3 ms·

> We need to stop destroying ocean ecosystems, not just shift the damage around. Overfishing of wild stock, habitat destruction through bottom-trawling and inte

> 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.
Bjartr 1y ago
> You criticise, yet don't provide any suitable recommendations or alternatives. I have always hated this take in any context I've seen it. Refusing to even acknowledge a problem as a problem unless presented with a solution is such an infuriating way to be dismissed.
abdullahkhalids 1y ago
The solution to overfishing, over consumption of fossil fuels, over consumption of beef etc is all the same in the current system. Impose appropriate taxes that adequately capture the impact of the negative externalities. Living in unsustainable ways is ... well not sustainable. If people have liked to eat fish since the start, then maybe we should leave some for the next generations.
- Larrikin 1y ago
  When should the tax stop being raised? The solution is not to make it so only the rich can eat fish, beef, etc. This idea is only ever proposed by people who think they will always be able to afford it or people who think no one should be able to enjoy animal meat.
  - energy123 1y ago
    You give the tax back to people so they're no worse off on average, and are better off if they don't overly engage in destroying the commons. As for the actual tax rate, I will defer to the economic literature on this subject, but the answer will invariably be a pragmatic one.
  - nothrabannosir 1y ago
    When it has reached the cost of renewing the resource. Taxing externalities isn't about "guaranteeing everyone can have access to the resource": that's circular. Taxing externalities is about ensuring that those who profit from a public good, also pay the public for the value of that good. Hypothetical: If tomorrow it turns out that eating beef is somehow the ultimate cause of environmental destruction, and every cow fart requires $1MM in cleanup fees or humanity goes extinct, then we should tax cows at $1MM per fart, full stop. "But not everyone will be able to eat beef!" is not an argument, unless you want to say "We would rather all eat beef than survive as a species." Of course: in reality it's not so clear cut. But the principle remains. Of course: once you've determined a price for the good and levied taxes, you can then either use that price to clean up / renew the resource, or just distribute the money directly to citizens (see canada's "carbon price") to effectively pay people not to consume the resource. Same difference.
squidsoup 1y ago
The solution for both preservation of ecosystems _and_ fisheries is creating marine reserves like Papahānaumokuākea.
spookie 1y ago
Just eat the fish that's available in your waters. Unless you're landlocked and your rivers have gone to shit too.
StopDisinfo910 1y ago
> People like to eat fish and have done so since the beginning of our species. The slaves are necessary to the economic welfare of the south and have been a corner of empire economies for millennia. People like to drink wine sweetened with lead and have been doing so since we can remember. How are we even going to get rain without the sacrifices?
yesfitz 1y ago
Humans have historically done many things that we now find distasteful or unthinkable. It may be in the future that fishing joins that list. Abolition is the only alternative to immoral and unethical actions, but in terms of nutrition, there are plenty of ways to get the same nutrients, and ways to use seaweed to replicate some of the flavors.

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.

Bjartr 1y ago

> You criticise, yet don't provide any suitable recommendations or alternatives. I have always hated this take in any context I've seen it. Refusing to even acknowledge a problem as a problem unless presented with a solution is such an infuriating way to be dismissed.

abdullahkhalids 1y ago

The solution to overfishing, over consumption of fossil fuels, over consumption of beef etc is all the same in the current system. Impose appropriate taxes that adequately capture the impact of the negative externalities. Living in unsustainable ways is ... well not sustainable. If people have liked to eat fish since the start, then maybe we should leave some for the next generations.

Larrikin 1y ago
When should the tax stop being raised? The solution is not to make it so only the rich can eat fish, beef, etc. This idea is only ever proposed by people who think they will always be able to afford it or people who think no one should be able to enjoy animal meat.
- energy123 1y ago
  You give the tax back to people so they're no worse off on average, and are better off if they don't overly engage in destroying the commons. As for the actual tax rate, I will defer to the economic literature on this subject, but the answer will invariably be a pragmatic one.
- nothrabannosir 1y ago
  When it has reached the cost of renewing the resource. Taxing externalities isn't about "guaranteeing everyone can have access to the resource": that's circular. Taxing externalities is about ensuring that those who profit from a public good, also pay the public for the value of that good. Hypothetical: If tomorrow it turns out that eating beef is somehow the ultimate cause of environmental destruction, and every cow fart requires $1MM in cleanup fees or humanity goes extinct, then we should tax cows at $1MM per fart, full stop. "But not everyone will be able to eat beef!" is not an argument, unless you want to say "We would rather all eat beef than survive as a species." Of course: in reality it's not so clear cut. But the principle remains. Of course: once you've determined a price for the good and levied taxes, you can then either use that price to clean up / renew the resource, or just distribute the money directly to citizens (see canada's "carbon price") to effectively pay people not to consume the resource. Same difference.

squidsoup 1y ago

The solution for both preservation of ecosystems _and_ fisheries is creating marine reserves like Papahānaumokuākea.

spookie 1y ago

Just eat the fish that's available in your waters. Unless you're landlocked and your rivers have gone to shit too.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago

> People like to eat fish and have done so since the beginning of our species. The slaves are necessary to the economic welfare of the south and have been a corner of empire economies for millennia. People like to drink wine sweetened with lead and have been doing so since we can remember. How are we even going to get rain without the sacrifices?

yesfitz 1y ago

Humans have historically done many things that we now find distasteful or unthinkable. It may be in the future that fishing joins that list. Abolition is the only alternative to immoral and unethical actions, but in terms of nutrition, there are plenty of ways to get the same nutrients, and ways to use seaweed to replicate some of the flavors.