[HN Gopher] That snapper might be 80 years old
___________________________________________________________________
That snapper might be 80 years old
Author : rbanffy
Score : 72 points
Date : 2022-10-11 17:00 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nautil.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (nautil.us)
| heisenzombie wrote:
| I married a marine biologist, and dinner parties with her friends
| were eye opening in the way they talk so matter-of-factly about
| the ecological collapse that's already happened in our oceans.
|
| Compared with 100 years ago, the total biomass of predatory fish
| (basically, the ones we eat) is down by roughly 70%. And that's
| accelerating.
| markstos wrote:
| So do you still eat fish?
| nominusllc wrote:
| You know the answer to this, so why ask? Just make your
| accusation directly and take your smugness in lump sum rather
| than annuity.
| markstos wrote:
| You've got a crystal ball here?
|
| Some people change their behavior when they learn they
| their current behaviors are contributing to significant
| harm and there is a viable alternative to reduce harm.
|
| We've got a choice about whether we contribute to the harm
| caused by commercial fishing or not.
| boston_clone wrote:
| Seems this is a sensitive topic for you; is there perhaps
| some cognitive dissonance at play? If so, it's probably
| worth teasing out the details and reassessing behaviors or
| beliefs.
| fallingfrog wrote:
| You hear this kind of argument a lot, people like to accuse
| one another of "virtue signaling". I like to call it the
| Joker argument- "You're just like me underneath, Batman."
| It's an argument you can trot out in any situation too, even
| if you don't have any real point to make, because it isn't an
| argument at all, but rather a character attack. It's lazy and
| dishonest.
| randomdata wrote:
| Presumably you responded to the wrong comment by mistake,
| but if not what argument are you referring to? All I see is
| a simple question that most certainly doesn't say anything
| about anyone's character. It is true that any possible
| answer to the question won't tell us much in the grand
| scheme of things, but that shouldn't stop someone from
| having a little curiosity now and again. Curiosity is the
| spice of life, as they say.
| MilesCe wrote:
| I don't think the data supports the notion that there is a
| collapse. A lasting 70% reduction without the ongoing
| interference (overfishing) by humans would be a problem, but
| even that would not be a collapse.
|
| A couple decades ago the concept of overfishing became more
| well-known, and the industry was forced to change. The reason
| that the industry reacted also has to do with the fact that a
| true collapse of the fish population would also decimate the
| entire industry - they have an interest in keeping it stable.
|
| If 99% of a fish population goes away, it would take decades
| for the population to recover to normal levels. During those
| years, there would be no profit.
|
| The true reason why the fish population is down 70% is due to
| the fact that every year the fishing industry takes out as many
| fish as possible without causing a lasting depression of fish
| population.
|
| If all fishing would be stopped right now, the global fish
| population would recover to pre-human levels within probably 20
| or 30 years.
|
| Here's what someone from the Australian fishing industriy has
| to say about this:
|
| "We have learned from the '60s to '90s era and today most large
| fisheries are well managed (some in Asia/Africa are not) and
| either recovering or operating at maximum economic yield. You
| cannot catch fish to extinction - they will always recover if
| you stop fishing. It's the recovery time that is the issue -
| and the time to when you can recommence harvesting,
| sustainably."
|
| Of course these people are heavily biased, and the industry is
| rotten to the core and full of corruption, but it's hard to
| argue against this self-evident logic.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| That all relies on the fact that all actors involved have
| some shiny long term sustainability goals and behave strictly
| morally. Which as all know damn too well is a pure fantasy.
| Chinese fleets swiping parts of oceans clean anywhere they
| can and are not caught couldn't care less what will be there
| in 50 years, or some treaties of western countries.
|
| Also, you completely ignore 2nd and 3rd order effects -
| decimation of populations dependent on those missing fish
| that can't and won't recover as easily as fish can.
| MilesCe wrote:
| tablarasa wrote:
| You might find this paper interesting- it's focused on
| adapting fisheries management to climate change, but some of
| the core principles of fisheries management are touched [1].
| Check out some of the figures.
