Hacker News Reader

Comment by lprubin | Hacker News Reader

On the consumer side we could stop eating seafood.

If nothing else, I think that might be a good idea for our own health's sake. Especially fish that is at the top of the food chain (tuna) is more likely to have high concentrations of whatever toxins are now in the ocean thanks to us.

On the other hand, pushing people to choose fish over beef/pork/corn starch would cause healthier populations, and might be easier than convincing people to become vegetarians (especially people in food deserts that subsist primarily on fast food).

Then again I'm probably just contributing to first world decision locking here lol

I could not find what "decision locking" meant. Did you maybe mean "decision lock-in"?

Oh shit, maybe it's a made up term my friend group and I use?

It's the idea that there are too many decisions to make, so you can't decide. It can happen when too many people play devil's advocate during a meeting and we don't know what's real anymore.

This is sometimes referred to as "analysis paralysis."

Contamination is everywhere, including on land. How about plants grown using heavy amounts of fertilizers? is that safer in the long run? We have very poor visibility of risks related to the food we eat.

The problem is that seafood is really healthy. Finland has special permission from EU to keep Baltic fish that exceeds permitted dioxin and PCB levels on the market, because even with the pollutants, people who eat the fish live on average longer than people who eat no fish.

https://thl.fi/web/environmental-health/environmental-pollut...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com