5 ms·

FWIW, China also produces enormous (enormous) quantities of seafood from caged underwater oceanic farms. It's the future of fishing IMHO. The rich, everywhere

FWIW, China also produces enormous (enormous) quantities of seafood from caged underwater oceanic farms. It's the future of fishing IMHO. The rich, everywhere in the world, will continue to seek wild-caught though. (While they publicly rail against the poor eating wild-caught. Such is how the wheels turn.).

tedk-42 1y ago
Yes, but I suspect they way they feed these fish farms (desired, commercially viable fish) is by catching large portions of other fish (which explains how they account for 44%), processing it (grinding, drying to pellets etc) and then selling it to the farmers.
- robocat 1y ago
  My past comments, based on quick dives into the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40913385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40913385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36118309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36118309 Search some of the keywords in those comments if you are interested in knowing more.
andsoitis 1y ago
> While they publicly rail against the poor eating wild-caught. Example?
- overfeed 1y ago
  Weekly multi-ton carbon-footprint private jet trips for me, cardboard drinking straws for thee.
  - jdmoreira 1y ago
    Its not the billionaires advocating for cardboard straws
    - overfeed 1y ago
      who said anything about billionaires? The term used by gp was "the rich", and that's much broader than billionaires
    - slashtab 1y ago
      It was the rich who brought Individual 'carbon footprint' concept in order to put guilt of pollution on poor and general public. https://science.thewire.in/environment/big-oil-hijack-carbon-calculator/ https://science.thewire.in/environment/big-oil-hijack-carbon...
Nursie 1y ago
Tasmania produces a lot of caged salmon. It’s bad for the salmon (in terms of animal welfare) and it’s wrecking the local ecosystems. It’s not any sort of panacea. We need to stop destroying ocean ecosystems, not just shift the damage around. Overfishing of wild stock, habitat destruction through bottom-trawling and intensive fish farming all need to be properly looked at.
- tedk-42 1y ago
  > We need to stop destroying ocean ecosystems, not just shift the damage around. Overfishing of wild stock, habitat destruction through bottom-trawling and intensive fish farming all need to be properly looked at. You criticise, yet don't provide any suitable recommendations or alternatives. People like to eat fish and have done so since the beginning of our species.
  - Nursie 1y ago
    Sometimes things need to be addressed whether there’s an alternative or not, because they are damaging. Onshore fish-farming is being developed. I don’t know enough about it to have any idea whether it can be made compatible with animal welfare or environmental responsibility. But it also doesn’t matter. Sometimes you’re just going to need to stop wrecking the place.
    - HDThoreaun 1y ago
      This argument isnt convincing anyone. People are going to eat salmon. If you dont provide an ethical source they will go for unethical sources. The only option for getting people to stop consuming things that are bad is to provide better alternatives.
      - Nursie 1y ago
        If an alternative isn’t found, then people are going to eat less fish one way or another. I’m suggesting we do that through conservation rather than decimation. But you feel free to throw your hands up and watch the seas die because “people are going to eat salmon”. Perhaps those who are so insistent that behaviour cannot change could come up with a solution, instead of helpless capitulation to a future of dead oceans.
azalemeth 1y ago
Or we could just not eat fish, like I haven't done for all my 36 years of life?
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  That's not an option in East Asia. Fish is a major part of the diet there. People love it. They're not going to stop eating it. Fish is also good for you, and might be part of the reason why people in East Asia have some of the longest lifespans in the world.

tedk-42 1y ago

Yes, but I suspect they way they feed these fish farms (desired, commercially viable fish) is by catching large portions of other fish (which explains how they account for 44%), processing it (grinding, drying to pellets etc) and then selling it to the farmers.

robocat 1y ago
My past comments, based on quick dives into the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40913385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40913385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36118309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36118309 Search some of the keywords in those comments if you are interested in knowing more.

andsoitis 1y ago

> While they publicly rail against the poor eating wild-caught. Example?

overfeed 1y ago
Weekly multi-ton carbon-footprint private jet trips for me, cardboard drinking straws for thee.
- jdmoreira 1y ago
  Its not the billionaires advocating for cardboard straws
  - overfeed 1y ago
    who said anything about billionaires? The term used by gp was "the rich", and that's much broader than billionaires
  - slashtab 1y ago
    It was the rich who brought Individual 'carbon footprint' concept in order to put guilt of pollution on poor and general public. https://science.thewire.in/environment/big-oil-hijack-carbon-calculator/ https://science.thewire.in/environment/big-oil-hijack-carbon...

Nursie 1y ago

Tasmania produces a lot of caged salmon. It’s bad for the salmon (in terms of animal welfare) and it’s wrecking the local ecosystems. It’s not any sort of panacea. We need to stop destroying ocean ecosystems, not just shift the damage around. Overfishing of wild stock, habitat destruction through bottom-trawling and intensive fish farming all need to be properly looked at.

tedk-42 1y ago
> We need to stop destroying ocean ecosystems, not just shift the damage around. Overfishing of wild stock, habitat destruction through bottom-trawling and intensive fish farming all need to be properly looked at. You criticise, yet don't provide any suitable recommendations or alternatives. People like to eat fish and have done so since the beginning of our species.
- Nursie 1y ago
  Sometimes things need to be addressed whether there’s an alternative or not, because they are damaging. Onshore fish-farming is being developed. I don’t know enough about it to have any idea whether it can be made compatible with animal welfare or environmental responsibility. But it also doesn’t matter. Sometimes you’re just going to need to stop wrecking the place.
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    This argument isnt convincing anyone. People are going to eat salmon. If you dont provide an ethical source they will go for unethical sources. The only option for getting people to stop consuming things that are bad is to provide better alternatives.
    - Nursie 1y ago
      If an alternative isn’t found, then people are going to eat less fish one way or another. I’m suggesting we do that through conservation rather than decimation. But you feel free to throw your hands up and watch the seas die because “people are going to eat salmon”. Perhaps those who are so insistent that behaviour cannot change could come up with a solution, instead of helpless capitulation to a future of dead oceans.

azalemeth 1y ago

Or we could just not eat fish, like I haven't done for all my 36 years of life?

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
That's not an option in East Asia. Fish is a major part of the diet there. People love it. They're not going to stop eating it. Fish is also good for you, and might be part of the reason why people in East Asia have some of the longest lifespans in the world.