[HN Gopher] Tuna's Last Stand
___________________________________________________________________
Tuna's Last Stand
Author : drdee
Score : 113 points
Date : 2021-03-14 03:39 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.hakaimagazine.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.hakaimagazine.com)
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| Are fisheries guilty? Are regulators and governments guilty?
|
| I think the guilty side are end-consumers, particularly in rich
| countries, people themselves and their lifestyle (ex:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#Impact)
|
| note: I haven't eat a gram of fish or meat since more than a
| decade (mostly because I don't feel the need, being already full
| with local products: fruits, plants, legumes, rice
| the-dude wrote:
| If you don't eat fish, it will just drive down the price and be
| fed to your cat.
| ____throwaway6 wrote:
| My family is good friends with a vegetarian that has had health
| problems. She's been a vegetarian for the past fifteen years
| after a previous 25+ years as a vegetarian since she made the
| choice as a child. She used to buy fast food cheese sandwiches
| (hamburger with no burger, pickles, onions, or ketchup) for her
| child because that's all her child would eat and could eat when
| they were busy, as she enforced vegetarianism on her also.
|
| I sympathize with vegans and vegetarians like her, and I don't
| like thinking of the machines some fast food chains use in
| their supply chain to slaughter massive numbers of animals, as
| humanely as you could do such a thing, with an automated spike
| that goes through their heads after they squeeze their hips to
| stimulate comfort.
|
| I know caged hens may get excessively fat and maybe aren't as
| happy, because I'm not happy when I'm fat. Cage-free egg can
| mean that chickens are packed into an ever more stressful pen,
| which is similar to the chick pens, where dead chicks have to
| be plucked up regularly from the moving masses. Free-range
| chickens may not have a temperature-controlled environment.
|
| I like to eat chicken, and I'm told it's healthy. But I spent
| time with a chicken yesterday that seemed like it wanted to
| talk with us and ask for food or other help, and it seemed to
| be patient with us, but eventually raised it's voice when we
| weren't understanding it.
|
| Before I eat, I pray by quickly thinking of the sacrifices made
| for us and our comfort- the chicken that provided her egg,
| those that harvested the vegetables, and anything else I think
| of. I don't want to cause harm, but until I understand how I
| can eat in a healthy way with the least negative impact, I eat
| meat.
|
| I understand from others we may be eating unsustainably, and
| food may not be shared to all of those who need it. Some of
| those considered in poverty level in richer countries eat too
| much of poor nutrients that lead to obesity and health
| problems, and education alone is not the answer, as it's the
| only food that's affordable; being richer and fatter than
| others globally with much less food and money, they may be the
| least healthy.
|
| Where do we go from here? I'm told fish, eggs, chicken, and
| beef are good for me, but I should eat more vegetables.
|
| Greenpeace can tell us how to choose tuna:
| https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/eat-tuna-know-fish/
|
| So long and thanks for all the fish.
| gambiting wrote:
| I'm sorry, but I refuse to feel guilty and I don't see why
| anyone should. When I go to the store and buy some tuna I
| expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's
| the fault of our government and regulation, regular customer
| shouldn't be worried about that. The same with meat - when I
| buy some I expect that animals weren't abused and beaten at
| farms, if they were then there's an issue in the system.
| jMyles wrote:
| > When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it
| was responsibly fished.
|
| Why do you expect this, when there is evidence to the
| contrary?
|
| > regular customer shouldn't be worried about that
|
| Nobody is asking you to single-handedly save the oceans.
| Start by installing Seafood Watch and do your best to select
| a sustainable option any time you're eating seafood.
|
| > If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and
| regulation
|
| This is why crony capitalism is forever bound to a love
| affair with the state; it relieves us of any responsibility
| for building real communities.
|
| Governments have never - and I believe will never - regulate
| society into behavior befitting the respect due to the Earth.
| We have given profiteers and their lobbyists access to a
| single point of failure; we can't be surprised when they
| utilize it.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make it
| morally right.
|
| > there's an issue in the system.