|
| There are some paradoxical concepts in fisheries management,
| not least is that the Maximum Sustinable Yield often supports
| aligned interests between fisherman (who want to profit/eat)
| and fish populations (who want to persist). Overfishing is a
| tragedy of the commons; managing those fisheries properly can
| produce MORE fish in the ocean even if yields go up. Not
| always, but this stuff is not cut and dry and the dynamics of
| population growth and extraction in these animals have to be
| understood.
|
| [1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aao1378
| bch wrote:
| > I don't think the data supports the notion that there is a
| collapse.
|
| It's not a collapse of _"the ocean"_ , but: https://en.wikipe
| dia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_north...
| fallingfrog wrote:
| How do you know this? OP states that their statement comes
| from marine biologists.
| MilesCe wrote:
| beardedetim wrote:
| Can I ask a stupid question in earnest? Is it bad for them to
| die out? Is the fear that if we lose 90% of this life that
| there will be complete collapse of the worlds ecosystem?
|
| Maybe a better question would be: where can I find more
| information on the consequences of this?
| acuozzo wrote:
| AFAIK 50-80% of our oxygen comes from Phytoplankton in the
| ocean.
| divbzero wrote:
| Does anyone know if we are facing similar ecological collapse
| on land?
| vkou wrote:
| We've already caused it. The overwhelming majority of land
| mammal mass is either humans, or farm animals raised for
| humans to eat. Almost half of the world's land surface is now
| farmland.
| divbzero wrote:
| That fits the estimates from one research article: [1]
| 0.06 Gt C human biomass 0.1 Gt C livestock biomass
| 0.007 Gt C wild mammal biomass 0.002 Gt C wild bird
| biomass
|
| The article also estimated that "wild land mammal biomass
| decreased [?]7.6-fold" when comparing the world today to
| prehuman times [2].
|
| [1]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115
|
| [2]: https://github.com/milo-
| lab/biomass_distribution/blob/master...
| ThrowawayIP wrote:
| And the vast vast majority of this farmland that could be
| used to raise human-edible crops is used to feed
| domesticated animals. While humans die of starvation.
| colechristensen wrote:
| > Almost half of the world's land surface is now farmland
|
| This is a BS statistic meant to shock and inappropriately
| counts the entire area of wilderness that might be used for
| grazing which is just wilderness that would have supported
| similar animals anyway.
| vkou wrote:
| Managed crop monoculture, which ~half of farmland is - is
| not 'something similar' to natural forests, plains,
| grasslands, scrubland, etc.
|
| Even grazing land rarely looks anything like it does
| before we've shaped it for our use. And even when it
| does, at first glance, it gets a monoculture of animals,
| instead. Farmers are not keen on seeing their herds deal
| with competition or predation from the wild.
| PeterisP wrote:
| On the other hand, we have local biodiversity regulations
| which _require_ certain land to be grazed and /or cut (as
| for hay), since the 'meadow' biomes and the associated
| birds and insects have adapted to the many centuries of
| land being farmed and can't survive if the plains aren't
| grazed and are left to just grow.
| [deleted]
| randomdata wrote:
| _> Managed crop monoculture, which ~half of farmland is _
|
| That doesn't seem right. According to the FAO (United
| Nations), only 1.3 billion hectares of land are arable
| while nearly 5 billion hectares are used for agriculture.
| That's more like ~25%. And the latter figure only
| accounts for 38% of the world's land area, so the earlier
| half figure claim doesn't seem right either.
|
| I suppose if the margin of error on those approximations
| is exceptionally large...
| blakesley wrote:
| Err, what? You're not aware that we're destroying the planet?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
| colechristensen wrote:
| We don't eat land predators, generally, and most of the
| biomass lots happened much earlier with the spread of humans,
| i.e. 500 to 20,000 years ago.
|
| Most of the worlds land megafauna are gone because big slow
| things are really easy to kill for groups of primitive humans
| with pointy sticks.
| makerofspoons wrote:
| Yes, unfortunately: More than 75 percent decline over 27
| years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas: http
| s://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
|
| 48% of bird species in decline:
| https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2022/05/global-bird-
| populat...
