The only way to preserve tuna is not to eat wild captured fish and farmed carnivore fish (they're fed bycatch, 1 kg of farmed fish upto 5kg of bycatch).
Commercial fishing is extremely destructive industry, with huge amount of bycatch, no real oversight, no limits, and huge plastic pollution (46% of pacific garbage patch is fishing nets).
Bluefin tuna frozen at -60C now could be sold in several years' time for astronomical sums if Atlantic bluefin becomes commercially extinct as forecast, a result of the near free-for-all enjoyed by the tuna fleet.
It is observed that if the fish goes commercially extinct, the company is hopeful that it can turn a hefty profit from its frozen bluefin cache.
Conservationists informed that legally commercial hauls are limited to 22,000 tons per year, but the actual catch is 60,000 tons, more than four times the maximum sustainable level. By its own estimates, Mitsubishi controls 35 to 40 percent of that stock.
I would avoid such black and white statements as "Commercial fishing is an extremely destructive industry".
The term "commercial fishing" encompasses a multitude of different places, methods, regulatory regimes, monitoring practices, and more, and they range from _extremely_ well managed and sustainable to utterly disastrous.
Bluefin Tuna happens to be one of the worst, because it's one of the very few where the species is so valuable that as it gets rarer, the price just climbs and continues to justify ever smaller catches. This is pretty bad for Bluefin Tuna, and could result in it being the first every commercially fished marine fish species to go extinct (yes; that's correct: no marine fish species has _ever_ gone extinct from human fishing).
I'm an ecologist who got his degree in fisheries ecology. I'm very much in favor of better, more cohesive fisheries management. But I don't believe we will make any progress by tarring entire industries. All you do is create enemies out of allies.
I understand that commercial fishing, like everything else, is complex and diverse with both good and bad actors.
However, if it were balanced, fish populations wouldn't be in such a dire state. This suggests to an outsider that the majority of the industry is harmful, and as such, I have no sympathy for it at all.
Considering the fact that fishing is decimating fish populations globally (even sharks are facing extinction due to overfishing, bycatch, and plastic pollution) and causing havoc on sea floors with trawling for example, I don't feel sorry for having such a black and white viewpoint.
> But I don't believe we will make any progress by tarring entire industries
Considering that meat consumption is not essential for our sustenance or health, I believe that the only way to prevent further environmental damage and restore biodiversity is to ban all forms of animal farming, marine aquaculture, and fishing.
We need to explore sustainable ways to harness the sea for our nourishment, sure, but I don't believe it has to involve fishing. I'm excited about the prospect of more affordable omega-3 from algae and seaweeds. I bet you'd prefer to see vibrant seaweed farms teeming with life rather than ecosystems devastated by overfishing or polluted by aquafarms.
That's my point though, fish populations are _not_ universally in such dire straights. Yes, bottom trawling does cause extensive habitat damage, but bottom trawling is completely banned in lots of places.
Yes, sharks are in _extreme_ decline in lots of places and face lots of overfishing, but I'm not actually sure that many species (if any) are at risk of _extinction_. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't be against shark fishing, it's ecologically disastrous, but be wary of claims of extinction).
It's fine if you don't want to eat meat. But lots of people do. I've worked with lots of commercial fisherman. They can be (and in many places already are) powerful allies for sane, sustainable fisheries regulation. When you say things like "commercial fishing is universally bad", you communicate that you don't care if they are willing to limit fishing pressure and sustain populations, that you are going to try and ban them anways. At that point, why shouldn't they just fish as much as they can?
I'm 100% onboard with algal aquaculture. I think it has a lot of promise. But that is completely orthogonal to conventional commercial fishing. The two are not competitors and in fact can be complements to each other.
The options are not "either seaweed farms or devastated ecosystems". It's exactly this kind of false dichotomy thinking that is counter productive.
Around a third of freshwater fish species are threatened with extinction, and 80 species have already been declared Extinct. Since 1970, mega-fish populations have crashed by 94% on average, while migratory fish populations have fallen by 76%.
This is a wall of text and links, most of which have nothing to do with my claims, or our discussion. I never said anything about whales or freshwater fish species. And I never claimed that _no_ fish populations are unsustainably fished, so finding a single one that is at risk is completely beside the point.
The only links that are sort of relevant are talking about "risk" of extinction, and frankly, I think that's kind of meaningless. Technically, every species on earth, including humans is at some level of "risk of extinction" from one thing or another. Considering how rare marine fish species extinctions are (especially caused by humans), I personally think we should be careful using that phrase. As someone who as actually done fishery population and health assesments, I can tell you that the phrase isn't much more than PR. It doesn't have any rigorous scientific meaning.
