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

81–90 of 179 posts

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#81

Post by sampo »

xyzzyz wrote: post #39
sampo wrote: post #21

> 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. These estimates vary a lot from one source to another, but even then 130 kgCO2/kg is an unusually high estimate for beef. Common range, I think, is from 20 to 60. For example this estimate is 26 [1]…

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…

There's been some debate on the ways to account short-lived greenhouse gases vs. CO2:

https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-Climate-Pol...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2998

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#82

Post by yissp »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #72
an_opabinia wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think a big part of this is the lack of repairability and long-term software support, though. There's no good reason we need to be replacing our phones (and a lot of other electronics) as often as most of us currently do.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#83

Post by triceratops »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #72
an_opabinia wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But if phones cost 4x what they do now, as GP suggests, people would replace their phone far less frequently.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#84

Post by shkkmo »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #74
shkkmo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think Seaspiracies argument is that current "sustainable fishing" efforts are not actually sustainable and are designed to appear to solve the problem while avoiding regulations that would actually enforce sustainable fishing (and hence massively disrupt the industry.)

If that is their argument, the push to stop eating fish would be justified only in the current environment where there is no ecologically sustainable source.

Maybe I being too generous, but "fishing can never be sustainable" appears to be blatantly false so I feel we have to look for the "strongest plausible interpretation".

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#85

Post by k__ »

shkkmo wrote: post #80
k__ wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, envi…

I mean, I believe in the concept, but I think humanity is far from reaching that state.

Which doesn't mean that I think we can't live above our means with the population we already have. I just think it's a question of optimizing production and not restricting population growth.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#86

Post by cm2012 »

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…

Industry factory farming is many horrible things but its not wasteful. They use every part of the animals to increase profit margins.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#87

Post by jdkenney »

mr_cyborg wrote: post #34
ryanianian wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fish fingers sounds funny to me as an American, but actually it's more consistent. Chicken fingers in the US are the same product but with chicken instead of fish.

As an aside, I grew up with “chicken fingers” everywhere, on restaurant menus, etc. but now I can’t think of the last time I didn’t see them called “chicken tenders” outside of one regional fast food chain where I am now. I live in a different region now so I wonder if that’s a regional thing or just an overall trend

I believe the chicken tender is a specific cut/part of the breast. I would guess it’s being used inaccurately for marketing/trendiness purposes, but originally it was probably not just a regional variation of “chicken finger”. See related: Chilean Sea Bass as a renaming of the less glamorous “toothfish”.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#88

Post by yissp »

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…

If people bought whole fish instead, do you think those parts wouldn't still go to waste? I guess you could use them for stock, but really, how many people would bother. If anything, I would guess food processing companies would have an easier time finding some use for them (like you said, as pet food or whatever).

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#89

Post by s0rce »

dweekly wrote: post #40

This made me curious about how it was that Clarence Birdseye came to discover the fast-freeze approach that preserves flavor. The answer is surprisingly straightforward - he was a fur trader in Labrador (northern Canada) and noticed when he pulled fish out they froze immediately and were still delicious months later. So if only you could make fish as cold as northern Canada, you could make frozen fish tasty! It was f…

I like that you can still buy Birdseye brand frozen foods in the Grocery store.
Post reply on HN