Hacker News Reader

Comment by helsinkiandrew | Hacker News Reader

If fishing was done on land and not miles off sea and underwater where the public can't see what's going on - I'm sure there would be much more care about how we fished and it wouldn't take a massive collapse in fish populations before something was done about it.

It seems no matter where in the world the same thing is happening in different ways and there seems to be a common response: it's not us - its foreign fisherman, big fishing companies, climate change, different types of fisherman, marine use etc.

View on HN

"If fishing was done on land and not miles off sea and underwater where the public can't see what's going on - I'm sure there would be much more care about how we fished and it wouldn't take a massive collapse in fish populations before something was done about it."

I think that's a but wishful. Just look at stuff like CAFOs. The majority of consumers don't give a damn as long as the price in the store is cheap enough. They're not thinking of where the stuff they're buying came from.

I hadn't heard the term CAFO before. Here's a fact sheet from the Sierra Club about these "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations": https://www.sierraclub.org/michigan/why-are-cafos-bad

I've done a lot of highway driving around the US and CAFOs are probably the worst part of it. They are depressing to look at, and you can often smell them miles before you see them. Central California, all of Nebraska, and Northern Indiana are three places that stand out in my mind for having outrageous "density" of abhorrent-smelling places.

I was born with no sense of smell and have worked in tech relate fields for the past 15 years.

I used to joke that senior tech role at Waste Management would be an efficient pairing but the CAFO angle was unknown to me before this.

PS HN being HN, I realize that even if I can't smell, my clothes etc might acquire an odor from being in smelly places.

> If fishing was done on land I'm sure there would be much more care about how we fished

viva Las Vegas

There's a correlated issue here-- housing (and other goods) have gotten so expensive with respect to real wages that most consumers don't really have much of a choice.

Wealth inequality is a huge part of the reason consumers won't opt for the more eco-friendly or ethical options on the market.

Even if the market had a significant shift, the industry wouldn't have the capacity to accommodate it without a rather large negative change in consumption.

I'm not so sure about that. The horrors of factory farming happen on land and while a lot of people criticize it, nothing much has been done about it since the 30s.

Something has been done about it, just not what one would hope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

Yeah, that tracks. ALEC is behind a lot of reprehensible legislation.

Factory farming mostly takes place inside barns so, for all practical purposes, it is not really any more visible than fishing.

I worked on an Alaskan fishing vessel. They had a live aboard agent of the state making sure everything we did was kosher. I don't think the Russians in the Bering Sea had such restraints.

the right response here is to prioritize the fish populations with the best available tech; a challenge common to all civilized people

The public only cares about what is affecting them today and is right in front of their face. And often even then they don't care that much about those things.

Generally speaking, people as individuals are simply not willing to change and will always point to someone else as being the problem.

The only thing that has a chance at "solving" climate change and environmental collapse is individual action and individual change.

This is nonsense pushed by industrial lobbyists.

The driving factors of climate change: * industrial * end of list

Individuals changing their behavior will not do a single thing to solve, reduce, or delay the climate crisis. It’s a feel-good thing for individuals to do, yes, but it doesn’t help in the slightest.

It's almost like industries are run by people who make decisions. Those people need to change their behavior as well.

You are directly contradicting yourself in the last sentence?

This nonsense-belief of "individual change" as a necessary precursor to societal adaptation of necessary policies is an absurdity most likely cooked up by industry spin-doctors.

Of course, it is exactly the other way around. Abstract insight into a problem and its solution needs to be implemented into policy by the government. That is it's primary function.

> Abstract insight into a problem and its solution needs to be implemented into policy by the government.

That's all well and good if you live in a dictatorship, but those of us under democracy are lead by the same individuals that who won't act. Only once they have decided to act and feel the need to clean up the outliers who continue to go against the grain will they use their governmental powers.

Complacency and greed can just as easily exist in a dictator as it does collectively in a democracy. That being said, I think there are particular factors in the United States that favor corporations and their profits over the general good of the country.

Environmental degradation is a socialization of (opportunity) costs. Unaccountability for those is a systemic failure that needs to be adressed as such.

This has nothing to do with democracy per se. The constituency in the US isn't directly involved with legislature. They vote for "representatives" who supposedly defend their interests in a role of mediation.

In reality, long-term interests of the public are of little import. Public perception is easily swayed, what counts more than votes is, who has money and knows how to use it.

Those responsible steal themselves out of accountability.

I don't eat seafood. Seems like a choice people could make (in fairness it is not an ideological decision for me I just can't stand the stuff).

Look no further than plastic recycling for the impact that individuals can have on improving the environment. Which is to say, none. For all of the pro-recycling propaganda, 95% of it ends up in landfill.

Pro-recycling propaganda started within packaging industry.

Pro-animals and vegan movements have different roots. Dairy & meat industry is trying its best to discourage individual actions ... their concern with plant based alternatives and naming of stuff is a clear indicator. Even terms like almond milk (1000 years old term) is somehow a problem.

Plastics are very visible within our environment, that was the reason behind population accepting recycling.

Animals do not have the voice and the horrors of their lives are generally hidden from the consumers. If most of the population remains ignorant incl. politicians, we cannot expect that anything will change.

Industries produce goods that are _intentionally_ made NOT to last, but are made to go garbage and pollute our environment. Even if we as consumers will put that into recycle or re-use it in some other way, still vast majority of that goes into waste. It is not done to make it cheap and affordable, it is produced that way to maximize profits of manufacturers by allowing frequent sales repetitive sales. Companies that used to produce reliable stuff don't do that no more. Not in their offer list. How do I fix this individually?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(2003_film)

After watching that, may I suggest Parallax[1].

[1]https://youtu.be/42XcN52xEfU

I just watched all 5 of these and was pretty amused. That being said, it's so tongue-in-cheek it kinda defeats the purpose of social commentary.

don't forget fishermen blaming seals! lol

Reply on news.ycombinator.com