But even if that wasn't the case, the fact that some species in some places are at severe risk _still_ doesn't mean that commercial fishing everywhere is unsustainable. That's my entire point. That commercial fishing is extremely heterogenous. And it's _very_ easy to avoid bad fisheries and stick to good ones. Especially if you live in the US where _most_ fisheries are relatively sustainable managed (even more so if you stick to West Coast fisheries, which have some the best, most comprehensive and rigorous management policies on the planet).
You then moved on to freshwater fishes and whales, things I never mentioned. My guess is because those things are _actually_ at risk of extinction and so your case is much stronger. Unfortunately, they also have nothing to do with marine commercial fishing.
If you think that eating meat is immoral and you want people to stop for that reason, that's fine. But say that. Don't misrepresent the sustainability of commercial fishing.
> that commercial fishing everywhere is unsustainable. That's my entire point.
I never said that ALL fisheries are unsustainable. Your might be the one that isn't. One of many.
> freshwater fishes and whales ... they also have nothing to do with marine commercial fishing
Over 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises are killed as bycatch every year (seaspiracy.org/facts)
> If you think that eating meat is immoral ... But say that
I believe it's immoral to overlook the fact that our population has now reached 8 billion and to insist on consuming the same, or greater, amounts of meat in the face of environmental degradation and the very real threat of massive extinctions happening soon, especially when it isn't necessary. We're currently experiencing a massive, sixth extinction event, affecting 75% of all species, unless I'm mistaken. This process would typically take around 2.8 million years, but we're on track to accomplish it in about 100 years. And commercial fishing is imho a big part of the problem.
> Don't misrepresent the sustainability of commercial fishing.
"2.7 trillion fish are caught every year, 5 million every minute, studies estimate that up to 40% of all marine life caught is thrown overboard as bycatch, etc. etc."
"Six out of seven species of sea turtles (i know, not fish) are either threatened or facing extinction. In the USA, 250,000 sea turtles are captured, injured or killed every year by fishing, estimated 500,000 worldwide" (see seaspiracy for sources)
Your fishery practicies might be sustainable. Maybe. Time will tell. Maybe it won't matter at all.
You seem to have taken the Seaspiracy video at face value and just accepting everything they say. I'm a working marine ecologist, and I can tell you that _at best_ they are twisting tihngs to the worst possible interpretation. Documentaries are not fair and balanced descriptions of reality. ALmost ever. You should take what they say with massive heaps of salt.
As for "I never said ALL fisheries were unsustainable".
Yes you did. When you refused to acknowledge nuance and that some of them were fine, and to not tar the entire industry with a broad brush, that was you saying that they are all bad. You can't have it both ways. You are trying to now admit nuance, when admitting nuance is all I wanted from you from the beginning. If you are willing to admit they aren't all bad and some are sustainable, then don't call the entire industry destructive. None of your links is going to get around that one fact, and none of your links are refuting it.
"However, if it were balanced, fish populations wouldn't be in such a dire state. This suggests to an outsider that the majority of the industry is harmful, and as such, I have no sympathy for it at all."
See? The majority is harmful ... so some that are not.
> None of your links is going to get around that one fact, and none of your links are refuting it.
You don't agree with me ... then maybe you should present some arguments. If your industry is so good (in its entirety), so beneficial and protective, then there must be a lot of studies documenting its positive impacts on biodiversity and the conservation of our oceans.
> I'm a working marine ecologist
You've said that already. In a fishery. Are you happy with the state of our oceans? Do you feel that everything is fine? No problems on the horizon?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Powerful quote. I resisted sharing it before, but now it seems almost necessary.
They're operating in legal space, for sure. Buying fish from others and freezing it for later use is not illegal.
The rules of the game need to change. However, imposing limits isn't the solution (we have them now, and they're ineffective and practically unenforceable).
Like elephant ivory worldwide ban, a worldwide ban on the trade of bluefin could be extremely effective, and would undermine Mitsubishi's stupid plans.
There's a school of thought presented in David Chang's documentary where we're going to be one of the last generations to consume wild bluefin tuna. Because we've industrialized fishing them at this point.
The financial incentives are too powerful to turn down, each one can come in at $20 to $5,000 Per Pound. A single tuna is tens of thousand, if not hundreds of thousands on the market.
On the consumer side (CA/NY) anything Ahi Tuna-related is going to fly off the shelf, even with premium mark up prices.
> There's a school of thought presented in David Chang's documentary where we're going to be one of the last generations to consume wild bluefin tuna. Because we've industrialized fishing them at this point.
I'd like to see some stats to back this up, considering the IUCN has taken the bluefin off its "red list," and even a brief Wikipedia search seems to indicate that the recent application of regional fishing quotas is having its desired effect, though apparently some local populations are struggling.
Pacific Bluefin Tuna (and all bluefin tuna) should be avoided. IUCN isn't really the best forum for advice on this as it takes into account government and industry interests - by the time they mark a food species as on the red list it's very, very late.
