[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.

[sputr]

> Your argument is based on thinking it’s futile to resume suffering as much as possible.

My argument is, that there are multiple strategies and that you are using a suboptimal, possibly at this point a counter-productive one.

You will NEVER convince everyone (or even close to a majority) to stop eating meat. At least not in anything close to a lifetime and without highly authoritarian methods. So working toward that end is pointless. You should be, instead, working on providing an alternative and making sure people adopt it.

> This is how any rights movement works.

Yeah, and they all make the same mistake. Most of them have managed to change the values of the population but then lose steam, slow down and get stuck or even slide back when trying to change societal systems. Almost like changing values and changing systems isn't the same thing.

> 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.

I've tried most of the ones that are available here. And no, they have not. They are getting better, and some are very interesting as a standalone thing, but they are not a replacement.

[sweetheart]

> You will NEVER convince everyone (or even close to a majority) to stop eating meat.

But… I have… numerous times. You don’t really know what you’re talking about at all.

If you have an actual legitimate reason you think you ought not to reduce the suffering of animals, let me know. Otherwise, have a good life and I hope you go vegan.

[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.