The magnificence of the bluefin tuna
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
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.
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).
Btw, even though the elephant ivory ban is better than nothing, elephants are still facing extinction.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56510593
Extinction: Elephants driven to the brink by poaching
lmao if this were a chinese company you can be sure tuna would be banned overnight.
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.
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.
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.
Many sharks closer to extinction than feared: Red List
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-sharks-closer-extinction-red.h...
Overfishing puts more than one-third of all sharks, rays, and chimaeras at risk of extinction
https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/overfishing-puts-more-...
Overfishing is Driving Eels to Extinction
https://vegnews.com/2022/9/forsea-foods-cell-technology-eels
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%.
https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/freshwater_practice...
Endangered North Atlantic right whales are in 'crisis'; species approaching extinction
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/19/north-a...
Eating mackerel no longer sustainable, Good Fish Guide advises
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/mackerel...
> It's fine if you don't want to eat meat. But lots of people do.
Not necessary, destructive, unsustainable.
> why shouldn't they just fish as much as they can
And they don't? Really? They'd leave money in the ocean?
> either seaweed farms or devastated ecosystems
It sure looks like it.
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.
Warning, another wall of text ahead:
Virtually empty oceans by 2048 (https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts#bgMedia_comp-kmm1uv52)
> 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.
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36880043 (3 responses back)
"I understand that commercial fishing, like everything else, is complex and diverse with both good and bad actors."
See? GOOD and bad actors.
> then don't call the entire industry destructive
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36880043
"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.
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? It's trending higher and higher online too, which probably correlates with consumption - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=a...
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.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt14152756/
So many things I didn't appreciate, and this is probably the most important documentary to watch this decade.
The Monterey Aquarium seafood guide is the best that I'm aware of and they recommend avoiding all bluefin tuna:
https://www.seafoodwatch.org/recommendations/download-consum...
https://www.seafoodwatch.org/recommendations/search?query=%3...
No they haven't. Nothing gets taken off the Red List (e.g. the Brown Rat is on the Red List: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/19353/165118026). It's the Red List rating that matters, and Atlantic Bluefin is listed as Endangered. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/21860/76599358
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.
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.
> https://themostexpensive.org/most-expensive-tuna/
Here Are the Top 5 Most Expensive Types of Tuna in the World:
Types of Tuna - Max Weight - Used For - Max Price
Bluefin - 1,472lbs - Sushi - $5,000 per pound
Bigeye - 462lbs - Steaks & sushi - $42 per pound
Yellowfin - 427lbs - Canned, steaks & sushi - $35 per pound
Skipjack - 73lbs - Canned & steaks - $23 per pound
Albacore - 88lbs - Canned & steaks - $22 per pound
> https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/2021-tuna-retailer-sc...
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
> 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 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.
It is not fantasy if you believe that your Powerball ticket is worth $1,000,000,000 because 1 Powerball ticket is worth $1,000,000,000.
> 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”).
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.
There, repaired it for you.
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]
[0] https://www.humanesociety.org/news/facts-about-factory-farms
You should really watch https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
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.
> 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.
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?
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?
(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.")
> allow farm workers to tasering them for shits and giggles
That's happening anyway (just watch Dominion).
The practice of beating dogs to death, believed by some to make the meat more tender, is carried out in parts of China and Vietnam.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/community/article/211370...
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
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/inside-horrors-yuli...
Inside horror of Yulin dog festival where animals are tortured and boiled alive
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/yulin-dog-meat...
Yulin Dog Meat Festival: Dogs blow-torched alive in footage from China
https://www.animalsasia.org/au/media/news/news-archive/china...
"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."
https://www.quora.com/Do-Chinese-people-really-raise-dogs-fo...
"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."
Yes, it's difficult.
The Psychopathy of Eating Meat | Interview with Philosopher John Sanbonmatsu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUmmN3lnUhY
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.
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.
It seems to be rather a cultural taboo. Cannibalistic tribes did disagree.
See https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/2/6875031/chickens-breedi...
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.
I had seen fry of tuna breed on captivity in a tank. Will not happen soon.
Breeding of Salmon is fully developed at a very sophisticated level.
Would you be as accepting to a wife-beater, child abuser, slaver, homophobe, etc ?
> The meat eating culture is so ingrained some people literally don't see this option, when it is the easiest and most obvious solution.
How is this shaming?
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.
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. This same "lions tho" argument has been made enough times to become a meme.
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?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34558231/
https://gizmodo.com/is-plant-intelligence-just-a-human-fanta...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/biocentrism/201703/a...
How will you vegans live with yourselves for destroying sentient plants?
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.
And few quotes from your favourite web:
https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too
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.
https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/plants-are-alive
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.
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.
Alternatively you can try to convince individuals to become vegetarians, which is a leass easy solution within that easiest solution. ;)
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.