The Monterey Aquarium seafood guide is the best that I'm aware of and they recommend avoiding all bluefin tuna:
Stats on the ocean are hard to measure, because, well, it isn't easy. However, as this documentary points out, there's so many reasons to not make people aware. I had no idea about halibut.
> The financial incentives are too powerful to turn down, each one can come in at $20 to $5,000 Per Pound. A single tuna is tens of thousand, if not hundreds of thousands on the market.
> On the consumer side (CA/NY) anything Ahi Tuna-related is going to fly off the shelf, even with premium mark up prices.
> I'm not sure where we go from here. Maybe a shift in community values?
Juxtaposition: for the producers the money is “too powerful to turn down”; meanwhile consumers can/should shift their “community values”.
Obviously you need to regulate things on the producer side. If it gets into production (and on to the consumer) then it’s too late already (see “food waste”).
> A single tuna is tens of thousand, if not hundreds of thousands on the market.
If you take out the early season prices that are essentially a buyer showing off how much money they have, even “tens of thousands” becomes somewhat of a fantasy.
There’s a reason why tuna fishermen aren’t driving Bentleys.
I lived in a place where they fished it, and definitely not rewarded adequately.
They used a really beat up 30+ year old boat at the crack of dawn, to first catch some other fish that is used to bait the tuna. I would be surprised after it's said and done that they got more than a few thousand for the tuna, in the end. It's a really dirty and smelly job paying peanuts.
Yes and it’s because, like I said, that the idea of a single tuna being worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars is fantasy — not reality. But many people believe it to be true because of a TV show they saw or something they heard on NPR.
It’s true that in 2019, a 612-pound bluefin tuna sold for an incredible $3 million at Tokyo’s famous Tsukiji fish market. While this is not a typical price, it shows how prized bluefin tuna is as the very best tuna fish out there.
The bluefin tuna price that restaurants and customers pay depends on several factors. These include where the fish is from, the company you buy it from, and how sustainable it is.
First of all, it’s completely different from the average tuna that you buy canned at the supermarket. That type of tuna is albacore tuna. A typical adult albacore weighs 80lb.
Contrast that with the record-breaking bluefin tuna that sold a the Tokyo fish market in 2019. That whopping example weighed 612lb!
Clearly, they are different species and take a very different amount of time to grow to maturity. In fact, they are very slow-growing. It’s also impossible to breed bluefin tuna in captivity.
The sustainability of many of the world’s capture fisheries continues to be hampered by overexploitation, overcapacity, ineffective management, harmful subsidies, by-catch…and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, with ongoing habitat degradation and loss of gear creating further pressures on the marine environment.” – UN World Ocean Assessment
"Stock depletion, lack of recovery, and associated loss of value are often driven by fisheries managers’ prioritization of short-term profits over the long-term health of fish populations.” – PEW
“All over the world, human and labor rights violations and abuses in the sector have been documented, and despite commendable efforts by many governments and the industry, there are still too many cases of unacceptable practices taking place. These occur not only in developing countries but also in the developed world, and at all stages along value chains.” – UN FAO
I’m really at a loss as to what point of mine you’re trying to refute.
> While this is not a typical price, it shows how prized bluefin tuna is as the very best tuna fish out there.
You need to look at the typical price rather than some one-off maximum.
> Bluefin - 1,472lbs - Sushi - $5,000 per pound
This is nonsense. They essentially are listing the largest bluefin tuna ever caught and using the highest price per pound ever and combining the two.
What does the typical bluefin tuna bring in for the fishing boat? It’s several orders of magnitude away from $5,000 per pound. And remember that’s dressed weight, not the weight of the fish when it’s caught.
> I’m really at a loss as to what point of mine you’re trying to refute.
I was interested in your proclamation that
> the idea of a single tuna being worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars is fantasy
It seems it's not a fantasy, and that it will become more and more common. That's what mitsubishi is betting on, and in essence what we've seen in Futurama's episode A Fishful of Dollars.
> You need to look at the typical price rather than some one-off maximum
Not if we're trying to determine if "a single tuna being worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars" is fantasy or not.
> They essentially are listing the largest bluefin tuna ever caught and using the highest price per pound ever
The table header (and referenced article) clearly states that those are "Max weight" and "Max price". Records.
> It’s several orders of magnitude away from $5,000 per pound
Sure. Even the OP you're reacting to is stating that prices are starting at $20 per pound. The same prices are in the article I've provided. That fishermen don't get as much is a sad reality of our system, so not at all surprising.
This is one of those cases where the benefits of zoos in terms of public outreach etc probably help more than a bunch of isolated habitats that aren't maintainable without public awareness and support.
