California cancels salmon fishing season • Hacker News Board

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#221

Post by amrocha » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 6:50 PM UTC

drewm1980 wrote: post #192

amrocha wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but it might get long. And again, I'm not looking for an adversarial discussion. 1. Animal Rights Animals don't have rights because rights are a human construct. Absent humans, animal rights don't make any sense. Animals can only have "rights" in their relationship to humans, and humans are the ones enforcing those "rights". Therefore I don't think animal rights as a term makes sense. To me, they're closer to soc…

> I know how fucked up industrial farming is. That doesn't mean eating animals is immoral. These two things are intrinsically tied in practice. The utopia where well cared for animals feed 8 billion people does not exist, and cannot exist without many more earths. Try going vegan for say... a year. Make it a fun game. You get to try out some new foods and restaurants! You can always start eating meat again if you dec…

They're not. There are ethical options for animal products. You draw the line at any consumption is unethical so you disagree, and that's ok, but you're not gonna convince me by saying it's unethical because I don't think it is.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#222

Post by amrocha » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

mellavora wrote: post #175

amrocha wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but it might get long. And again, I'm not looking for an adversarial discussion. 1. Animal Rights Animals don't have rights because rights are a human construct. Absent humans, animal rights don't make any sense. Animals can only have "rights" in their relationship to humans, and humans are the ones enforcing those "rights". Therefore I don't think animal rights as a term makes sense. To me, they're closer to soc…

> the cow has no concept of morality, only survival. Actually, many non-human animals have been shown to have strong view on fairness . If we assume evolution is mostly correct, then the assumption that "morality" only originated in humans is rather suspect; it should be a component of every social animal. Cows are herd animals. Thus very likely to have a sense of morality.

Fairness and morality aren't the same thing. Just because something is fair doesn't mean it's moral e.g.: splitting the baby in half, an eye for an eye, etc.

Morals are a specifically human societal feature.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#223

Post by myshpa » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 9:11 PM UTC

amrocha wrote: post #114

myshpa wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's ;) > No, animals do not have rights. What about pets? Let's talk about dairy industry ... why don't we switch to dog milk? Nothing wrong with dog's milk. Full of goodness, full of vitamins, full of marrowbone jelly. Lasts longer than any other milk, dog's milk. Why? No bugger'll drink it. Plus of course the advantage of dog's milk is that when it goes off, it tastes exactly the same as when it's fresh. > No, an…

Ok, but it might get long. And again, I'm not looking for an adversarial discussion. 1. Animal Rights Animals don't have rights because rights are a human construct. Absent humans, animal rights don't make any sense. Animals can only have "rights" in their relationship to humans, and humans are the ones enforcing those "rights". Therefore I don't think animal rights as a term makes sense. To me, they're closer to soc…

> A human being slaughtering a cow isn't judged to be immoral by the cow, because the cow has no concept of morality, only survival

> Therefore, the unprovoked killing of animals is not inherently immoral

So, killing a human newborn is not immoral because it cannot judge its killer?

> Killing an animal for food is acceptable to me, and to the vast majority of people, since it is something we are all subject to in nature. Having food preferences is also not immoral. Bears and other animals have food preferences. Therefore choosing to eat meat instead of something else is not immoral.

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/eating-meat-is-personal-ch...

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/animals-eat-animals

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/ancestors-ate-meat

I would also argue that food preferences / choices leading to the destruction of the environment / ecosystems are not moral.

> I know how fucked up industrial farming is. That doesn't mean eating animals is immoral

> I believe causing undue harm and cruelty are immoral. I don't want to contribute to a system that enables that cruelty.

But you contribute to it ... you vote with your money and purchase animal products. It's nothing else than your choice, it's not a necessity. A life of those animals is full of harm and cruelty. You've seen Dominion, you know.

> I think humans are more important than animals.

That thinking got us here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#224

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 9:12 PM UTC

myshpa wrote: post #191

WalterBright wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want less of something, tax it. Tax the caught fish.

> If you want less of something, tax it If you want less of something, don't subsidize it. > Tax the caught fish How would you tax the bycatch? How would you price the dead whales, dolphins and turtles? How would you price the sharks dying because the populations of fish are collapsing?

By taxing the caught fish.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#225

Post by myshpa » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 9:59 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #214

myshpa wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically anything which on the purchased packet says imported from an country that has rain forests should be avoided Animal farming in EU is reliant on Brazilian soy from Amazon. Nowhere on the packet you'll read this. But sure, blame avocado toasts, and ignore the fact that avocados grow on trees and as such are (may be) very sustainable. Just don't do the same stupid stuff as californians do with their almond m…

Cherry picking data and sources don't really convince anyone. What objective data can say is the averages from large industries. Those are useful, but also limited to those contexts. I think you also missed that I earlier said that small scale farming and hobbyists are not scalable. There is just not enough land to feed everyone using those farming techniques. A person raising a few chickens do not need to also have…

> Cherry picking data and sources don't really convince anyone

No data and no sources don't either.

