[crucio]

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]

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]

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]

> 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]

Because in an ideal world we reduce the suffering of all sentient beings as much as possible, which includes sea life.

I understand that there are folks who are dependent on fishing right now for livelihood, but we should change that so they aren’t.

But that also brings about a point often overlooked by carnists: are _you_ personally dependent on eating fish to survive? If not then you should stop. For some reason carnists often think in terms of “well this person on the other side of the world needs to rely on fishing, so it’s fine for me to continue eating fish”

[sputr]

As a "carnist" (first time I have seen that, it's a good choice) who would, in an ideal world, prefer not to be one:

Stop focusing on things you can't change (even tho they make you look good/moral) and start focusing on results.

If all the energy used to try and convince people to not eat meat (something that can't even theoretically happen) had instead been focused on lobbing for systemic support for development of artificial meat ... we would have already had it. Then no one would have to give up meat. Most people have no connection to the animal as is - if the messaging is done right, most will not care, especially if it's seen as "better, cheaper and healthier".

But for that, someone would have to start a massive pan-EU campaign to start devoting billions into research and commercialization of artificial meat. I would support such a (vegan) candidate.

I eat meat, but I would much prefer if there was no suffering attached to it.

[sweetheart]

This is very silly. Your argument is based on thinking it’s futile to resume suffering as much as possible. The time spent trying to get folks to change isn’t a waste at all, as we can all see that there is progress. This is how any rights movement works.

Also, there are already made viable replacements for meat. I’d start with lentils, but you don’t like them there are hundreds of other options.

[kuhewa]

So you want us to optimise for minimised nonhuman animal suffering rather than for minimised environmental footprint or maximised human well-being.

I respect that, but it's a value judgement, and your priorities therein are different than mine.

That said, I'm also not sure I should stop if I did share your ethical priorities. Example: sometimes, I spearfish not far from where I live and take a fish or abalone. Fish often get headshotted and never realise they were speared, not sure there is suffering in those cases (Other times it is a few seconds before I pith them after spearing). No bycatch. Sometimes tens of meals from one sentient being if it is a larger species. I'm pretty sure a meal of agriculturally produced plant foods results in similar amounts of animal suffering once you include animals poisoned and killed by harvest machinery.

[crucio]

Yes I appreciate that there's portion of the population in dire need of food or who have little option but to fish - I doubt any would begrudge them doing whatever they can to survive.

The rest of the world (where we have choice when walking down a supermarket or picking where to eat) should be looking to more ethically and environmentally friendly foods.

There is easily enough land on earth to support us all. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Your diet of dead animals is killing the planet.

[kuhewa]

> There is easily enough land on earth to support us all. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

> Your diet of dead animals is killing the planet.

You are showing your hand too soon mate. I'm taking about food with zero land use footprint - less than an entirely plant based diet. Nowhere did I advocate for eating terrestrial farmed animal protein. So really, by bringing up the land use footprint of terrestrial food, you are making a strong case for incorporating some seafood to reduce the impact of food. While it's cool that you are unintentionally supporting my case, I'm afraid you may come off as a zealot if you share vegan talking points that are irrelevant to the comment to which you are replying.

[sputr]

Are (pragmatic) views really a problem? I'm not so sure. Depends on what you are trying to achieve.

If you're trying to change people's values (i.e. from "who care about the environment" to "we need to protect the environment") than pragmatism isn't the way to go.

But if you want to convert values (i.e. "we need to protect the environment") into actual real world results, well in that case pragmatism is the only way to go.

Look at the whole green energy discussion. If the green movement contained its activism to fossil fuels and turned pragmatic on the topic of alternatives ... we would be living in a much cleaner world today.

But they didn't and as a result, they radically reduced their net positive effect on the world.