I guess you can argue from a perspective that if you're already aware its worth avoiding?
Do you have any study or something supporting your claim that this/such a zoo's benefits outweigh the cons?
I am well aware of its worth avoiding harming animals. This includes capturing them, holding them against their will, using them, forcibly breeding them and killing them for profit and food.
I have also been to many zoos in my life but I only got this perspective by watching educational documentaries, reading up on the topic and, most importantly, applying simple reasoning, like: "Would we do this to humans? Would I volunteer to be in their situation for the rest of my life?"
Purely another anecdote from my own personal experience, When watching anything on a TV screen I never feel like I have the same tangible connection with what I’m viewing.
There’s some innate connection that happens when I make real eye contact with another mammal only feet away from me. You can’t really earn the respect for nature or the respect of nature from a documentary.
Honestly it’s this same lack of connection I get on Zoom calls and I think it’s undervalued and difficult, if not impossible to measure.
I do think zoos have positively impacted many people, myself included, my kids (who are extremely passionate about taking care of the planet and animals partly due to their exposure). Of course I also feel the need to explain the business/darker side of zoos but young kids aren’t ready for the world to be so grim. They need to start learning coming from a place of optimism and hope. There will always be time for the other parts when they might actually be able to do something about it.
Slaughtering animals for food is indeed a much bigger problem and probably one of largest issues we currently have - ranging over ethical issues, environmental issues, health issues and socioeconomic issues.
However, this does not mean that "smaller" problems are somehow not worth mentioning/tackling. IMO zoos, just like TV shows for children in which cartoon animals are portrayed to live happy lives on farms, happy cows on products, etc. are all tiny little but VERY effective weapons for the industry to manipulate people into thinking that using animals for profit is actually good, because the animals are said to be so happy. The opposite is true.
Well I suppose it's both. However I would say we're setting up for a very large negative impact on most animals on the planet, including humans.
Your post was flagged (not by me) so I can't go back for exact context, but I do agree with you, zoos are pretty messed up.
I feel like seeing wildlife, even in non-native habitats, may help encourage people to act to conserve that wildlife. Seeing a creature in real life is different than in a video.
Edit: I went back and looked at your replies to other people. I will have to think about this more.
Oh, I didn't see it got flagged... Breaks my heart every time to see this happen when someone gives a voice to the voiceless. Then again, I would have disagreed with myself only 3 years ago, before I took some time to inform myself about ethics, especially in regard to non-human animals. Wish I'd have done it sooner...
There are absolutely no positive benefits for people and especially children to visit zoos. Quite the opposite is the case:
By visiting zoos, children get taught at a very early age that it is OK to capture animals and use them against their will for amusement purposes / profit. They get presented the animals in a completely unnatural habitat. Most of these animals have developed mental disorders due to their situation.
Please feel free to read some of the research on this - there is plenty more:
Look, we get it, you are deep into this cause. I agree with some of it, but as always situation is way more complex than simple zoos = prisons for torture.
There are zoos which have massive spaces for animals and generally animals are very well taken care of, there are 'zoos' full of animals that would otherwise be dead (ie taken from smugglers, illegal ownership, overpopulated, injured in accidents etc.).
You can't watch most of say african big animals in wilderness on your own, even if you go on African safari its very much modern zoo-like experience.
do you think the same for fish tanks? that when kids see fish tanks they think its OK to capture animals for their own amusement? What an insanely biased POV. zoos are fantastic for conservation and giving kids a view into a world beyond the one in which they live day-to-day.
What makes you think that fish are in ANY way different than land animals or even humans? Why should they not suffer from being captured and not being able to live freely in their natural habitat?
In what way is my POV biased? What you describe is a purely egoistic attitude. Ask the question: Who does this serve?
Your answer might be: primarily the animals (this includes fish). But this is not true, as the only reason we would have to conserve any species in the first place is because we humans (almost) drove them to extinction by e.g. killing them for profit (e.g. leather, ivory, etc.), burning their habitat for animal feed (which happens when you eat land animal meat) or by overfishing (which happens when you eat fish). Either way, the reason is not valid because the root cause is driven by human behavior, which almost all people causing it could change it in an instant - but they choose not to. Why? Because their pleasure is more important than non-human animals' lives.
Hence, the answer is: the humans who pay for it. It only serves the entertainment of humans at the cost of the (non-human) animals.
Kids visiting a zoo for sure don't consciously think "its OK to capture animals for amusement", but they get subconsciously conditioned by the fact that it is portrayed as "normal".
My guess is that you never researched about how zoos work. If you did, I promise you will be shocked what happens behind the scenes in order to "give kids a view into a world beyond the one in which they live day-to-day".
Your worldview is very very very narrow. The reality is that kids who don't visit zoos, or farms grow up not caring at all about animals. Because to them animals aren't "real", they are these distant things that have nothing to do with them.