|
| among other examples. In 2018 it was estimated by the WWF
| that 60% of the animal population was lost between 1970 and
| 2014: https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-
| report-2018
| [deleted]
| jmole wrote:
| There is an unsourced, potentially dubious fact on wikipedia that
| I ran across the other day: "Whitefish live on or near the
| seafloor, and can be contrasted with the oily or pelagic fish
| which live away from the seafloor.[citation needed][dubious -
| discuss]" [0]
|
| I never really thought much about the difference between pelagic
| and benthic/benthopelagic fish before, but it seems like the
| lifecycle of bottom-feeding fish tends to be much longer than
| that of their more active pelagic cousins, which has a direct
| impact on the quality and texture of their flesh.
|
| 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitefish_(fisheries_term)
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I never noticed such a correlation before, but catfish, salmon,
| tuna, herring, halibut and flounder all seem to conform.
| tpmx wrote:
| I'll just note: Having previously participated in threads about
| "the environment" here: The punishment is generally immediate and
| insanely fierce if you stray out of _their_ Overton window on any
| such topic. Be aware.
| yarg wrote:
| Generally not if you have a justification for whatever you're
| arguing.
| [deleted]
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I wanted to emphasize that the final part of the article links to
| Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch, which is a great way to
| identify which fish are coming from a sustainable fishery, and
| are okay to eat: https://www.seafoodwatch.org/
| jrootabega wrote:
| Anyone know any similar resources for selecting sources based
| on humane fish slaughter methods? I understand the method of
| catching them is important, but I am looking out for ways to
| avoid suffocation/freezing death.
| boston_clone wrote:
| humane slaughter is an oxymoron that attempts to insulate us
| from the weight that comes with taking a life.
|
| some methods are better than others (i.e., minimize
| suffering), but no slaughter is humane.
| wizofaus wrote:
| If it's to put an animal out of misery when there's no way
| of treating an injury or illness surely it qualifies. But I
| agree the word "humane" gets somewhat abused when applied
| to situations where animals are more useful to us dead than
| alive. I don't mind "cruelty free", and that really should
| be a minimal criteria for how we treat other species.
| boston_clone wrote:
| I should have added a qualifier for humane slaughter in
| regards to meat processing.
|
| Yes, there are times when euthanasia may be appropriate -
| but it's tough still to mete out the morality when no
| intent or consent is communicated, no?
|
| Most "cruelty free" labeling is also farcical,
| unfortunately. The amount of suffering involved with
| animal agriculture is repulsively shocking when fully
| grasped, and difficult to unsee unless willful ignorance
| takes the proverbial wheel.
| tablarasa wrote:
| Perhaps that is true if you solely interact with food after
| it is dead and processed. Many people live much closer to
| their food production. I don't view the phrase "humane
| slaughter" as an attempt to insulate "us"; I think it is an
| acknowledgement by practitioners that they are mindful of
| what they are doing and to whom. It is also a direct
| reference to applicable laws where that term is codified.
|
| Some people view killing animals for food as entirely
| humane, which is to say some combination of natural and
| ethical. You may not view any kind of animal slaughter as
| humane, but if pressed could you describe how humane your
| soy, wheat, etc. production is?
| boston_clone wrote:
| What is humane about raising an animal in captivity and
| killing it for unnecessary consumption after only a few
| years or months of life?
|
| Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little
| more kind.
| tablarasa wrote:
| Huh, I had considered consumption to be necessary for my
| own persistence.
|
| Most increase in land-based agricultural productivity in
| this day and age comes from intensification on existing
| land or removal of forested habitats. Those come at a
| huge cost to biodiversity and ecosystem services. They
| also have social costs to other humans.
