, exporters then reduce their shippings, etc.. same goes for fish/meat productions, if you cut down the consumer stream, the producers will be forced to adapt, takes time sure.. About pets, our planet is overpopulated (at least over-consuming), the fact there are over a billion of pets is already a nonsense, it's like virtually increasing human population by 5-10%, do we really need this?

Tarq0n 6y ago

This is a typical collective action problem. If you believe individual change in behaviour can fix it you're centuries behind on your sociology.

rozab 6y ago

The claims in that wikipedia article and the cited news article seem unbelievable. >Studies suggest pets consume about a fifth of the world’s meat and fish, and a dog’s carbon footprint is more than twice that of a 4x4 car, according to Yora. Can anyone find the study which makes this claim? It kind of seems like a garbled version of this one: >As calculated, US dogs and cats consume as much dietary energy as ~62 million Americans, which is approximately one-fifth of the US population. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181301 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

SamBam 6y ago

Seems like there's a huge opportunity for someone to nail the greener meat market for pets. Rat meat? Mouse meat? Crickets and other bugs? The fact that we feed our cats need, pork and salmon, meat from beasts that they'd never have a hope of taking down in nature, is ridiculous.