On the other hand when they see conservation status "threatened" on the sign by the animal they wonder about it.
And there's nothing wrong with putting an animal is a zoo - you are correct, they don't behave the same. But that doesn't make it wrong. Animals are not trophies to be displayed in the wild and always to be some distant unknowable thing.
Instead animals and humans share the same planet and we should encounter them up close, and experience them, and zoo's are how you do it.
You are relegating animals to these "things" that no one ever sees or hears about - or cares about.
My world view would be classified as "ethical", because I take the feelings and desires of others into account and don't put myself before them - which you, on the other hand, don't. And this is the exact same reason why humans exploit animals in every possible way imaginable, reasoning with all kinds if "pseudo-arguments" that don't hold up a logical and ethical consistency check.
"Because they are animals" is not an argument. The singular fact that you state that humans aren't animals implies that you are lacking even the most basic knowledge in biology. Given that, I can understand that applying ethics on top of that is currently too much to ask.
After all, maybe a good documentary film, that actually deals with these topics, could help you with that. I can assure you that no zoo will.
No, I think generally most people don’t care about animals or else they wouldn’t act the way they act. I generally do care but I don’t care that much. If somebody said I could save the life of a random person in the world or a random cow in the world, I’d probably pick the person. But I wouldn’t feel bad about picking the cow. Really doesn’t matter either way.
People eating animals in the developed world is almost without fail “wrong” because of the inhumane practices surrounding getting the meat off of the animal and into our mouths. Sure, plenty of people hunt their own venison or catch their own catfish but let’s get real.
But that’s fine. Humans “won” and the world is ours to wreck. I don’t fault anyone for not caring or for living the way they do.
I am conflicted about this documentary. I was totally amazed by it, but then saw a very long analysis of it by a supposed expert that said a bunch of things in the doc were untrue. I searched for more info but didn’t find much.
I didn’t see what I read by googling “seaspiracy facts” but you will see some opposing views, including some people in the documentary.
That's what's called a "literary device": a single individual is used as a microcosm for the whole. The story is about "Amelia" where "Amelia" represents all bluefin tuna. In that sense, the story is about Amelia.
It's something that might not be clear to people for whom English is not their first language, but it's pretty common in literature.
One of the memories I have growing up was going on a snorkeling trip to a coral reef in the Florida Keys with my Scout troop. The reef dropped off quickly enough that you could see some deepwater fish while still staying close enough to the boat and reef to be safe.
The biggest other fish I saw were a big lazy grouper and a shark that I decided to swim the other direction from, but that didn't seem really enthused about going anywhere in a hurry. But I swear the bluefin tuna were like living torpedoes. Huge and FAST, like big underwater rockets.
The best way would be to learn to farm them. There's a reason there are more chickens on planet Earth than there are alligators or wombats. And it's very much the opposite of "leaving the chickens alone".
Farming of big fish like bluefin tuna is difficult. They're still working on salmon, last I recall, as it turns out to be a lot more difficult than one would think.
Farming catfish is an example of successful aquaculture, and even it isn't as simple as one would think. There was a point in the 90s (IIRC) where tiny farm ponds (1-2 acres or less) in the US were producing some huge percentage of all farmed catfish, 60-70% or thereabouts. When ethanol subsidies really kicked off, all the corn went to make faux gasoline, which meant it wasn't as available for fish feed, and the price of the feed closed the farm ponds, which were filled in and planted. (Probably with corn.)
The Romans used to eat a lot of mullet, as this fish lived in their canals and waterways, and are easy to catch with nets. But the mullet is a terroir fish--it tastes like where it lives--and as the canals and waterways got gross, so did the fish. Mullet is thought of as poor people food now, there's a reason why on the Gulf Coast they're called "Biloxi bacon." But it would be a much simpler fish to farm, as long as you can keep the water clean.
Depends on your definition of "coexist". I for one would rather go extinct than exist as a chicken on a modern-day chicken farm. Of course, it's only the "lucky" female chickens that get to exist - the male chicks go straight to the shredder.
And that's a nice hasty generalization. Just because some farmed species are treated in ways you may deem unethical doesn't mean all farmed species must be treated unethically in order to farm them.
Surely in order achieve maximum return the animal farming process must become industrialised which leads to unpleasant outcomes for the animals involved. From chickens to salmon, small animals are treated poorly. Fish farms are a case in point, they destroy the local environment as well as constrain the farmed fish in unnatural ways.
Which is why we set standards for animal treatment and heavily fine those who break them so it is not maximally profitable. Happy, well fed, cared for animals are the tastiest and healthiest option. The well being of the animal directly translates to the quality of its meat.
