41–50 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worry that once that time arrives the government will force us to consume it by severely taxing actual meat.
If your government has the power to force what the majority doesn't want then your countries' democratic institutions must be very broken. In a healthy democracy, government's enforcement is mostly a force for good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't they? They're not irrational. I understand their desire to keep their newly achieved standards of living and I imagine they don't want to be dependent on foreign seas, especially as these situations can cause conflicts. They also have a pretty big EEZ, about 1 million sqkm. Seems more than enough to have some huge fish farms.
They're not irrational. They're quite rational. They'll go for whatever is cheapest. For a long, long time, commercial fishing as they currently do it will be the cheapest way to do it. It's darn difficult to beat the cost-effectiveness of just harvesting the grown fish without any further involvement in the process. Especially given the labor conditions [1] exploited by these sorts of operations, there's no way that…
See, here is where I argue that's not the case. Commercial fishing has increased incredibly in the past 20 years or so. We don't have a "long, long time", unlike for oil, because we can't find new fish "reserves". We pretty much know where all the existing fish we'd like/want to eat is. I'd be surprised if fishing goes up at the current rate and we have fish to eat for more than 20 years, unless we switch to the sane thing: large scale, regulated and sustainable fish farming.
Now we're basically a few years before the Fishing "Dust Bowl".
Or, alternatively, we figuratively "boil the oceans" and persuade everyone who currently eats fish to not eat fish. I wish people trying this alternate approach good luck! :-)
Don't forget behind China, you got India, SEA, the rest of Africa which will experience a population boom this century. How we going to feed all these people when their living standards go up? We need to get to mars fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Global pandemics are not direct negative impacts? We have several documented(h1n1 etc) significant loss of life events due to animal agriculture. No more silent downvoting. People are dying and will continue to die as these continue to happen until grown adults get some self discipline and stop eating meat.
I think the parent's point is well proven your exact example. There is a significant portion of the globe who think the pandemic isn't real or was caused by humans.
Don't forget behind China, you got India, SEA, the rest of Africa which will experience a population boom this century. How we going to feed all these people when their living standards go up? We need to get to mars fast.
We badly need some sort of industrial fish farming at a large scale. Oceanic fishing at this point is basically like hunting gathering at an industrial scale: we just catch whatever we can and who cares if it grows back, not our problem, "nature" will take care of it. The same way we seed, till, etc., we should be doing the same thing with oceans and "hunting" aka fishing should only be allowed as a hobby. In a somew…
What we need is to stop consuming animals and animal products, or we’ll keep having economy destroying pandemics. Not to mention the obvious problem that farming is horrendous for the animals. Animals aren’t some inanimate object.
Eating other animals is what got us here. Until we can print actual, chemically identical meat on a conveyor belt, our reliance on animals will continue.
Don't forget behind China, you got India, SEA, the rest of Africa which will experience a population boom this century. How we going to feed all these people when their living standards go up? We need to get to mars fast.
How is making Mars inhabitable easier than fixing the problems here on Earth?