|
| But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no
| incentive to ever change anything.
|
| You say, "The government should ban this!" and the government
| says, "People are buying and eating this, so in a Democratic
| system we can't ban this!"
|
| You slough off responsibility on them - they slough it off on
| you - you all convince yourselves you have no possibility at
| all.
|
| Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your
| representatives? Asked them to do anything about it?
|
| I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate
| tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's
| everyone else's fault."
| gambiting wrote:
| >>No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make
| it morally right.
|
| Wait, are you replying to the right comment?
|
| >>Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your
| representatives? Asked them to do anything about it?
|
| Yes, I have. Have you?
|
| >>But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's
| no incentive to ever change anything.
|
| Again, I feel like you're replying to the wrong comment. I
| feel like I live in a country with a very strong regulatory
| framework and things like fishing are treated very
| seriously with strong quotas on what can be caught not to
| overfish, and canned fish has to be clearly labeled where
| it came from and how it was caught. So I'm not sure which
| part of what I said comes across as apathetic to you.
|
| >>I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I
| ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's
| everyone else's fault."
|
| I'll definitely say that it's the fault of the agencies
| tasked with protecting the flora and fauna that they are
| responsible for, not the consumers for eating tuna.
| graeme wrote:
| That's kind of a silly assumption frankly. Even on fish cans
| in the grocery store some advertise themselves as sustainably
| fished with certifications, and some don't. Some egg cartons
| advertise themselves as "free range" and some don't. Some
| meat advertises itself as "grass fed" and others don't.
|
| The products themselves are telling you there are a variety
| of production standards and it is almost willful blindness to
| say you believe there is nothing going on because there ought
| to be nothing going on.
|
| You could make an analogous argument about gasoline "Look if
| this was harming the atmosphere why would governments allow
| it to be sold? I refuse to feel guilty"
| sokoloff wrote:
| Grass-fed beef is advertised that way primarily for
| nutritional and taste claims and to support/explain the
| higher prices charged.
| graeme wrote:
| That's one reason. It's also widely known it is healthier
| for the cattle and has them out on pasture rather than in
| cages.
|
| The reason people argue the meat is more nutritious is
| because the cows are healthier via eating their natural
| diet.
|
| Corn diets cause health problems and bacterial infections
| requiring antibiotics.
|
| Some of this will literally be on the websites of farms
| selling pastured beef. It's not a big secret and if you
| seek out pastured beef it's likely familiar.
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/01051107462
| 3.h...
| shlant wrote:
| "The consumer is completely to blame" is definitely
| ridiculous.
|
| "As a consumer I have no responsibility in what products I
| choose to buy" is equally ridiculous.
| xirbeosbwo1234 wrote:
| "There's an issue in the system" doesn't absolve you of
| responsibility. Right now, unless you take it on yourself to
| do some research and pay a premium, you know for a fact that
| any tuna you buy will have been irresponsibly fished and any
| meat you buy will come from animals that were abused. That is
| why they're so cheap and everyone knows it.
|
| You cannot "expect" anything when you know the opposite for a
| fact. You can _want_ it, but evidently not enough to lift a
| finger.
|
| I wonder what you would do if you lived in a slave state or
| fascist regime. Would you buy slave-made goods and justify it
| because, sure, it's evil, but it's not your job to fix?
| whatastory wrote:
| You can expect anything you want. Doesn't make your
| expectations realistic or absolve you of responsibility,
| though.
|
| Nobody's going to step in and change things if it's easy
| money and people will keep buying it and shifting blame. It
| doesn't work that way.
| sorokod wrote:
| But you (plural form if you wish) are part of the system.
| Without you the system would not exist.
| usrusr wrote:
| Tuna is hunted wildlife, an international commons. It's
| clearly evident that no regulation will happen anytime soon
| that will actually make a difference. If you buy it, you are
| part of the problem, either ignorantly or knowingly.
|
| Occasionally I find myself in some gastronomy setting were
| nothing in the menu appeals to me other than the dishes
| containing tuna and then I eat it, and enjoy it a lot. It
| happens less than once a year.
