Tuna’s Last Stand(hakaimagazine.com)
hakaimagazine.com
Tuna’s Last Stand
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/features/tunas-last-stand/
66 comments
It is about the "tragedy of the commons", not any specific feature of industrial fishing. Indeed, where industrial fishing has assigned property rights, like with fish farming, there are no issues with systemic collapse.
> It is about "tragedy of the commons", not any specific feature of industrial fishing.
I am certain the TotC is a feature of commercial fishing, and I am perplexed how anyone could separate the two. Overfishing, driven by greed ("Take what you can; give nothing back" [1]), itself is a specific feature of commercial fishing. [2] But I agree with your second statement, though the situation is more complex than merely the problem of fishing all of the fish and the collapse of entire species. [3] What I also believe is desperately needed is an indefinite moratorium on fishing anywhere beyond coastal territories. [4]
[1] Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, 2003 (though this phrase actually originates from Caribbean pirates, though the original meaning concerns lines: when pulling a ship into a dock, to pull in as much slack as you can and don't let it go. In only a literal sense it seems it very much applies to commercial fishing.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#Examples_and_evide...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_fishin...
[4] https://e360.yale.edu/features/a-global-ban-on-fishing-on-th...
I am certain the TotC is a feature of commercial fishing, and I am perplexed how anyone could separate the two. Overfishing, driven by greed ("Take what you can; give nothing back" [1]), itself is a specific feature of commercial fishing. [2] But I agree with your second statement, though the situation is more complex than merely the problem of fishing all of the fish and the collapse of entire species. [3] What I also believe is desperately needed is an indefinite moratorium on fishing anywhere beyond coastal territories. [4]
[1] Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, 2003 (though this phrase actually originates from Caribbean pirates, though the original meaning concerns lines: when pulling a ship into a dock, to pull in as much slack as you can and don't let it go. In only a literal sense it seems it very much applies to commercial fishing.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#Examples_and_evide...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_fishin...
[4] https://e360.yale.edu/features/a-global-ban-on-fishing-on-th...
We already have territorial waters which are broadly ignored by fishing fleets from certain countries.
Property laws on land work because you can enforce them. The ocean is too big.. and wet..
Satellites, aircraft, and navies exist, and can detect violations and force the perpetrators away.
Doing so pervasively costs a lot of money, though; no country seems to be as rich as to engage in such enforcement with enough strictness.
Doing so pervasively costs a lot of money, though; no country seems to be as rich as to engage in such enforcement with enough strictness.
I mostly eat salmon, but I'd love to switch to smaller fish. Does anyone know a good way to get herring or sardines other than canned? Apart from being more expensive due to preparation, even bpa free can liners worry me a bit. Frozen would be ideal.
The vast majority of salmon is farmed, so sustainable in the sense that it isn't going to diminish wild stocks. There are arguments against open-pen aquaculture too of course, but it's all relative. And a lot of money is being spent on solving those issues, such as deep sea aquaculture (where the effluent isn't a big problem, compared to static coastal pens), closed-containment (where all waste can be collected and used to make fertilizer), and land-based aquaculture (personally, I really don't like this).
Farmed fish isn't necessarily sustainable. It depends on the species. For some species, e.g., eel, they are farm raised but they are wild caught when young. For eel, we have not been able to get them to lay eggs that could be hatched and they take 10-25 years to reach sexual maturity [0]. Eels are not doing very well at all.
Moreover, farmed fish are often fed wild fish, so that could have some strong negative impact on ecosystems.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eel_life_history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_fish_feed#Sustain...
https://www.tampabay.com/things-to-do/food/cooking/The-facts...
Moreover, farmed fish are often fed wild fish, so that could have some strong negative impact on ecosystems.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eel_life_history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_fish_feed#Sustain...
https://www.tampabay.com/things-to-do/food/cooking/The-facts...
I'm (very) familiar with salmon aquaculture, but know very little about other species.
As far as salmon go, there has been a huge push to reduce wild catch content in feed, replacing it things like soya. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but I recall being impressed - if you're interested, you can search for the latest MOWI annual report (think they call it a "sustainability report"), and Norwegian ministries publish a wealth of information.
