Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

hakaimagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 179 posts

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#61

Post by _ea1k »

lostlogin wrote: post #53
xyzzyz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also depends on what you count as carbon dioxide production. For example, cattle produce methane through gut fermentation, which is a strong greenhouse gas. However, it contributes to warming only to the extent the cattle stocks are growing. If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time, than the methane produced by them does not contribute to new warming, as it forms closed cycle: methane decomposes to C…

Can’t you apply this logic to other things too though? We have two ICE cars for the household, and as long as that remains stable the CO2 produced will be used by the plants in our garden.

I think that would only be the case if the plants in your garden eventually turn into biofuel.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#62

Post by cheese_goddess »

oblio wrote: post #56
cheese_goddess wrote: post #51

> In 1953, 13 companies produced 3.4 million kilograms of fish sticks. A year later, four million kilograms were produced by another 55 companies. This surge in popularity was partly due to a marketing push that stressed the convenience of the new food: “no bones, no waste, no smell, no fuss,” as one Birds Eye advertisement proclaimed. A dirty lie, at least when it comes to "no waste", when you consider that the skin…

Well, the upside is that if some time before we make cold fusion a reality we are able to make safe, nutritious and cheap artificial meat & co., at least it's going to be more easily accepted by folks that won't expect to also see the other body parts.

It might, but only because those people are used to eating food made in factories. But making food in factories at ridiculous scales is what causes the excesses of consumption and waste observed in the Western world, in the first place. Vat grown meat is more of the same and I fail to see how it solves anythig, rather than making people dependent even more on the food industry, the same food industry that wants to sell them fish sticks, hot dogs and burgers.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#63

Post by cheese_goddess »

hoopleheaded wrote: post #60
cheese_goddess wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, someone else will do the dirty job for "you". Food waste as a service.

If those bits were removed in homes they are almost always going to be wasted without municipal composting, and even that is still wasteful. If they are removed at scale (no pun intended) there is a much higher likelihood that they will be used as a byproduct in pet food or fertilizer or something.

I'm talking about the skins, heads and tails of fish that have no business being removed because they're edible and nutritious. I think you 're talking about the guts, that are almost always thrown out anyway.

Food waste starts with cultural norms that make some foods taboo, essentially. Like for example "offal" as the perfectly edible entrails of ruminants are derogatorily known.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#64

Post by klipt »

lostlogin wrote: post #53
xyzzyz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also depends on what you count as carbon dioxide production. For example, cattle produce methane through gut fermentation, which is a strong greenhouse gas. However, it contributes to warming only to the extent the cattle stocks are growing. If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time, than the methane produced by them does not contribute to new warming, as it forms closed cycle: methane decomposes to C…

Can’t you apply this logic to other things too though? We have two ICE cars for the household, and as long as that remains stable the CO2 produced will be used by the plants in our garden.

No, because cows run on biofuel that is recently captured carbon, while your car is burning fossil fuel that is long ago captured carbon. Your houseplants aren't recapturing anywhere near that much.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#65

Post by shkkmo »

stouset wrote: post #28
tashoecraft wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Seaspiracy is to be believed, there's no such this as sustainable fishing at scale. In order to catch this much fish, you're going to kill tons of other animals, discard tons of nets and other fishing equipment, saying it's "sustainable" is probably a lie in most every sense.

The uncomfortable reality is that there is almost no “sustainable” anything at our current population scale. Certainly not at anything approximating a typical Western lifestyle.

I think this is a cop out that needlessly encourages people to not try to find sustainable solutions.

Yes, the road to sustainability is hard and long, but a path does exist that achieves sustainability without population reduction. Discouraging people from seeking that path does nobody any good.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#66

Post by kadoban »

lostlogin wrote: post #53
xyzzyz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also depends on what you count as carbon dioxide production. For example, cattle produce methane through gut fermentation, which is a strong greenhouse gas. However, it contributes to warming only to the extent the cattle stocks are growing. If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time, than the methane produced by them does not contribute to new warming, as it forms closed cycle: methane decomposes to C…

Can’t you apply this logic to other things too though? We have two ICE cars for the household, and as long as that remains stable the CO2 produced will be used by the plants in our garden.

No, because almost all of the CO2 that comes out of your tailpipe used to be buried underground in stable forms. The plants in your garden both won't absorb enough, and even if it did it would never end up in any long-term storage separate from the atmosphere.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#68

Post by cheese_goddess »

narag wrote: post #58
cheese_goddess wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, someone else will do the dirty job for "you". Food waste as a service.

In 1953 I seriously doubt there was so much concern about it, much less in an advertisment directed to consumers.

Note the oxymoron in that advert: "Fresh Frozen!".

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#69

Post by an_opabinia »

stouset wrote: post #28
tashoecraft wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Seaspiracy is to be believed, there's no such this as sustainable fishing at scale. In order to catch this much fish, you're going to kill tons of other animals, discard tons of nets and other fishing equipment, saying it's "sustainable" is probably a lie in most every sense.

The uncomfortable reality is that there is almost no “sustainable” anything at our current population scale. Certainly not at anything approximating a typical Western lifestyle.

I don't know. If you removed all the worst parts of the supply chain of a cell phone - the slave labor, the conflict minerals - it would cost like what, four times more? Boohoo. But nearly everything else about it, like the IAP sold on it, or the music you listen to or the books you read, is already essentially sustainable. And people spend literally hours on their phone, globally, consuming and spending in totally sustainable entertainment, and not just in the West.

For the consumer, sustainability in the West really is about food, and specifically, it really is about meat. There's no amount of equivocation that will change that. And affecting it - by simply not buying meat - really is as easy and as effective as it appears.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#70

Post by himinlomax »

lostlogin wrote: post #53
xyzzyz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also depends on what you count as carbon dioxide production. For example, cattle produce methane through gut fermentation, which is a strong greenhouse gas. However, it contributes to warming only to the extent the cattle stocks are growing. If cattle numbers are stable for some amount of time, than the methane produced by them does not contribute to new warming, as it forms closed cycle: methane decomposes to C…

Can’t you apply this logic to other things too though? We have two ICE cars for the household, and as long as that remains stable the CO2 produced will be used by the plants in our garden.

The CO₂ produced by cars is proportional to their use. You could have 100 cars sitting in your massive garage and they wouldn't emit CO₂ beyond what was used for their manufacturing.
Post reply on HN