|
| > "Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little
| more kind." I don't think this snarkiness is very
| productive, but I'm super used to hearing this sentiment;
| often the people who express this type of idea have
| really good intentions that I am totally aligned with,
| but they also fall into logical fallacies usually due to
| missing information around ecology, agriculture, and food
| systems. It makes perfect sense if you take a very narrow
| view of how food is produced and what alternatives there
| are for land and water use: just eat a bean because it
| doesn't scream! Totally. But growing that bean comes at a
| cost and ignoring that because you read Sinclair or can
| afford to shop for high-end foods isn't helpful. I think
| it is a fantasy to suggest that the problems will be
| solved if peoples and cultures around the world just
| subscribe to my view of what is ethical or desirable.
|
| Any fish would prefer you eat a bean. But the animals and
| plants that would use the land on which its grown would
| prefer you eat a fish. Those of us working to build
| sustainable food systems that minimize the overall impact
| on natural systems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services
| will fail if we take such a simplistic and naive view of
| the tradeoffs.
| boston_clone wrote:
| Interestingly, I too encounter similar arguments. But it
| is worth it to go beyond surface-level, especially with
| complex topics.
|
| I described it as unnecessary, because eating animals is
| simply not necessary to sustain a long, healthy life.
| Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/
|
| The vast majority (>75%) of soybeans grown are simply to
| feed cattle. The majority of rainforests being cleared in
| Brazil are for cattle. Animal agriculture is the leading
| contributor for GHG and anthropogenic climate change.
| Plenty of data breakdowns can be found here:
| https://ourworldindata.org/land-use , but this shouldn't
| be news to you.
|
| Snarkiness is hard to avoid when you're legitimately
| attempting to compare the humanity of an industry
| responsible for killing 100 billion animals _each year_
| versus growing and eating plants; it 's like comparing
| Hitler to a person who kills a housefly.
|
| You wanna minimize your impact to natural systems and
| biodiversity? Stop eating animals. Peter Singer is a
| great place to approach the issue from a modern, truly
| ethical lens.
|
| Hopefully we both can rid ourselves of simplistic and
| naive views, but for now, discussions about how we should
| best function in this universe ought to be had.
| tablarasa wrote:
| Yeah sorry I tried to anticipate and cover this response
| briefly by pointing out that the population of the world
| simply is not going to stop eating animal protein because
| you told them you find it unethical. Their beliefs are
| not morally dissonant because they do not share your view
| that killing a sentient being for food is wrong. This
| thread is about fisheries and my argument is in support
| of using both wild and farmed fish as a much better
| alternative for protein production than land-based
| agriculture, whether that be in support of livestock or
| soy milk. Your response is "everyone should eat plants
| exclusively because that works for me with minimal
| negative unintended consequences."
|
| I also tried to point out the inherit issue with the
| comparison of "killing 100 billion animals each year"
| with "growing and eating plants" as though the latter
| avoids all 100 billion animal deaths. It doesn't. It
| might move those deaths to other species that you care
| less about or to a different time or make them lives that
| never existed rather than lives taken, but it still comes
| at a cost. So your premise is just incomplete and focuses
| entirely on the issue that seems to be most important to
| you personally.
|
| If "you" want to minimize your impact, stop eating
| animals is an argument that only works for a subset of
| the human population and is only an accessible solution
| to a fraction of that. Putting aside the gross
| ethnocenctricity, it simply is not going to work as a
| solution. The converse is that "some land is not suitable
| for crop agriculture but is usable for grazing" and I
| also routinely see that argument abused even though it is
| true. Some livestock are raised totally sustainably and
| even provide ecosystem services (trampling is good for
| some systems and cattle do it in lieu of the native
| grazers that are now gone). But that doesn't mean that
| all cattle can be raised at no cost. You're making that
| argument, just about row crops, I guess.
|
| FWIW, soy production in Brazil in the service of foreign
| markets is... not very sustainable even if it's not for
| feed [1].
|
| I remember when I was younger and I was like, "I survive
| fine on <2 gallons of fresh water a day... how can there
| possibly be a water supply issue anywhere?" Or, more
| generally, "I can modify my behavior with few personal
| consequences to fit into a sustainable model." So that is
| great. Do it. But I would argue you are avoiding
| grappling with the full impacts of your own choices and,
| even if they'd be better alternatives anyway, you're
| failing to recognize that your choices are not available
| to everyone.