|
| (I do actually share your position wrt farmed meat, those
| farms are infinitely more regulateable than international
| fishing and I think we should regulate it hard, hard enough
| to solve big parts of the inherent inefficiency of putting
| nutrients though animals before they reach a human mouth by
| price)
| gambiting wrote:
| I'm sorry, but tuna being farmed in international waters
| shouldn't be an obstacle. In all EU countries and UK there
| are quotas of what a fishing vessel can bring into port. So
| it doesn't matter where the fish was actually caught, if
| the country ran out of annual quota for tuna for instance,
| then no fishing vessel can bring any tuna to any port. It's
| not an insurmountable problem.
| usrusr wrote:
| Agreeing on sustainable quotas apparently is.
|
| Whaling wasn't stopped (mostly stopped) thanks to people
| insisting on buying whale products until regulation
| happens.
| [deleted]
| ____throwaway6 wrote:
| > I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was
| responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our
| government and regulation
|
| I eat canned tuna also, but that logic doesn't work
| generally.
|
| By the same logic you could say that if you could buy a BB
| gun, it's ok to shoot people with it, because it must not be
| harmful.
|
| Come to think of it, that's what kids did to each other when
| I was growing up.
| gambiting wrote:
| But a BB gun specifically comes with a warning not to shoot
| people because it might cause harm, not to mention that
| regulations around fake and/or air guns are pretty hardcore
| already.
|
| To maybe give another example - as a consumer I shouldn't
| care if a phone I'm buying was made using child labour or
| not - I expect the authorities in every country involved in
| its production to enforce laws against child labour.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| > I'm sorry, but I refuse to feel guilty
|
| Then you're not sorry.
|
| > When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it
| was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of
| our government and regulation, regular customer shouldn't be
| worried about that.
|
| How do you think regulations come to be?
|
| If a consumer wants a product, a company finds a way to
| provide it. The company will poison the land, sea and sky in
| order to provide it to you, they don't give a shit. The
| government allows it until the people demand regulations to
| stop it. But _you are the people_ - if you don 't want it
| stopped, it won't be. And so there are no regulations made.
|
| There is no parental overlord making sure that what you
| purchase is sustainable or cruelty-free. Sitting around
| saying "somebody should stop me from ruining the earth"
| doesn't actually make it happen. I know you don't _want_ to
| have any personal responsibility or culpability for the
| shitty way the world works, but you do.
|
| Ultimately, you, and everyone like you, are the reason we
| can't have nice things.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>Ultimately, you, and everyone like you, are the reason we
| can't have nice things.
|
| Because I expect to live in a country with a strong
| regulatory framework where if I buy something in a store I
| don't have to worry whether it was produced in an ethical
| way?
|
| You're right, I'm the problem. Thanks mate.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| You've already admitted you won't lift a finger to
| actually help the situation. Why would you expect your
| government to do anything if they're made up of people
| like you? Do you believe all those government workers
| exist on some other plane of moral relativism? Or do you
| think that laws and regulations magically come into
| being, like the zeitgeist just _wills_ regulations into
| place?
|
| The government does not sit around reading your mind and
| then make regulations to match it. Even if it could, it
| wouldn't. The government only creates a regulation when
| either a corporation or a very vocal coalition of people
| demand it. And those two parties are working against each
| other anyway, making it even less likely.
|
| I really don't know how to explain it in simple enough
| terms. If you don't care, then neither does the society,
| and thus the government. Ergo, people like you are the
| reason the regulations don't exist and aren't enforced
| when they do.
| gambiting wrote:
| Ok, maybe I came across incorrectly.
|
| Obviously, I do care. I do care on the level of having
| strong regulation, having institutions and governments
| which regulate this, so that at the end as a customer
| when I walk into a store I don't need to Google whether a
| particular brand is fishing tuna in a particular way or
| not. I expect that the entire structure that exists for
| regulating and allowing these products to reach the
| shelves will prevent products which are made in an
| insustainable way. Maybe I'm a fool for expecting it to
| work this. But that was why I replied how I did - that I
| refuse to feel bad because I expect my government to
| prevent this in the first place. Just like I said
| elsewhere - I don't worry whether a phone I'm buying was
| made with child labour because I believe all governments
| involved in the production of the device enforce laws
| against child labour.