As far as salmon go, there has been a huge push to reduce wild catch content in feed, replacing it things like soya. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but I recall being impressed - if you're interested, you can search for the latest MOWI annual report (think they call it a "sustainability report"), and Norwegian ministries publish a wealth of information.
The problem is that carnivore fishes are tasty, and vegetarian fishes... not so much. You can't just replace all their food by plant stuff and expect a good growth. 5-10% of soy, maybe, I' don't remember the exact value, but > 50%... No way.
Fishes get ill and growth is stunted. It promotes cannibalism also. Premium fish food for aquaculture is expensive.
Fishes get ill and growth is stunted. It promotes cannibalism also. Premium fish food for aquaculture is expensive.
It depends on the species, but you have some options at least.
Jarred herring is pretty common. Whole Foods carries https://products.wholefoodsmarket.com/brand/blue-hill-bay which are quite delicious.
Note: don't overdo it with the small fishes. They have high levels of purines which cause gout.
Note: don't overdo it with the small fishes. They have high levels of purines which cause gout.
Technically, I don't think it's correct to say that purines cause gout; but that the inability to break down purines causes gout. What's the root cause of that? Kidney dysfunction, and a history of bad diet, bad exercise habits.
It could very well be that switching to a better diet that includes foods like sardines is beneficial and even a net positive to someone who is susceptible to gout even though sardines have higher levels of purines than other foods.
I never knew I'd like - or even crave canned herring but I have to say: it's absolutely delicious. Because of the essentially destruction and collapse of the ocean's fisheries, the majority of fish I eat these days is just canned sardines. Compared to say wild caught tuna, they're pretty sustainable (although again: the details are complicated).
It could very well be that switching to a better diet that includes foods like sardines is beneficial and even a net positive to someone who is susceptible to gout even though sardines have higher levels of purines than other foods.
I never knew I'd like - or even crave canned herring but I have to say: it's absolutely delicious. Because of the essentially destruction and collapse of the ocean's fisheries, the majority of fish I eat these days is just canned sardines. Compared to say wild caught tuna, they're pretty sustainable (although again: the details are complicated).
If you're lucky enough to live near a metropolitan area, then you might have a Russian market. I'd recommend going to one and getting one of the small packages of herring. There usually have whole fillets preserved in what amounts to vegetable/sunflower oil and salt. No sugar added. The flavor of this herring is more pure, and reminds me more of what it's like to get it fresh from a vendor in Holland.
It might just be the diabetic predisposition I have due to family members having it, but the idea of herring preserved with sugar like you see with jarred variety, is of off-putting to me.
It might just be the diabetic predisposition I have due to family members having it, but the idea of herring preserved with sugar like you see with jarred variety, is of off-putting to me.
It depends on where you live. If you is very far from the sea and main markets, freswhater fishes could be the choice.
Sardines are easy to find in Europe. You can have also bigger pieces canned but preserved in salt. Is a different product that your typical canned sardines and more environmentally responsible. The elder fishes have a choice to reproduce before to being fished and tins are bigger so more efficient to produce. Some people love them, other dislike the extra salty stuff. is an acquired taste.
Sardines are easy to find in Europe. You can have also bigger pieces canned but preserved in salt. Is a different product that your typical canned sardines and more environmentally responsible. The elder fishes have a choice to reproduce before to being fished and tins are bigger so more efficient to produce. Some people love them, other dislike the extra salty stuff. is an acquired taste.
Frozen sardines can be found in the US although not nearly as commonly as other fish. I've seen fresh sardines in Whole Foods but very rarely.
[deleted]
> Most of the skipjack caught in the WCPO today is harvested by purse seining, an industrial fishing method in which dense schools of fish near the surface are encircled with a large net and scooped out of the ocean.
Most of you probably already know this, but Seafood Watch (maintained by the monterey bay aquarium) is a useful resource for figuring out if the fish you're buying is harvested this way or not.
Most of you probably already know this, but Seafood Watch (maintained by the monterey bay aquarium) is a useful resource for figuring out if the fish you're buying is harvested this way or not.
Go to the Tokyo Fish Market if you really want your eyes opened.