|
| [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98256-6
| mhb wrote:
| If the animal had a happy few years or months of life do
| you consider that a net increase in happiness even if the
| animal is killed?
| boston_clone wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean by "net increase in
| happiness". Like, if the universe was a big bank of
| emotions from which we all made withdrawals and deposits?
| That's a weird premise to accept.
|
| In any case, the act of killing a sentient being is
| wrong. We've got that more or less universally codified
| for other humans (and most pets); seems we may just need
| a few more uncomfortable ethical discussions before we
| reach consistency.
| wil421 wrote:
| Go out and fish it's one of my favorite hobbies, kayak
| fishing specifically. I prefer to eat saltwater fish except
| trout. Both my wife and my families have beach places but I'm
| still limited to 6 or so trips a year.
|
| It's hard to tell but you could research the types of fish
| plus the methods it's caught. Lots of fish need to be bled
| out so they are incapacitated before bleeding. You can kill a
| fish instantly by a brain spike (ikejime) or bash to the head
| with a blunt object. As you said some fish are just thrown on
| ice but it can depend on the species. Even worse, methods are
| going to vary wildly from fishermen to fishermen and region
| to region. Wild caught is probably better than farm raised
| death wise.
| jrootabega wrote:
| Maybe some day. I'm thinking more of the person who wants
| to keep canned tuna on hand for easy animal protein.
|
| I also agree that our perception of farm conditions for
| fish is probably not as accurate as for other animals.
| tablarasa wrote:
| "Wild caught is probably better than farm raised death
| wise."
|
| I would be curious to hear your reasoning or evidence for
| this. From what I know, the ability to control conditions
| and processes is much easier in the farm context.
| wil421 wrote:
| Have you seen the inside of a chicken factory? I'd
| imagine it's a similar operation for salmon or tilapia
| farming.
|
| Here's a link.[1] I'd rather have a person doing the
| work.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/FFYti5PHxE8
| tablarasa wrote:
| Interesting video, but it doesn't show slaughter at all,
| just impressive machinery for quickly processing massive
| amounts of fish.
|
| I disagree that having a person rather than a machine
| process food products is related to the ethics of animal
| consumption, but I tend to think about this stuff in
| terms of how do you continue to feed 9B people, around 3B
| of whom rely on seafood for their primary protein source.
| I consider it a great privilege to buy bespoke premium
| products that cater to my perceptions of the world, but
| it doesn't really solve the problems around mass
| producing enough healthy food to sustainably feed the
| world population. Having a human handle all of those dead
| fish and turn them into marketable products would drive
| their price up so much that it would push people to
| protein sources that are much more carbon-, water-, and
| nutrient-intensive. Making the processing humane is super
| important, but it needs to be rational and efficient.
| tablarasa wrote:
| I'm not sure if there is a well-trusted authority on this
| akin to MBA but it is certainly a leading issue in the
| seafood industry. More governments are codifying an
| acknowledgement of animal sentience in various ways [1] and
| there is a lot of active research into the various slaughter
| methods used for ethical and quality reasons [2]. You can
| find a lot of research into existing and novel methods for
| "stunning" fish (i.e., rendering them unconscious to then
| slaughter), even the use of things like EEG to measure brain
| activity of animals [3]. This is not my area of expertise,
| but I think that the overall conclusion is that we could be
| doing a much better job of minimizing the suffering of
| animals in farmed and wild fisheries. The good news is that
| people are realizing that and working on correcting it.
|
| [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/08/farmed-
| fish-fe...
|
| [2]: https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/fish-producers-
| benefi...
|
| [3]:
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/are.14857
| jrootabega wrote:
| Thanks. I had done some reading on things like electro-
| stunning, and it seems like we're still in the awkward
| stage where it's generally recognized as better by all the
| major players, but there's still no reliable way to
| identify it when you're shopping. I'll ask the next time I
| go to the hippie grocery store, too.
| tablarasa wrote:
| Slowly but surely we are seeing good traceability in
| seafood. It's hard though, so it's taking a while.
