201–210 of 425 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that people en masse don’t actually care all that much about the cruelty of killing animals so long as it’s not reasonably torturous. The future, however dystopian you may see it, is sustainably growing the animals we want to eat for slaughter.
The concept of "reasonably torturous" is pretty wild.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fisherman who practices sustainable fishing and abides by the regulations in place, and has witnessed the rebound of several species I target, I call bullshit.
If the regulations lead to a complete disappearance of the fishery then they are definitionally unsustainable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that people en masse don’t actually care all that much about the cruelty of killing animals so long as it’s not reasonably torturous. The future, however dystopian you may see it, is sustainably growing the animals we want to eat for slaughter.
Which will likely involve not raising animals for slaughter at all, but rather things like Impossible/Beyond meats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which will likely involve not raising animals for slaughter at all, but rather things like Impossible/Beyond meats.
These have flopped. Most people who like meat want real meat. Most people who don't like meat don't want fake meat. The remainder is the market for fake meats, and it has proven small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept of "reasonably torturous" is pretty wild.
Agreed, if you have to include the word torture in the descriptor of food production than there’s already an ethical problem to solve.
How would that philosophical thinking apply to other apex predators, such as spiders who poison and wrap their prey while they hopeless wriggle to death for minutes or snakes who suffocate their prey to death sometimes breaking major bones, or a cat killing a rodent for fun? Do we have a responsibility to intervene against other torturous predators, why or why not?
I am curious about your philosophical reasoning on the topic, I am not asking rhetorically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many ways to solve the specific problem of overfishing, mostly to set aside zones where fishing is not allowed so the population can recover. This is at the level of government and states, having little to do with anything within my power.
Changing the industry overnight isn't in any one person's power any more than electing the next president, but the sum of our collective votes does decide the victor. Large scale boycotts of the industry will drop demand, and so production, and finally the impact on the fisheries. You can already see this at work with the decline of the milk industry in the US as consumers have lowered their consumption by about 49%…
Changing the industry is not in one person's power, but it is a small number of people (owners of the several large producers and the regulatory guys) who do change it; this (overnight) cancelling of the season is a counterexample to your point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept of "reasonably torturous" is pretty wild.
I mean... compared to other animals, of which some don't even kill you, before they start eating you... we're still better than a lot of "nature".
Does this justify us enslaving people and torturing them (debatedly) less in a factory farm and slaughtering them at a young age?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In previous collapses such organizations sounded the alarm well before. Something else is happening.
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2021/10/09/alaska-snow-crab-... The alarm has been sounding for at least a season, maybe even more.
How feasible is it to grow crabs in captivity? We need to start farming food, no way natural ecosystems can support themselves _and_ humans at current levels.
If someone can figure out how to keep crabs in large pens without them eating each other, they will make a lot of money. I’m not sure if that’s possible with selective breeding. Maybe we need to wait until crab legs can be “printed” or grown in a lab