1500 tons of fish brought in every day. They just scoop up everything they can get their nets on and sell it at the market. Truly eye-opening experience.
And people panic when there are discussions of population decline as if these levels of resource extraction are sustainable.
Wonder what will happen when fish isn't enough to sustain those who depend on it. Could totally see wars being waged over food sources
[deleted]
Are fisheries guilty? Are regulators and governments guilty?
I think the guilty side are end-consumers, particularly in rich countries, people themselves and their lifestyle (ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#Impact)
note: I haven't eat a gram of fish or meat since more than a decade (mostly because I don't feel the need, being already full with local products: fruits, plants, legumes, rice
I think the guilty side are end-consumers, particularly in rich countries, people themselves and their lifestyle (ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#Impact)
note: I haven't eat a gram of fish or meat since more than a decade (mostly because I don't feel the need, being already full with local products: fruits, plants, legumes, rice
The claims in that wikipedia article and the cited news article seem unbelievable.
>Studies suggest pets consume about a fifth of the world’s meat and fish, and a dog’s carbon footprint is more than twice that of a 4x4 car, according to Yora.
Can anyone find the study which makes this claim? It kind of seems like a garbled version of this one:
>As calculated, US dogs and cats consume as much dietary energy as ~62 million Americans, which is approximately one-fifth of the US population.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
>Studies suggest pets consume about a fifth of the world’s meat and fish, and a dog’s carbon footprint is more than twice that of a 4x4 car, according to Yora.
Can anyone find the study which makes this claim? It kind of seems like a garbled version of this one:
>As calculated, US dogs and cats consume as much dietary energy as ~62 million Americans, which is approximately one-fifth of the US population.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
This is a typical collective action problem. If you believe individual change in behaviour can fix it you're centuries behind on your sociology.
Finger pointing doesn't help. Whataboutism doesn't help. It doesn't matter who is guilty. There are obviously multiple actors with different (but seemingly aligned) interests acting in concert and causing the problem. What what matters is where you can efficiently intervene in the process.
Telling every customer to change their habits (or just feel guilty) sounds good, probably has some effect but it's not enough. Controlling e.g. the much smaller number of producers is a lot simpler. Also, taxing the product (the end product that the guilty consumers can buy) may also work. Most likely you need to apply multiple measures at multiple points in this process.
E.g. I think convincing the customers works best in the long run and more like for general purposes. I.e. understand that you should consume less, use a smaller footprint in general, as you mentioned. But that doesn't necessarily easily translate to "don't buy tuna and milk". It's easier to translate it into "vote for the guy who promises to handle this case even if it means tax raises". And then you can simply go to the store and expect that whatever you see there is OK to buy at that price. Yes, tuna will be say 10x more expensive and thus you'll buy it less frequently (and maybe not feed it to your cat).
Telling every customer to change their habits (or just feel guilty) sounds good, probably has some effect but it's not enough. Controlling e.g. the much smaller number of producers is a lot simpler. Also, taxing the product (the end product that the guilty consumers can buy) may also work. Most likely you need to apply multiple measures at multiple points in this process.
E.g. I think convincing the customers works best in the long run and more like for general purposes. I.e. understand that you should consume less, use a smaller footprint in general, as you mentioned. But that doesn't necessarily easily translate to "don't buy tuna and milk". It's easier to translate it into "vote for the guy who promises to handle this case even if it means tax raises". And then you can simply go to the store and expect that whatever you see there is OK to buy at that price. Yes, tuna will be say 10x more expensive and thus you'll buy it less frequently (and maybe not feed it to your cat).
Seems like there's a huge opportunity for someone to nail the greener meat market for pets.
Rat meat? Mouse meat? Crickets and other bugs?
The fact that we feed our cats need, pork and salmon, meat from beasts that they'd never have a hope of taking down in nature, is ridiculous.
Rat meat? Mouse meat? Crickets and other bugs?
The fact that we feed our cats need, pork and salmon, meat from beasts that they'd never have a hope of taking down in nature, is ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to feel guilty and I don't see why anyone should. When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation, regular customer shouldn't be worried about that. The same with meat - when I buy some I expect that animals weren't abused and beaten at farms, if they were then there's an issue in the system.