| Checkout https://legitfish.com/
| parker_mountain wrote:
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I eat dumb people, myself.
|
| Seriously though, I think it's folly to evaluate something's
| value based on its intelligence. I think ethical judgements
| about what to eat should be based on its subjective experience,
| with a goal of harm reduction and minimization of suffering. Of
| course, the only way to cause no harm by eating is to be dead,
| so it will never be perfect.
| clumsysmurf wrote:
| > Fish are dumb as hell
|
| You can train a goldfish with a clicker, they are not so dumb
|
| https://www.clickertraining.com/node/30
| peteradio wrote:
| If I could train you with a clicker, I'd think you were
| pretty dumb.
| boston_clone wrote:
| How about a bell, Pavlov?
| edm0nd wrote:
| >I have an amount of respect for hunters, especially those that
| choose to hunt and eat invasive species or over populated
| species. I'm not super thrilled about the idea of killing an
| intelligent being, but I don't think our societal framework for
| understanding animal intelligence has caught up to reality. I
| actually suspect that, as a species, we'll get to sidestep and
| approach this issue from an easier perspective due to lab grown
| meat.
|
| In the US, hunters also contribute hundreds of millions of
| dollars annually that is put towards the conversation and
| preservation of wildlife and their habitats. Thanks to the
| Pittman-Robertson Act which is a 11% tax on all firearms, ammo,
| and archery equipment sold in the US.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Fede...
| gs17 wrote:
| > Fish are dumb as hell, and I have no problem eating them.
|
| Having pet fish as a kid, seeing them form bonds with each
| other and then get distressed when their "friend" died (I swear
| we had a loach get depressed, their behavior dramatically
| changed after, and even a "replacement" for the lost fish
| didn't help) is what made me drop the pesco part of my
| pescovegetarianism.
| racl101 wrote:
| Boy, what a captivating title. lol
| PostOnce wrote:
| Orange Roughy used to be called Slimehead.
|
| Snapper is great tasting and sustainable, slimehead is neither
| and fishing for it ruins the sea floor.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| Of course overfishing is bad but that doesn't mean we should stop
| eating fish altogether.
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| We should stop eating fish that has collapsed populations. We
| should have more marine reserves and marine biology research
| and continue to scale up fish farming. However, overfishing
| will continue more or less unabated unless it's handled at an
| international level, which for geopolitical reasons doesn't
| seem to be happening. Once fish populations recover we should
| allow limited fishing, but I think many fish populations are
| basically doomed at this point or irretrievably genetically
| altered.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Smaller fish like herring seem better. They accumulate less
| heavy metals, and I think their natural populations are
| healthier than the big fish.
| [deleted]
| Lio wrote:
| So are you suggesting we keep eating them until they go
| extinct?
|
| That seems short sighted to say the least.
| sokoloff wrote:
| How could you read that as their most-likely (not even most-
| charitable) intended meaning when they start with "Of course
| overfishing is bad"? Surely, fishing to the point of
| extinction would be an example of over-fishing, right?
| parker_mountain wrote:
| I find this to be a false dichotomy of a statement: "either we
| eat fish or we don't". Unfortunately, supply and demand are
| clashing here - overfishing is a real and tangible problem!
|
| The most likely path forward, and third option, is farmed fish
| and other seafood. One such company making excellent in-roads
| is TransparentSea, a pretty cool shrimp farming operation.
|
| Too bad I think shrimp are disgusting, lol. Farmed tilapia it
| is for me!
| throw827474737 wrote:
| Because there is stuff in them we cannot replace, or why is
| that?
| aix1 wrote:
| Another example is the geoduck (pronounced /'gu:i,d^k/). Geoducks
| typically live to ~140 years and are considered a delicacy in
| certain parts of the world.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoduck
|
| https://www.eater.com/2016/7/17/11691958/what-is-geoduck
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/geoducks-happy...
| koolba wrote:
| That is hands down the coolest thing I've seen today.
| mhb wrote:
| How is it pronounced, you might ask: "gooey-duck";
| /'gu:i,d^k/
| heavyset_go wrote:
| GUI duck, if you will.