|
| That doesn't mean that I don't care. But if I find out
| that phones made by kids or tuna fished to extinction is
| on store shelves I'll complain.....to the regulatory
| bodies. Not decide "well, I guess I'll never eat tuna
| ever again".
| Tarq0n wrote:
| This is a typical collective action problem. If you believe
| individual change in behaviour can fix it you're centuries
| behind on your sociology.
| rozab wrote:
| The claims in that wikipedia article and the cited news article
| seem unbelievable.
|
| >Studies suggest pets consume about a fifth of the world's meat
| and fish, and a dog's carbon footprint is more than twice that
| of a 4x4 car, according to Yora.
|
| Can anyone find the study which makes this claim? It kind of
| seems like a garbled version of this one:
|
| >As calculated, US dogs and cats consume as much dietary energy
| as ~62 million Americans, which is approximately one-fifth of
| the US population.
|
| https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
| atleta wrote:
| Finger pointing doesn't help. Whataboutism doesn't help. It
| doesn't matter who is guilty. There are obviously multiple
| actors with different (but seemingly aligned) interests acting
| in concert and causing the problem. What what matters is where
| you can efficiently intervene in the process.
|
| Telling every customer to change their habits (or just feel
| guilty) sounds good, probably has _some_ effect but it 's not
| enough. Controlling e.g. the much smaller number of producers
| is a lot simpler. Also, taxing the product (the end product
| that the guilty consumers can buy) may also work. Most likely
| you need to apply multiple measures at multiple points in this
| process.
|
| E.g. I think convincing the customers works best in the long
| run and more like for general purposes. I.e. understand that
| you should consume less, use a smaller footprint _in general_ ,
| as you mentioned. But that doesn't necessarily easily translate
| to "don't buy tuna and milk". It's easier to translate it into
| "vote for the guy who promises to handle this case even if it
| means tax raises". And then you can simply go to the store and
| expect that whatever you see there is OK to buy at that price.
| Yes, tuna will be say 10x more expensive and thus you'll buy it
| less frequently (and maybe not feed it to your cat).
| theobeers wrote:
| > "All industrial fisheries, with very few exceptions, are
| ultimately drained of life after a certain time," says Daniel
| Pauly, a University of British Columbia fisheries biologist.
| "They increase and push, push, until they collapse. Why should
| skipjack tuna be any different?"
|
| There you have it.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I mostly eat salmon, but I'd love to switch to smaller fish.
| Does anyone know a good way to get herring or sardines other
| than canned? Apart from being more expensive due to
| preparation, even bpa free can liners worry me a bit. Frozen
| would be ideal.
| GordonS wrote:
| The vast majority of salmon is farmed, so sustainable in the
| sense that it isn't going to diminish wild stocks. There are
| arguments against open-pen aquaculture too of course, but
| it's all relative. And a lot of money is being spent on
| solving those issues, such as deep sea aquaculture (where the
| effluent isn't a big problem, compared to static coastal
| pens), closed-containment (where all waste can be collected
| and used to make fertilizer), and land-based aquaculture
| (personally, I really don't like this).
| chriskanan wrote:
| Farmed fish isn't necessarily sustainable. It depends on
| the species. For some species, e.g., eel, they are farm
| raised but they are wild caught when young. For eel, we
| have not been able to get them to lay eggs that could be
| hatched and they take 10-25 years to reach sexual maturity
| [0]. Eels are not doing very well at all.
|
| Moreover, farmed fish are often fed wild fish, so that
| could have some strong negative impact on ecosystems.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eel_life_history
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_fish_feed#Sustai
| n...
|
| https://www.tampabay.com/things-to-do/food/cooking/The-
| facts...