That’s kind of a silly assumption frankly. Even on fish cans in the grocery store some advertise themselves as sustainably fished with certifications, and some don’t. Some egg cartons advertise themselves as “free range” and some don’t. Some meat advertises itself as “grass fed” and others don’t.
The products themselves are telling you there are a variety of production standards and it is almost willful blindness to say you believe there is nothing going on because there ought to be nothing going on.
You could make an analogous argument about gasoline “Look if this was harming the atmosphere why would governments allow it to be sold? I refuse to feel guilty”
The products themselves are telling you there are a variety of production standards and it is almost willful blindness to say you believe there is nothing going on because there ought to be nothing going on.
You could make an analogous argument about gasoline “Look if this was harming the atmosphere why would governments allow it to be sold? I refuse to feel guilty”
Grass-fed beef is advertised that way primarily for nutritional and taste claims and to support/explain the higher prices charged.
That’s one reason. It’s also widely known it is healthier for the cattle and has them out on pasture rather than in cages.
The reason people argue the meat is more nutritious is because the cows are healthier via eating their natural diet.
Corn diets cause health problems and bacterial infections requiring antibiotics.
Some of this will literally be on the websites of farms selling pastured beef. It’s not a big secret and if you seek out pastured beef it’s likely familiar.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.h...
The reason people argue the meat is more nutritious is because the cows are healthier via eating their natural diet.
Corn diets cause health problems and bacterial infections requiring antibiotics.
Some of this will literally be on the websites of farms selling pastured beef. It’s not a big secret and if you seek out pastured beef it’s likely familiar.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.h...
"The consumer is completely to blame" is definitely ridiculous.
"As a consumer I have no responsibility in what products I choose to buy" is equally ridiculous.
"As a consumer I have no responsibility in what products I choose to buy" is equally ridiculous.
Tuna is hunted wildlife, an international commons. It's clearly evident that no regulation will happen anytime soon that will actually make a difference. If you buy it, you are part of the problem, either ignorantly or knowingly.
Occasionally I find myself in some gastronomy setting were nothing in the menu appeals to me other than the dishes containing tuna and then I eat it, and enjoy it a lot. It happens less than once a year.
(I do actually share your position wrt farmed meat, those farms are infinitely more regulateable than international fishing and I think we should regulate it hard, hard enough to solve big parts of the inherent inefficiency of putting nutrients though animals before they reach a human mouth by price)
Occasionally I find myself in some gastronomy setting were nothing in the menu appeals to me other than the dishes containing tuna and then I eat it, and enjoy it a lot. It happens less than once a year.
(I do actually share your position wrt farmed meat, those farms are infinitely more regulateable than international fishing and I think we should regulate it hard, hard enough to solve big parts of the inherent inefficiency of putting nutrients though animals before they reach a human mouth by price)
I'm sorry, but tuna being farmed in international waters shouldn't be an obstacle. In all EU countries and UK there are quotas of what a fishing vessel can bring into port. So it doesn't matter where the fish was actually caught, if the country ran out of annual quota for tuna for instance, then no fishing vessel can bring any tuna to any port. It's not an insurmountable problem.
Agreeing on sustainable quotas apparently is.
Whaling wasn't stopped (mostly stopped) thanks to people insisting on buying whale products until regulation happens.
Whaling wasn't stopped (mostly stopped) thanks to people insisting on buying whale products until regulation happens.
[deleted]
> When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished.
Why do you expect this, when there is evidence to the contrary?
> regular customer shouldn't be worried about that
Nobody is asking you to single-handedly save the oceans. Start by installing Seafood Watch and do your best to select a sustainable option any time you're eating seafood.
> If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation
This is why crony capitalism is forever bound to a love affair with the state; it relieves us of any responsibility for building real communities.
Governments have never - and I believe will never - regulate society into behavior befitting the respect due to the Earth. We have given profiteers and their lobbyists access to a single point of failure; we can't be surprised when they utilize it.
Why do you expect this, when there is evidence to the contrary?
> regular customer shouldn't be worried about that
Nobody is asking you to single-handedly save the oceans. Start by installing Seafood Watch and do your best to select a sustainable option any time you're eating seafood.
