> The team looked at 28 sharks, most of which had died after being caught in fishing nets as by-catch.
Nice job- the shark had done just fine for ~400 years.
Nice job- the shark had done just fine for ~400 years.
It has some staggering numbers regarding the amount of by-catch caught every day
Business runs on money - vote with your wallet as that is your power, use it, don't loose it.
When you tell people to "vote with your wallet", you are implicitly admitting that people with bigger wallets have more votes. Literally millions of times more, in many cases.
Don't vote with your wallet. involve yourself in local government, because legislation is the only way to solve problems like this.
Seeing the world as it is, is a precondition to changing it. You don't have to like it, but you do have to understand it.
In this case I both disagree and agree.
Disagree: Yes, rich people have a lot more money. But they don't eat more food than anyone else. Their threat to not buy certain fish is worth about as much as mine.
Agree: These kind of boycotts rarely accomplish much. The fishing system needs to be reformed away from free for all hunting, and legislation must do that. Iceland and New Zealand has decent systems in place now.
The issue is that rich people are both buying and supplying the fish that anyone else eventually eats.
You can do a bunch of research to figure out the best and most ethically sourced fish providers, but that takes a bunch of time and effort. It's not something you can reasonably rely on consumers to do. That's because most consumers either don't care or they care more about the absolute price than the source.
This comes up all the time with child labor and sweatshops. These big corporations have a giant supply network that makes it really hard to figure out where something comes from. Yes, maybe the shirt was sewn ethically but the cotton for the shirt was not. How would you know?
It's the same problem with fish. Unless there is a capital incentive (through regulation) to force a company to ethically source goods, they'll sooner turn a blind eye than fix the problem. That's because they know it's nearly impossible for an end consumer be informed about their ethics lapses.
So, while a rich person uninvolved with fisheries has little say in how their fish are sourced, rich people are most certainly in charge of which sources are ultimately used if they have fish in their supply chains. Those are the rich people with way more power than an individual consumer.
Otherwise completely agree.
We are not going to heal the planet by everyone consuming less or driving less or any of the million things that they encourage you to do to save it. Science is going to be the only solution as the pandemic has proven that people really are not going to make choices that inconvenience them, we need to provide alternatives that are just as enticing but are also financially attractive. In addition, even if we convinced everyone to cut their consumption of everything by 25%, so what; in a few years there will be more people rendering that 25% savings moot. Science is the only way.
As an individual - indeed that is probably so, but you do get to feel less helpless and gets down too a balance of moral dilemma and feeling helpless.
Don't eat seafood. The more that don't, the less fishing humanity will do.
Advice that tor several millions of people in this planet, will translate directly to "live less, die younger" or "starve your family to death, is good for your karma" (and your suicide will be highly appreciated for my own family).
Lets get serious, please. Stopping to eat seafood overnight would mean having a mass genocide in the planet in less than a year. Moreover, all cultures having many very long-lived people eat lots of seafood products. Is among the best human food known in the planet. This advice is totally out of any sensible discussion about our future.
Changing the subject, I have previously explained here how difficult and error prone is to study age in sharks, and my opinion has not changed a millimeter. I still would suggest to take this 400-yo values with a ton of arctic salt.
For some fish, we would figure out their age by looking at some tiny bone pieces under a microscope and counting rings, similar to tree rings.
I have no idea how I ended up in that job, I have no interest in fish or fishing or the ocean.
https://old.reddit.com/r/rant/comments/5shm1r/why_i_hate_the...