10 ms·

I'm curious why you even left this post - you know you won't change anything. You know nobody will agree with you. What's left?

brigandish 5y ago
I agree. Have you noticed that there are people who don't eat fish out there? There's quite a few, as an ideal it's something most would surely agree with, to differing degrees of enthusiasm.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Somebody not liking fish is perfectly OK in my book. Everybody being forced to stop eating fish because a few don't like and lobby against it, is totalitarianism, and in the practice is genocide. We should be fully aware that many millions of humans depend on sea food to survive. 'Let them eat candy instead' is not a realistic solution.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    There's six hundred million vegetarians in India alone, that's not a few. Still, even if we ignore that, why should anyone not be allowed to lobby against the eating of fish? Speech is free, is it not? To close down such speech would surely be totalitarian. I also wonder, since you used the word genocide, what word would you use to describe the amount of death wrought on fish? Or the farming of them? Would being brought up solely to be eaten and never to roam free come under your use of totalitarian? > 'Let them eat candy instead' is not a realistic solution. Have you thought about letting people eat all kinds of non-meat foods? I enjoyed tempeh on savoury rice tonight. This morning was pumpkin soup with a mixed bean salad. Lunch was very light, just toast with almond butter. All very tasty, healthy, and high in fibre, protein and macro-nutrients. Regardless, in most instances, vegetable farming produces much higher yields - and thus calories - per unit of farmland than farming animals ever could. It's a more realistic solution than expanding animal farming.
    - pvaldes 5y ago
      > why should anyone not be allowed to lobby against the eating of fish? Because the "solution" that they propose would kill millions of people, and the majority of non-vegans have rights also. Therefore is a non-solution for a non existent problem And don't try to convince me that there are lots of acceptable replacements in your mind, because this is incorrect at this moment. Where you want to culture all those pumpkins?, in national parks? there is not enough fertile soil available unless we eat all the remaining nature. > just toast with almond butter Yep, what California needs now is to plant more almonds that suck all the water. This line explains perfectly the problem with this ideology
      - brigandish 5y ago
        > Because the "solution" that they propose would kill millions of people, and the majority of non-vegans have rights also. Again, speech is the subject, speech cannot kill anyone, so you would limit speech based on possible outcomes - that is totalitarian. I also don’t see why preventing all fishing (which is a straw man, but an easy one to defend) would kill millions of people. > Where you want to culture all those pumpkins?, in national parks? there is not enough fertile soil available unless we eat all the remaining nature. As I pointed out before, because the farming of animals is so inefficient, if vegetables are grown instead the yields are so high that less land would be used to produce the same number of calories. If we’re only stopping industrial fishing then that may not work, of course, but it’s unlikely without a diet change across society anyway, and I mainly want to correct your erroneous assumption that all types of farming are fungible. > > just toast with almond butter > Yep, what California needs now is to plant more almonds that suck all the water. This line explains perfectly the problem with this ideology Almonds are native to Iran, I’m not American nor am I in America, and I’m not proposing that almonds replace meat nor would I support or propose increasing almond production in California. I’d prefer that you try to avoid littering your responses with straw man arguments if you’re going to continue, at least, not ridiculously obvious ones that are coming out of assumptions that have been given nary a second thought.
        pvaldes 5y ago
crucio 5y ago
I also strongly agree. Members of HN like to silence views like this, but it's a valid point that is growing in support. You may not see it now, but views like yours are part of the problem. We can't keep destroying the planet. Change comes at multiple levels, whether it be from the individuals with their purchasing power or governments forcing reform.
- kuhewa 5y ago
  The counterfactual to fishing isn't nothing though. People need to eat. Any calorie not coming from seafood has a footprint on land. Some seafood like whitefish, small pelagics and farmed bivalves, when sustainably managed are about the most low carbon and environmentally low footprint foods you can eat, and they are also very micronutrient dense at a time 'silent hunger' is affecting at least a billion people on earth.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    Well those folks experiencing silent hunger certainly aren’t getting the fish you’re promoting that we eat, so that doesn’t seem to be a good reason to continue doing it. Human beings already grow enough food to feed the planet. In fact we grow enough food to feed to hundreds of billions of animals we slaughter every year. We could easily give up fishing and factory farming AND eradicate hunger, but it requires significant change to folks priorities and supply chains. It’s possible though, and we should work towards it ASAP
    - kuhewa 5y ago
      > so that doesn’t seem to be a good reason to continue doing it. Forgive me, but "Many people worldwide are struggling to get certain nutrients, so it doesn't matter if we remove an important source of those nutrients" doesn't strike me as very well reasoned. > It’s possible though, and we should work towards it ASAP Why should we give up fishing? Improve sustainability and management of fisheries, sure, but if the goal is to eradicate hunger, why would you want to get rid of something that is an important provider of jobs and nutrients for some of the poorest people?
sweetheart 5y ago
I strongly agree with OP, and I’m glad to see their opinion expressed here.