> Happy, well fed, cared for animals are the tastiest and healthiest
Surely you don't think the masses buying big macs give half a crap? Meat just needs to be cheap and edible, and apparently animals raised in horrible conditions are the best candidates on both counts. ~99% of U.S. meat comes from factory farms.[0]
Your statement seems to imply that the concept of livestock experiencing suffering or deserving ethical treatment is based on 'absurd premises'. This seems to stem from a viewpoint that animals are fundamentally different from humans in terms of consciousness, emotions or the capacity to suffer. However, numerous scientific studies have shown that many animals, including those we commonly categorize as livestock, do indeed exhibit complex behaviors, show signs of consciousness, and display clear responses to pain and stress, indicating a capacity for suffering. This is particularly true for mammals like cows, pigs, and chickens.
The concept of treating livestock ethically is not about equating animals to humans, but about acknowledging these capacities and adjusting our behaviors and systems accordingly. It's about understanding that, while they may not experience the world exactly as we do, they do have experiences that matter to them. It's not an 'absurd premise' but a logical conclusion based on observed evidence.
"Suffering" is a nonsense word. It can't be measured or detected. There is no scientific theory of what it is, or even how we might go about somehow detecting its presence or absence some day. I mean, the word might have some use in poetry, but otherwise it could be stricken from vocabulary without any real loss.
> This seems to stem from a viewpoint that animals are fundamentally different from humans
There is a fundamental difference. Humans are humans, and non-humans aren't. And being the practical organism I am, I (along with most others for the last few ten thousand years) have decided that it is socially and politically convenient for me to treat other humans well. When I do, you all agree to chase down my murderer, for instance, to the best of your ability and punish him. That deterrence effect is valuable to me. You agree that there are some basic inviolable rights. Etc. The reciprocity required on my part is a bargain for the value I get in exchange.
Non-humans are incapable of the reciprocity. I get nothing for extending any of these courtesies to a chicken. I (and most others) have therefor not extended these courtesies to chickens. Or cows, or hogs. Or, for that matter, any other non-human species. You don't get to re-negotiate these things unilaterally either, it would require the some super-majority of humanity, of human cultures, to extend this to a non-human species. Maybe you should start a petition.
Do you even know why you believe the absurd things you do? Can you trace the meme back to whom and whence it originated from? Do you even know why you accept it as true? Do you understand its implications, really?
> show signs of consciousness,
What's that, exactly? There is no such thing as consciousness. Not even in humans. It's the secular word for "soul", I think. At least "soul" is more honest. There is no such thing though, no matter what word you use.
> The concept of treating livestock ethically is not about equating animals to humans
Funny. You just spent your entire comment doing that. You told me they weren't different when it came to consciousness, emotions, or suffering. You claimed "numerous scientific studies" that they have complex behaviors similar to humans, that they experience pain and stress as we do. I mean, it's like just 1 or 2 sentences above this claim. Did you lose track?
> but about acknowledging these
I can't acknowledge that which isn't real. If at some point in the future you manage to prove empirically that these invisible, imaginary qualities are real, I can acknowledge them then... but I won't hold my breath. Or pretend with you in the meantime.
> It's not an 'absurd premise' but a logical conclusion
Nothing you've said indicates you are familiar with logic.
Please note that if torture pigs made the bacon even 3% tastier, I'd be calling my senator right this minute to demand that he allow farm workers to tasering them for shits and giggles. Their pain has no moral weight whatsoever. You should rejoice that you live in a universe where it actually ruins the flavor.
If the only reason you are kind to humans is because it's practically useful to you, I can understand why you don't care about animals. While I'm sad I have to exist on the same planet as this kind of thinking, I'm glad someone is at least saying the quiet implied bits of the human-centric mindset out loud.
(Just in case you edit/delete your comment later... my current favorite quote is "Please note that if torture pigs made the bacon even 3% tastier, I'd be calling my senator right this minute to demand that he allow farm workers to tasering them for shits and giggles.")
Why would I edit it? Do you believe yourself to have supernatural powers of shaming or something?
You're the one that is dangerous, the one people should be worried to share a planet with. When your only principle is whether you feel something is a person or not, then nothing stops you from just suddenly no longer feeling the rest of us to be people.
Unfortunately I've spent time on Reddit, where people in a controversial conversation would sometimes drastically edit or delete their messages (or mods would delete them), making the conversation unreadable. I hope your comment stays up; it doesn't seem like HN has the same problem.
Theoretically, even if I gave up on the entire project of ethics, there would still be self-interested reasons to be kind to humans. That's what your previous comment was pointing out, right? If I stopped caring about my current ethics, you'd only have to get along with another person with similar thoughts.
Also, as a side note, I don't particularly care whether something is a person or not. I only care whether it's capable of feeling pain. Even if we somehow "discovered" that plants were people, I have zero moral feelings about plants since (as far as I'm aware) they are incapable of pain. I don't think mice are people, but I care about them because I think there's a reasonable chance they can experience pain.