> If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation
This is why crony capitalism is forever bound to a love affair with the state; it relieves us of any responsibility for building real communities.
Governments have never - and I believe will never - regulate society into behavior befitting the respect due to the Earth. We have given profiteers and their lobbyists access to a single point of failure; we can't be surprised when they utilize it.
No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make it morally right.
> there's an issue in the system.
But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no incentive to ever change anything.
You say, "The government should ban this!" and the government says, "People are buying and eating this, so in a Democratic system we can't ban this!"
You slough off responsibility on them - they slough it off on you - you all convince yourselves you have no possibility at all.
Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your representatives? Asked them to do anything about it?
I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's everyone else's fault."
> there's an issue in the system.
But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no incentive to ever change anything.
You say, "The government should ban this!" and the government says, "People are buying and eating this, so in a Democratic system we can't ban this!"
You slough off responsibility on them - they slough it off on you - you all convince yourselves you have no possibility at all.
Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your representatives? Asked them to do anything about it?
I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's everyone else's fault."
>>No, just because there's no law against it doesn't make it morally right.
Wait, are you replying to the right comment?
>>Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your representatives? Asked them to do anything about it?
Yes, I have. Have you?
>>But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no incentive to ever change anything.
Again, I feel like you're replying to the wrong comment. I feel like I live in a country with a very strong regulatory framework and things like fishing are treated very seriously with strong quotas on what can be caught not to overfish, and canned fish has to be clearly labeled where it came from and how it was caught. So I'm not sure which part of what I said comes across as apathetic to you.
>>I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's everyone else's fault."
I'll definitely say that it's the fault of the agencies tasked with protecting the flora and fauna that they are responsible for, not the consumers for eating tuna.
Wait, are you replying to the right comment?
>>Also - I'm curious - have you ever contacted your representatives? Asked them to do anything about it?
Yes, I have. Have you?
>>But everyone else is just as apathetic as you, so there's no incentive to ever change anything.
Again, I feel like you're replying to the wrong comment. I feel like I live in a country with a very strong regulatory framework and things like fishing are treated very seriously with strong quotas on what can be caught not to overfish, and canned fish has to be clearly labeled where it came from and how it was caught. So I'm not sure which part of what I said comes across as apathetic to you.
>>I'm sure when the tuna finally goes, you'll say, "Yes, I ate tuna all my life, but I bear no responsibility - it's everyone else's fault."
I'll definitely say that it's the fault of the agencies tasked with protecting the flora and fauna that they are responsible for, not the consumers for eating tuna.
But you (plural form if you wish) are part of the system. Without you the system would not exist.
You can expect anything you want. Doesn’t make your expectations realistic or absolve you of responsibility, though.
Nobody’s going to step in and change things if it’s easy money and people will keep buying it and shifting blame. It doesn’t work that way.
Nobody’s going to step in and change things if it’s easy money and people will keep buying it and shifting blame. It doesn’t work that way.
"I refuse to feel guilty. When I fill my Hummer at the pump, I expect it to be filled with renewable corn oil. If it isn't, there's an issue with the system."
> I'm sorry, but I refuse to feel guilty
Then you're not sorry.
> When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation, regular customer shouldn't be worried about that.
How do you think regulations come to be?
If a consumer wants a product, a company finds a way to provide it. The company will poison the land, sea and sky in order to provide it to you, they don't give a shit. The government allows it until the people demand regulations to stop it. But you are the people - if you don't want it stopped, it won't be. And so there are no regulations made.
There is no parental overlord making sure that what you purchase is sustainable or cruelty-free. Sitting around saying "somebody should stop me from ruining the earth" doesn't actually make it happen. I know you don't want to have any personal responsibility or culpability for the shitty way the world works, but you do.
Ultimately, you, and everyone like you, are the reason we can't have nice things.
Then you're not sorry.
> When I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation, regular customer shouldn't be worried about that.
How do you think regulations come to be?
If a consumer wants a product, a company finds a way to provide it. The company will poison the land, sea and sky in order to provide it to you, they don't give a shit. The government allows it until the people demand regulations to stop it. But you are the people - if you don't want it stopped, it won't be. And so there are no regulations made.