> you also missed that I earlier said that small scale farming and hobbyists are not scalable

I may have, and I don't agree. Take those vast grazing areas and crop land for production of the animal feed and there would be plenty of land for both new forests and new small scale farms doing the farming the right way (fruits, vegetables, small fields with plenty of trees in between, ponds and a lot of biodiversity).

> Large scale factory farms

We don't really need those. We have them now, and it may look now like its the only thing that could support our civilization, but that's the big ag propaganda talking - there are many other systems of farming we could switch to.

It may look very different, but the effectivity may/would be many times higher than it's now - it would need new machinery and it's knowledge intensive, but it was proven it can be done (see syntropic agriculture, food forests, agroforestry, permaculture atc.).

Some changes are needed on political & economic level, but agriculture production is a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries, so there's that.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu...

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#226

Post by steponlego » Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 1:58 AM UTC

micromacrofoot wrote: post #91

everyone who is capable (there are a lot of us!) can we please just eat a little less of this stuff? I’m not asking for much, like a tiny tiny bit less, if you can. Just like one time consciously skip it and cackle “haha i’ll get you next time ocean” if it helps! this is not going well

I'm more concerned about your soybeans from Brazil eliminating the rain forests. No. Not until you cut back on your soybean and pea based plant based products, which are doing much more damage.

Sorry.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#227

Post by throwaway2037 » Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 2:04 AM UTC

hadlock wrote: post #140

throwaway2037 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me until the last sentence: Anglers have an enormous impact on fish and wildlife stocks. In English, the term "anglers" generally means hobby fishers -- hook and line, if you like. Are you saying that individuals have an enormous impact? I doubt it. I tried to Google about it, but I find nothing. The damage is mostly caused by industrial fishing and global warming.

I'm saying I'm refuting his statement, and using his language and wording to add impact and tie my post to his.

Understood. Thank you to clarify!

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#228

Post by amrocha » Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 2:39 AM UTC

myshpa wrote: post #223

amrocha wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but it might get long. And again, I'm not looking for an adversarial discussion. 1. Animal Rights Animals don't have rights because rights are a human construct. Absent humans, animal rights don't make any sense. Animals can only have "rights" in their relationship to humans, and humans are the ones enforcing those "rights". Therefore I don't think animal rights as a term makes sense. To me, they're closer to soc…

> A human being slaughtering a cow isn't judged to be immoral by the cow, because the cow has no concept of morality, only survival > Therefore, the unprovoked killing of animals is not inherently immoral So, killing a human newborn is not immoral because it cannot judge its killer? > Killing an animal for food is acceptable to me, and to the vast majority of people, since it is something we are all subject to in nat…

Please stop linking that site. It's wrong in so many ways, starting with the title. They're not fallacies, they're disagreements.

Killing a human newborn is immoral because it has the capacity of moral thought, even if at the moment that capacity isn't developed. But morality is a grey area, it's not like that's always true since I think abortions aren't immoral either.

On your other points, it seems like you really have the industrial farming and meat eating concepts so tightly wound in your brain that you can't possibly understand that they don't have to go together.

And no, prioritizing human lives over animals didn't get us here. Capitalism did. Even if we all stopped eating animal products tomorrow, we're still fucked.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#229

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 8:46 AM UTC

cinntaile wrote: post #185

thaumasiotes wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with the number?

I get that you wanted the original poster to realize that a big number doesn't necessarily mean anything. But we already know it's not sustainable.

You can either point at the number and say "Look at this number! Can't you just tell that it isn't sustainable?" or you can say "It doesn't matter what the number is, we know it's not sustainable for other reasons."

But neither of those is a support for the other. If you start with the assumption that the number is unsustainable, you're not doing anything when you look at the number.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#230

Post by deanCommie » Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 9:05 PM UTC

micromacrofoot wrote: post #91

everyone who is capable (there are a lot of us!) can we please just eat a little less of this stuff? I’m not asking for much, like a tiny tiny bit less, if you can. Just like one time consciously skip it and cackle “haha i’ll get you next time ocean” if it helps! this is not going well

As with all such things, the question isn't always "can we reduce consumption" but "can we improve efficiency"

I don't know the right answer, but hypothetically if 50% of fishing is waste, then reducing demand/consumption by 5% won't be as impactful as reducing waste by 20%.

And unlike the massive amount of consumers who all have to make different individual choices to achieve that, efficiencies in industries is likely to be centralized in a few big players.