10 million dogs and four million cats are slaughtered for their meat on the mainland each year. Many are beaten to death because the promoters believe this method makes the meat more tender and tastier
"Typically they suffer a death that is far from efficient. They are snared around the neck with metal hooks and dragged from their cages. Then they are either bludgeoned or stabbed in the neck or groin to be “bled out”. Other methods of killing including being hanged or electrocuted. This happens dog by dog so other dogs are likely to witness multiple deaths ahead of their own. This further spreads panic."
"Even if they do, who gives a fuck bruh? You eat pigs which are filthy to Muslims and Jews, and cows which are sacred to Hindus, and eggs from female chickens whose male siblings are crushed to death by grinders because they're commercially useless, and venison from deer that display empathy and mourn and bury their dead, and lobsters that you know have been boiled alive because they taste better that way than when they're killed outright, and sushi in authentic Japanese restaurants which for all you know could be sourced from super-intelligent whales and dolphins that are going extinct, and fish which are extracted by modern fishing vessels dragging huge nets across the bottom of the ocean for a monstrous catch. The vessels then throw out the least valuable fish, which are already dead and just rot in the water."
""Suffering" is a nonsense word. It can't be measured or detected."
Hypothetically, if someone would put you into a small box, too small to get up and you may sleep where you shit, do you think, you would suffer a little bit in it?
Your hypothetical makes little sense and is difficult to parse. It first supposes that there are any similarities or the moral sort between myself and livestock such that substituting one for the other is a comparison worth exploring.
What if you put a slab of granite in that box? Or a helium balloon that yearns to be free? Can they suffer as well?
I sympathize with him... the horrible things people do to cucumbers. People should start eating cruelty-free vegetables, like brown deciduous leaves already shed by the trees in fall.
These are big fast animals which likely require a large space to swim around, much more than a cow. This makes "farms" difficult. Speaking of which, the wild ancestor of today's cows (the aurox) was hunted to extinction.
It's oddly similar to humans. When they are ranched in cities, their birth rates collapse. It’s the breeding that isn’t happening. Something about limited space dissuades us animals from procreation.
As a plant-based eater, I wouldn't shame people for their dietary choices. Culture changes super slow and we need to accept this. I'm already pretty pleased how it's commonplace now in the UK to have vegan options.
Consuming meat & dairy is not a necessity for maintaining human health.
The production of meat and dairy is correlated with acts of violence such as forced impregnation, separation of mothers and calves, dehorning, castration, debeaking, (not-really-humane) slaughter, and violent mishandling. If you don't believe me, see https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
If we acknowledge that animals are sentient beings, capable of cognition, fear, and suffering, even able to play computer games and browse social media, and that they are subjected to conditions akin to enslavement, it's not a stretch to draw parallels between this and other forms of oppression such as slavery, sexual exploitation, and domestic abuse. All of these were, at some point, also considered normal and socially acceptable.
> If we acknowledge that animals are sentient beings, capable of cognition, fear, and suffering... it's not a stretch to draw parallels between this and other forms of oppression such as slavery, sexual exploitation, and domestic abuse.
That's such an absurd flamebait that if you bother to think about it for a second, you'd realize how untenable your position is. If we accept your assertion, then then we would have to protect a deer from a bear, snake from a hawk and all kinds of fish from bluefin tuna. Do you suggest we arrest every bear, hawk and bluefin tuna that eats another sentient being? Would we have to arrest all dog and cat owners that feed their pets a healthy meat diet?
> No, obviously vegans think arresting bears is dumb.
So you don't believe that animals are sentient and deserving of the same rights as humans. And yet vegans always push that angle. That's the argument that I was responding to. So you are on my side against the vegan I responded to.
I love that a yourveganfallacyis is full of logical fallacies. I know I'll regret this because educating cultish vegans mired in nutrient deficient brain-fog is a no win situation but here goes...
> Non-human animals do many things we find unethical; they steal, rape, eat their children and engage in other activities...
No. We don't find that unethical at all. Nobody finds an animals stealing, raping, cannibalizing their young, etc unethical because animals are animals. Ethics doesn't apply to animals. Basics of logic, if your premise is flawed then so is your conclusion.
> This means it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet certain non-human animals do.
Animals eat plants. So it's illogical to claim we should eat plants. So silly.
> And while we are capable of killing and eating them, it isn't necessary for our survival.
It's necessary for our optimal living. Driving cars isn't necessary for our survival. Millions of sentient animals are killed by cars. Why not ban cars? Planes? Etc.
> We aren't lions, and we know that we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences.
If their being sentient is important then it is up to us to protect sentient animals from lions. We'd have to arrest all lions and give them meat supplements for the rest of their lives.
