3 ms·

I think that there is some confusion as to what you are trying to say. 1) There is no way to catch the amount of fish we catch in a sustainable manner. (No sus

by shkkmo 6y ago

I think that there is some confusion as to what you are trying to say. 1) There is no way to catch the amount of fish we catch in a sustainable manner. (No sustainability at our current scale.) 2) There is no way to catch any amount of fish sustainably. (No sustainability at any scale.) I think people are intrepreting you as saying #2 when you are really saying #1. The answer would appear to be that if that we need to reduce the scale at which fiahing operates. This means sustainability requirents that increase the costs to fishermen so that overall demand cam be curbed to a sustainable level.

cheese_goddess 6y ago
As far as I understand it, Seaspiracy claims that 2) is the case and we should all stop eating fish entirely.
- shkkmo 6y ago
  I think Seaspiracies argument is that current "sustainable fishing" efforts are not actually sustainable and are designed to appear to solve the problem while avoiding regulations that would actually enforce sustainable fishing (and hence massively disrupt the industry.) If that is their argument, the push to stop eating fish would be justified only in the current environment where there is no ecologically sustainable source. Maybe I being too generous, but "fishing can never be sustainable" appears to be blatantly false so I feel we have to look for the "strongest plausible interpretation".
- tashoecraft 6y ago
  I interpreted it as unless the fishing are doing is entirely local (the example in the movie being the African fisherman) it can be sustainable, but really and type of fish most of us buy is definitely not sustainable no matter what organization says. That sustainable fishiers fudge the numbers to work and farming produces it’s own set of problems
- avereveard 6y ago
  Which is silly since one can make a completely isolated self perpetuating fish farm given enough money, heck even building it disconnected from the sea is a possibility with today technology.

by shkkmo 6y ago

cheese_goddess 6y ago

As far as I understand it, Seaspiracy claims that 2) is the case and we should all stop eating fish entirely.

shkkmo 6y ago
I think Seaspiracies argument is that current "sustainable fishing" efforts are not actually sustainable and are designed to appear to solve the problem while avoiding regulations that would actually enforce sustainable fishing (and hence massively disrupt the industry.) If that is their argument, the push to stop eating fish would be justified only in the current environment where there is no ecologically sustainable source. Maybe I being too generous, but "fishing can never be sustainable" appears to be blatantly false so I feel we have to look for the "strongest plausible interpretation".
tashoecraft 6y ago
I interpreted it as unless the fishing are doing is entirely local (the example in the movie being the African fisherman) it can be sustainable, but really and type of fish most of us buy is definitely not sustainable no matter what organization says. That sustainable fishiers fudge the numbers to work and farming produces it’s own set of problems
avereveard 6y ago
Which is silly since one can make a completely isolated self perpetuating fish farm given enough money, heck even building it disconnected from the sea is a possibility with today technology.