| perihelions wrote:
| That #Etymology subsection reaffirms my faith in the human
| species. Across centuries and oceans, we're really all so
| similar.
| themanmaran wrote:
| verst wrote:
| If you live in Seattle and order omakase at a Sushi restaurant
| geoduck is virtually unavoidable.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| wow, had no idea. I've only ever (barely) caught (dug?) one on
| the shore of Hood Canal as the tide was coming in and my arm
| was up to my shoulder in mud. Caught seems appropriate as they
| do dig down pretty quickly to escape once you grab the neck. It
| was a long time ago now (early 80s) but it seemed like it took
| a good 30 to 45 minutes to actually get it - and towards the
| end the tide was coming in pretty quickly. It required a lot of
| persistence.
| tablarasa wrote:
| There are a lot of issues around ocean conservation worth caring
| about, studying, and accepting a cost to solve. However, it is
| worth pointing out that fisheries management works well and has
| been working where it is deployed to the extent that many many
| populations that were overfished and in serious trouble as
| recently as the 1990s are now healthy and can be ethically
| fished. Many issues around overfishing wild populations are
| occurring in regions of the world where fisheries management is
| difficult or impossible due to a combination of logistical
| (they're fishing in the middle of the ocean, not returning to
| shore for many months at a time) to political (they're from a
| country with a government that cannot or will not intervene in
| fishing practices) to technical (we need data on extraction and
| population dynamics to be able to manage fish populations)
| reasons.[1]
|
| I take serious issue with the idea that the ethics of eating
| animals is related to how similar they are to humans ("it's ok to
| kill them for food because I perceive them to have low
| intelligence"), but I don't really think it is worth arguing
| over. Sustainable harvest is much more important than your
| personal feelings around the ethics of individual animal or plant
| extraction. If you kill one less wild fish, what will you eat
| instead and what are the impacts of that?
|
| Eating things that are very old is not unethical persay, IMO,
| except to the extent that with fish populations older animals
| contribute disproportionately to reproduction (a 2x bigger fish
| produces >2x more eggs; I find it hard to convince people that
| the logical conclusion is that it is more ethical to take younger
| animals). It just comes down to whether they're being taken at a
| rate that is sustainable or not. I used to do rockfish research
| in California and individuals of species that are routinely taken
| as commercial and sport fish are well over 50 yrs old (China
| rockfish, vermillion rockfish, yellow-eye rockifsh)[2]; most
| consumers who have fish and chips or a "cod" sandwich or whatever
| in California are eating one of these species, but at the point
| of sale you can almost never find out which species. Is that an
| issue? I think so because I believe traceability is a key
| component of a good, modern, sustainable food system that I'd
| like to see. But it isn't a problem necessarily if whatever
| species it is was caught within the confines of a well managed
| fishery.
|
| I've had many dinner parties with too many academic ecologists (I
| am/was one of them) and I get that they can be depressing because
| many are so focused on things going poorly. I think it is worth
| being reminded that when we take cooperative approaches grounded
| in decent science, we can all win, Earth first and foremost.
|
| [1] One example paper:
| https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909726116 [2]
| https://www.bookdepository.com/Rockfishes-Northeast-Pacific-... I
| don't have a copy of this book or institutional access any more,
| but this is the one place I have ever seen a whole bunch of age-
| growth curves of Sebastes printed in a single location; it is a
| great reference if you are curious about these species or about
| these issues in the context of California ecosystems.
| aaron695 wrote:
| [deleted]
| docdeek wrote:
| Fascinating. I don't think I had ever stopped to think about the
| age of the fish on my plate when it was caught. Thank you for
| sharing.
| ISL wrote:
| Rockfish are among the least-expensive fish at our local market.
| I stopped buying them when I learned that there was a very good
| chance that they were older (1-200 years) than I am. Eating my
| elders simply seems like an incorrect thing to do.
|
| https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/rockfish-gettin....
| thehappypm wrote:
| Sounds like you should just go vegetarian
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-11 23:02 UTC)