| pvaldes wrote:
| It depends on the species, but you have some options at
| least.
| GordonS wrote:
| I'm (very) familiar with salmon aquaculture, but know
| very little about other species.
|
| As far as salmon go, there has been a huge push to reduce
| wild catch content in feed, replacing it things like
| soya. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head,
| but I recall being impressed - if you're interested, you
| can search for the latest MOWI annual report (think they
| call it a "sustainability report"), and Norwegian
| ministries publish a wealth of information.
| pvaldes wrote:
| The problem is that carnivore fishes are tasty, and
| vegetarian fishes... not so much. You can't just replace
| all their food by plant stuff and expect a good growth.
| 5-10% of soy, maybe, I' don't remember the exact value,
| but > 50%... No way.
|
| Fishes get ill and growth is stunted. It promotes
| cannibalism also. Premium fish food for aquaculture is
| expensive.
| pvaldes wrote:
| It depends on where you live. If you is very far from the sea
| and main markets, freswhater fishes could be the choice.
|
| Sardines are easy to find in Europe. You can have also bigger
| pieces canned but preserved in salt. Is a different product
| that your typical canned sardines and more environmentally
| responsible. The elder fishes have a choice to reproduce
| before to being fished and tins are bigger so more efficient
| to produce. Some people love them, other dislike the extra
| salty stuff. is an acquired taste.
| ghaff wrote:
| Frozen sardines can be found in the US although not nearly as
| commonly as other fish. I've seen fresh sardines in Whole
| Foods but very rarely.
| [deleted]
| phonon wrote:
| Jarred herring is pretty common. Whole Foods carries
| https://products.wholefoodsmarket.com/brand/blue-hill-bay
| which are quite delicious.
|
| Note: don't overdo it with the small fishes. They have high
| levels of purines which cause gout.
| justinator wrote:
| Technically, I don't think it's correct to say that purines
| cause gout; but that the inability to break down purines
| causes gout. What's the root cause of that? Kidney
| dysfunction, and a history of bad diet, bad exercise
| habits.
|
| It could very well be that switching to a better diet that
| includes foods like sardines is beneficial and even a net
| positive to someone who is susceptible to gout even though
| sardines have higher levels of purines than other foods.
|
| I never knew I'd like - or even crave canned herring but I
| have to say: it's absolutely delicious. Because of the
| essentially destruction and collapse of the ocean's
| fisheries, the majority of fish I eat these days is just
| canned sardines. Compared to say wild caught tuna, they're
| pretty sustainable (although again: the details are
| complicated).
| pirate787 wrote:
| It is about the "tragedy of the commons", not any specific
| feature of industrial fishing. Indeed, where industrial fishing
| has assigned property rights, like with fish farming, there are
| no issues with systemic collapse.
| Maursault wrote:
| > It is about "tragedy of the commons", not any specific
| feature of industrial fishing.
|
| I am certain the TotC _is a feature_ of commercial fishing,
| and I am perplexed how anyone could separate the two.
| Overfishing, driven by greed ( "Take what you can; give
| nothing back" [1]), itself is a specific feature of
| commercial fishing. [2] But I agree with your second
| statement, though the situation is more complex than merely
| the problem of fishing all of the fish and the collapse of
| entire species. [3] What I also believe is desperately needed
| is an indefinite moratorium on fishing anywhere beyond
| coastal territories. [4]
|
| [1] _Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl_
| , 2003 (though this phrase actually originates from Caribbean
| pirates, though the original meaning concerns lines: when
| pulling a ship into a dock, to pull in as much slack as you
| can and don't let it go. In only a literal sense it seems it
| very much applies to commercial fishing.
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#Examples_and_ev
| ide...