brigandish 5y ago

I agree. Have you noticed that there are people who don't eat fish out there? There's quite a few, as an ideal it's something most would surely agree with, to differing degrees of enthusiasm.

pvaldes 5y ago
Somebody not liking fish is perfectly OK in my book. Everybody being forced to stop eating fish because a few don't like and lobby against it, is totalitarianism, and in the practice is genocide. We should be fully aware that many millions of humans depend on sea food to survive. 'Let them eat candy instead' is not a realistic solution.
- brigandish 5y ago
  There's six hundred million vegetarians in India alone, that's not a few. Still, even if we ignore that, why should anyone not be allowed to lobby against the eating of fish? Speech is free, is it not? To close down such speech would surely be totalitarian. I also wonder, since you used the word genocide, what word would you use to describe the amount of death wrought on fish? Or the farming of them? Would being brought up solely to be eaten and never to roam free come under your use of totalitarian? > 'Let them eat candy instead' is not a realistic solution. Have you thought about letting people eat all kinds of non-meat foods? I enjoyed tempeh on savoury rice tonight. This morning was pumpkin soup with a mixed bean salad. Lunch was very light, just toast with almond butter. All very tasty, healthy, and high in fibre, protein and macro-nutrients. Regardless, in most instances, vegetable farming produces much higher yields - and thus calories - per unit of farmland than farming animals ever could. It's a more realistic solution than expanding animal farming.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    > why should anyone not be allowed to lobby against the eating of fish? Because the "solution" that they propose would kill millions of people, and the majority of non-vegans have rights also. Therefore is a non-solution for a non existent problem And don't try to convince me that there are lots of acceptable replacements in your mind, because this is incorrect at this moment. Where you want to culture all those pumpkins?, in national parks? there is not enough fertile soil available unless we eat all the remaining nature. > just toast with almond butter Yep, what California needs now is to plant more almonds that suck all the water. This line explains perfectly the problem with this ideology
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > Because the "solution" that they propose would kill millions of people, and the majority of non-vegans have rights also. Again, speech is the subject, speech cannot kill anyone, so you would limit speech based on possible outcomes - that is totalitarian. I also don’t see why preventing all fishing (which is a straw man, but an easy one to defend) would kill millions of people. > Where you want to culture all those pumpkins?, in national parks? there is not enough fertile soil available unless we eat all the remaining nature. As I pointed out before, because the farming of animals is so inefficient, if vegetables are grown instead the yields are so high that less land would be used to produce the same number of calories. If we’re only stopping industrial fishing then that may not work, of course, but it’s unlikely without a diet change across society anyway, and I mainly want to correct your erroneous assumption that all types of farming are fungible. > > just toast with almond butter > Yep, what California needs now is to plant more almonds that suck all the water. This line explains perfectly the problem with this ideology Almonds are native to Iran, I’m not American nor am I in America, and I’m not proposing that almonds replace meat nor would I support or propose increasing almond production in California. I’d prefer that you try to avoid littering your responses with straw man arguments if you’re going to continue, at least, not ridiculously obvious ones that are coming out of assumptions that have been given nary a second thought.
      - pvaldes 5y ago

crucio 5y ago

I also strongly agree. Members of HN like to silence views like this, but it's a valid point that is growing in support. You may not see it now, but views like yours are part of the problem. We can't keep destroying the planet. Change comes at multiple levels, whether it be from the individuals with their purchasing power or governments forcing reform.

kuhewa 5y ago
The counterfactual to fishing isn't nothing though. People need to eat. Any calorie not coming from seafood has a footprint on land. Some seafood like whitefish, small pelagics and farmed bivalves, when sustainably managed are about the most low carbon and environmentally low footprint foods you can eat, and they are also very micronutrient dense at a time 'silent hunger' is affecting at least a billion people on earth.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Well those folks experiencing silent hunger certainly aren’t getting the fish you’re promoting that we eat, so that doesn’t seem to be a good reason to continue doing it. Human beings already grow enough food to feed the planet. In fact we grow enough food to feed to hundreds of billions of animals we slaughter every year. We could easily give up fishing and factory farming AND eradicate hunger, but it requires significant change to folks priorities and supply chains. It’s possible though, and we should work towards it ASAP
  - kuhewa 5y ago
    > so that doesn’t seem to be a good reason to continue doing it. Forgive me, but "Many people worldwide are struggling to get certain nutrients, so it doesn't matter if we remove an important source of those nutrients" doesn't strike me as very well reasoned. > It’s possible though, and we should work towards it ASAP Why should we give up fishing? Improve sustainability and management of fisheries, sure, but if the goal is to eradicate hunger, why would you want to get rid of something that is an important provider of jobs and nutrients for some of the poorest people?

sweetheart 5y ago

I strongly agree with OP, and I’m glad to see their opinion expressed here.