5 ms·
In some sense, this is no different than that a huge portion of agriculture goes to feed farm animals. It does not make sense from a purely economic nutrition d
by bragr 4y ago
In some sense, this is no different than that a huge portion of agriculture goes to feed farm animals. It does not make sense from a purely economic nutrition delivery perspective but since people have a preference for meat, especially lobster, people are willing to bear the cost.
- AlbertCory 4y agoThe "purely economic" perspective is why it does make sense to them. Raise the prices of the baitfish, or outlaw using them. Do you have another method?
- bragr 4y agoI think realistically we're not going to make any real progress either way until there's a big cultural shift away from regular meat eating.
- AlbertCory 4y agoI don't think that's required. Look, they have quotas on cod fishing, and AFAICT those are effective. Whale hunting is mostly outlawed.
- nightski 4y agoThere's a TON of progress that could be made without any changes in meat eating. Animal husbandry only accounts for a few % of emissions in the U.S. for example.
- googlryas 4y agoThey said purely "economic nutrition delivery", not merely purely economic. I assume they're talking about $/cal
- blfr 4y agoEating meat and other products from higher up the food chain makes perfect nutritional sense. Much more than optimizing for calories per buck which leads to a diet full of HFCS horrors.
- whoisburbansky 4y agoNutrition isn't the same as calories; you can have a more efficient diet in terms of recommended daily values of macro and micro nutrients without having to rely on "products" higher up the food chain.