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_fis
| hin...
|
| [4] https://e360.yale.edu/features/a-global-ban-on-fishing-
| on-th...
| totetsu wrote:
| We already have territorial waters which are broadly ignored
| by fishing fleets from certain countries. Property laws on
| land work because you can enforce them. The ocean is too
| big.. and wet..
| nine_k wrote:
| Satellites, aircraft, and navies exist, and can detect
| violations and force the perpetrators away.
|
| Doing so pervasively costs a lot of money, though; no
| country seems to be as rich as to engage in such
| enforcement with enough strictness.
| jMyles wrote:
| > Most of the skipjack caught in the WCPO today is harvested by
| purse seining, an industrial fishing method in which dense
| schools of fish near the surface are encircled with a large net
| and scooped out of the ocean.
|
| Most of you probably already know this, but Seafood Watch
| (maintained by the monterey bay aquarium) is a useful resource
| for figuring out if the fish you're buying is harvested this way
| or not.
| jbay808 wrote:
| This is a fascinating article, but I'm bookmarking it for the
| unreadable graphs. It will be a great example for future
| presentations.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| > unreadable graphs
|
| Can you explain your issues with the second graph, it seems
| perfect fine to me.
|
| The first graph is merely "meh" ... the two key data points for
| this article are readily apparent: over all harvesting of tuna
| is increasing and the percentage of shipjack in that harvest is
| also increasing. What message was this graph supposed to
| communicate that it did not?
| marzell wrote:
| This is nitpicky. There's 2 graphs; the second one is totally
| readable... The first one gets it's main point across just
| fine.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| That is an interesting insight. I would like to learn more
| about making graphs that communicate well.
|
| Can you share some specifics about how these graphs are
| unreadable, and how they can be improved?
| IshKebab wrote:
| Uhm... did you look at them? They both use very very similar
| shades of blue for all of the series which makes them
| impossible to distinguish.
|
| The second graph is a little better but even in that one the
| very similarly coloured blue lines cross each other so you
| have to really look closely to figure out which is which.
| zwp wrote:
| The second graph links to datawrapper.de. The shades of
| blue appear to be the default palette in that application.
| It wasn't a stylistic choice "blue because fish".
|
| I tried one of datawrapper's sample data sets, "Gender pay
| gap" and added a couple of extra columns. The resulting
| line graph has four shades of blue.
|
| https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/g98Jd/1/
|
| (There are "base color" and "customize colors" buttons so
| the author could have changed this. Seems like a nice
| little app).
| Ensorceled wrote:
| Yes. They both could have been better but both communicate
| their key message.
|
| I guess the point is ... I've seen many, many examples of
| worse graphs, graphs where the point was obscured or graphs
| that were deliberately misleading; so I'm trying to figure
| out how these two are worthy of appearing in a
| presentation.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Hilariously bad colour choices. If you're talking about
| colour these are good examples of how not to do it.
| enriquto wrote:
| the first graph is completely useless, how can you
| distinguish between all these similar shades of light blue?
| zwp wrote:
| If you're on a non-touchscreen device then there is a
| hover-over pop-up with the fish name and tonnage caught.
|
| That still doesn't cut it: there are 18 fish in the graph
| key but at first glance the graph has around half that
| number. The others can be seen if you zoom right in but
| it's still not easy to hover over the pixel-wide slivers of
| similar blue.
|
| That said I don't think the tonnage details are the point
| of this graph but rather a more general message: "Tuna
| fishing increased 6-fold over 65 years, skipjack makes up
| most of the increase". I think it communicates this message
| well. Perhaps more "infographic" than "graph"?
| EvanKRob wrote:
| Go to the Tokyo Fish Market if you really want your eyes opened.
| 1500 tons of fish brought in every day. They just scoop up
| everything they can get their nets on and sell it at the market.
| Truly eye-opening experience.
| [deleted]
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| And people panic when there are discussions of population
| decline as if these levels of resource extraction are
| sustainable.
| aaron_m04 wrote:
| > "People with industry or regulatory agencies will tend to say
| things are okay. [...]."
|
| Does anyone know why that is? Is it regulatory capture?
| remoquete wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. I didn't know about the magazine, and as a
| lover of all things aquatic, I was missing something like this.
| It reminds me a lot of the old Italian magazine "Aqua".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-14 23:03 UTC)