So here we are, back to sentience because that's the crux of the matter even though you denied it in the beginning. Without sentience, what argument is there? Without sentience, eating an animal is no different than eating plants. But wait. What if plants have sentience?
> I'll regret this because educating cultish vegans mired in nutrient deficient brain-fog is a no win situation
Whatever you need to feel good about your choices ...
> Non-human animals do many things we find unethical; they steal, rape, eat their children and engage in other activities
... things we find unethical (in people); they steal ...
>> This means it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet certain non-human animals do.
> Animals eat plants. So it's illogical to claim we should eat plants. So silly.
The point is not about the type of food, but rather, not using animal behavior as a basis for human dietary choices. After all, many animals also eat things that are harmful to humans. It's important to make diet decisions based on nutritional science and their environmental impact, not solely on what animals do.
>> And while we are capable of killing and eating them, it isn't necessary for our survival.
> It's necessary for our optimal living.
The only reasons are habit, tradition, convenience, taste. Necessity it isn't.
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes." (American Dietetic Association)
"A vegetarian or vegan diet can be suitable for everyone, regardless of their age." (NHS UK)
"It is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages, and during pregnancy and breastfeeding." (British Dietetic Association.)
"For adults, protein from two or more plant groups daily is like to be adequate." (WHO)
> We'd have to arrest all lions and give them meat supplements for the rest of their lives.
Nature is guided by survival, but as humans, we have the capacity to make ethical choices about our food. The point is that, given the alternatives available, we don't need to cause harm to sentient beings for our nutrition. It's less about controlling natural predatory behaviors and more about considering our own actions and their implications.
> Without sentience, eating an animal is no different than eating plants
The core principle of veganism is to minimize harm as much as possible. Given that all life forms consume other life forms to survive, the goal becomes reducing the harm caused by our choices.
Even if we were to assume plant sentience, it's still less harmful to consume plants directly rather than raising animals for food, which requires significantly more plant life to sustain itself.
Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.
Vegans draw the line at hurting sentient individuals. Plants lack nerves, let alone a central nervous system, and cannot feel pain or respond to circumstances in any deliberate way (not to be confused with the non-conscious reactions they do have). Unlike animals, plants lack the ability or potential to experience pain or have sentient thoughts, so there isn't an ethical issue with eating them.
Regardless, each pound of animal flesh requires between four and thirteen pounds of plant matter to produce, depending upon species and conditions. Given that amount of plant death, a belief in the sentience of plants makes a strong pro-vegan argument.
That a bit oversimplifies the complex issue of animal sentience and our ethical responsibility, reducing it to absurdities.
The crux isn't interfering with natural predation but acknowledging our role in unnecessary, large scale animal suffering, which differs from the survival driven ecological balance in nature.
As people who can make ethical choices, we should choose to act to reduce unnecessary animal suffering and environmental destruction.
Btw, dogs are omnivores and can thrive on plant-based diets tailored to their needs, while cats are obligate carnivores and require meat to avoid suffering and live healthily. Our carnivorous pets consume 25% of our meat production, so if someone is really concerned about meat consumption, they should consider another companion, such as a rabbit or a guinea pig.
I'm usually not bold enough to publicly say I'm vegan either, but come on, the person you're replying to clearly cares and has more of a spine than either of us. What would you prefer - we just don't talk about it ever, and let everyone act like the current atrocities we're committing don't exist?
Do your own health a favor and avoid ingesting huge amounts of mercury by avoiding eating bluefin tuna, while at the same time helping it not disappear from our oceans.
Commercial fishing is extremely destructive industry, with huge amount of bycatch, no real oversight, no limits, and huge plastic pollution (46% of pacific garbage patch is fishing nets).
https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts
Bluefin tuna is one of the most expensive fish on the planet.
Highest value of bluefin tuna: $3,100,000, conservation status: endangered
Bluefin tunas are warm-blooded and can accelerate faster than a Ferrari
Today only 3% of Pacific bluefin tuna remain
A Mitsbishi subsidiary controls 40% of the worlds blue fin tuna
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/revealed-t...
Bluefin tuna frozen at -60C now could be sold in several years' time for astronomical sums if Atlantic bluefin becomes commercially extinct as forecast, a result of the near free-for-all enjoyed by the tuna fleet.
https://fiskerforum.com/mitsubishi-hoards-frozen-bluefin-tun...
It is observed that if the fish goes commercially extinct, the company is hopeful that it can turn a hefty profit from its frozen bluefin cache.
Conservationists informed that legally commercial hauls are limited to 22,000 tons per year, but the actual catch is 60,000 tons, more than four times the maximum sustainable level. By its own estimates, Mitsubishi controls 35 to 40 percent of that stock.