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

71–80 of 179 posts

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#71

Post by k__ »

shkkmo wrote: post #65
stouset wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or it's simply eco-facism.

I think, we should move to sustainable solutions, but I don't believe in over population

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#72

Post by cheese_goddess »

an_opabinia wrote: post #69
stouset wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Maybe if you only ever bought a single phone and never discarded it, creating more e-waste that would not have a big impact on the environment. But if everyone buys one or two new phones a year then you have a mountain of waste. Of course you don't see it because it's a mountain that forms in some far away land where people are so poor they have to scavenge in the detritus of your electronics and can't afford to eat any meat anyway.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#73

Post by realct »

capableweb wrote: post #44
tsatx wrote: post #33

How the sausage is made: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/47/5b/d9/21b5da4... Bon appetit!

I'm unsure of why you shared this? Normal people are unlikely to have a plate freezer at home, which this seems to require in order to make these at home. And I'm not sure how many people keep minced fish meat around at home anyways.

To explain that fish sticks are made from ground fish which is beaten into filet shape again?

Which seems to elude many posters in this submission.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#74

Post by cheese_goddess »

shkkmo wrote: post #57
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.

I think that there is some confusion as to what you are trying to say. 1) There is no way to catch the amount of fish we catch in a sustainable manner. (No sustainability at our current scale.) 2) There is no way to catch any amount of fish sustainably. (No sustainability at any scale.) I think people are intrepreting you as saying #2 when you are really saying #1. The answer would appear to be that if that we need t…

As far as I understand it, Seaspiracy claims that 2) is the case and we should all stop eating fish entirely.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#75

Post by Nullabillity »

drewzero1 wrote: post #19
nostromo wrote: post #6

> Each kilogram of fish sticks produces about 1.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide, which “rivals the climate impact of tofu,” she says. Beef, by comparison, produces over 100 times that amount of carbon dioxide per kilogram. That's fascinating. I wish they'd explain why.

I've mostly seen statistics about water usage for dairy milk production, but it takes a lot of water and food to raise a cow to maturity. Fish (if harvested sustainably) care for themselves until caught, so it makes some sense to me that planting, growing, harvesting, and processing soybeans into tofu would have similar impact to fleets of ships traveling the ocean catching fish. A few years ago I read and enjoyed th…

But presumably the fish still does need to eat, which you'd need to keep in mind for the calculation?

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#76

Post by germinalphrase »

runawaybottle wrote: post #14

There’s a class of adult baby food that fish sticks fall under. It’s food that’s conceptually shaped for kids but adults have no problem eating this stuff with a straight face. Wendy’s nuggets look like chicken feet. I think as we figure out how to make protein alternatives that taste like meat, we’ll see a small rise in adult baby food, things shaped like a slim jim, etc. Then we can finally fulfill our prophecy of…

What is a “child’s winter jacket”? Is this some kind of meme thing I’m not aware of…?

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#77

Post by idiotsecant »

GavinMcG wrote: post #20
runawaybottle wrote: post #14

There’s a class of adult baby food that fish sticks fall under. It’s food that’s conceptually shaped for kids but adults have no problem eating this stuff with a straight face. Wendy’s nuggets look like chicken feet. I think as we figure out how to make protein alternatives that taste like meat, we’ll see a small rise in adult baby food, things shaped like a slim jim, etc. Then we can finally fulfill our prophecy of…

Why on earth should adults care what shape their food is? The childish thing is judging adults by completely substanceless distinctions like this.

Asking why this should be the case is not particularly useful. The fact is that it is true. If you offer an average adult cereal in the shape of little ronald mcdonald faces vs. generic flakes even with identical nutritional content they will, on average, select the more 'adult appropriate' option. Marketing is a thing for a reason.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#78

Post by cheese_goddess »

nostromo wrote: post #35
diggan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The collective memory there was that Japan was condemned as fish abuser I don't know about the over-fishing, but I do remember reading a lot about whaling in Japan and some incidents about fishermen hunting whales in sanctuaries. Guess that could also be folded into "condemned as fish abuser".

I think The Cove ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cove_(film) ) had a lot to do with raising (negative) awareness of dolphin fishing in Japan.

Also see: epicanthic folds.

You've heard of the killing of dolphins by Japanese fishermen, but not of the similar practice of killing of pilot whales in the Faroe islands where people are distinctly not of Asian descent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#79

Post by at_a_remove »

shkkmo wrote: post #65
stouset wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does that path exist? I am not entirely convinced that you can have our current population living with our current standards -- especially if the standards spread from say that USA to the poorest nations, sustainably.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#80

Post by shkkmo »

k__ wrote: post #71
shkkmo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or it's simply eco-facism. I think, we should move to sustainable solutions, but I don't believe in over population

What do you mean by "I don't believe in overpopulation?"

Overpopulation is definitely a real thing in ecological systems, so I assume you mean either:

1) We are not currently in an overpopulated state.

2) We are extremely unlikely to reach an overpopulated state in the nearish future.

One important thing to note is that overpopulation is not a fixed threshold, but one that is dependant on a number of ecological, environmental and technological factors that makes it extremely hard to completely accept 2).

Post reply on HN