There is no parental overlord making sure that what you purchase is sustainable or cruelty-free. Sitting around saying "somebody should stop me from ruining the earth" doesn't actually make it happen. I know you don't want to have any personal responsibility or culpability for the shitty way the world works, but you do.
Ultimately, you, and everyone like you, are the reason we can't have nice things.
>>Ultimately, you, and everyone like you, are the reason we can't have nice things.
Because I expect to live in a country with a strong regulatory framework where if I buy something in a store I don't have to worry whether it was produced in an ethical way?
You're right, I'm the problem. Thanks mate.
Because I expect to live in a country with a strong regulatory framework where if I buy something in a store I don't have to worry whether it was produced in an ethical way?
You're right, I'm the problem. Thanks mate.
You've already admitted you won't lift a finger to actually help the situation. Why would you expect your government to do anything if they're made up of people like you? Do you believe all those government workers exist on some other plane of moral relativism? Or do you think that laws and regulations magically come into being, like the zeitgeist just wills regulations into place?
The government does not sit around reading your mind and then make regulations to match it. Even if it could, it wouldn't. The government only creates a regulation when either a corporation or a very vocal coalition of people demand it. And those two parties are working against each other anyway, making it even less likely.
I really don't know how to explain it in simple enough terms. If you don't care, then neither does the society, and thus the government. Ergo, people like you are the reason the regulations don't exist and aren't enforced when they do.
The government does not sit around reading your mind and then make regulations to match it. Even if it could, it wouldn't. The government only creates a regulation when either a corporation or a very vocal coalition of people demand it. And those two parties are working against each other anyway, making it even less likely.
I really don't know how to explain it in simple enough terms. If you don't care, then neither does the society, and thus the government. Ergo, people like you are the reason the regulations don't exist and aren't enforced when they do.
Ok, maybe I came across incorrectly.
Obviously, I do care. I do care on the level of having strong regulation, having institutions and governments which regulate this, so that at the end as a customer when I walk into a store I don't need to Google whether a particular brand is fishing tuna in a particular way or not. I expect that the entire structure that exists for regulating and allowing these products to reach the shelves will prevent products which are made in an insustainable way. Maybe I'm a fool for expecting it to work this. But that was why I replied how I did - that I refuse to feel bad because I expect my government to prevent this in the first place. Just like I said elsewhere - I don't worry whether a phone I'm buying was made with child labour because I believe all governments involved in the production of the device enforce laws against child labour.
That doesn't mean that I don't care. But if I find out that phones made by kids or tuna fished to extinction is on store shelves I'll complain.....to the regulatory bodies. Not decide "well, I guess I'll never eat tuna ever again".
Obviously, I do care. I do care on the level of having strong regulation, having institutions and governments which regulate this, so that at the end as a customer when I walk into a store I don't need to Google whether a particular brand is fishing tuna in a particular way or not. I expect that the entire structure that exists for regulating and allowing these products to reach the shelves will prevent products which are made in an insustainable way. Maybe I'm a fool for expecting it to work this. But that was why I replied how I did - that I refuse to feel bad because I expect my government to prevent this in the first place. Just like I said elsewhere - I don't worry whether a phone I'm buying was made with child labour because I believe all governments involved in the production of the device enforce laws against child labour.
That doesn't mean that I don't care. But if I find out that phones made by kids or tuna fished to extinction is on store shelves I'll complain.....to the regulatory bodies. Not decide "well, I guess I'll never eat tuna ever again".
> I go to the store and buy some tuna I expect that it was responsibly fished. If it wasn't then it's the fault of our government and regulation
I eat canned tuna also, but that logic doesn’t work generally.
By the same logic you could say that if you could buy a BB gun, it’s ok to shoot people with it, because it must not be harmful.
Come to think of it, that’s what kids did to each other when I was growing up.
I eat canned tuna also, but that logic doesn’t work generally.
By the same logic you could say that if you could buy a BB gun, it’s ok to shoot people with it, because it must not be harmful.
Come to think of it, that’s what kids did to each other when I was growing up.
But a BB gun specifically comes with a warning not to shoot people because it might cause harm, not to mention that regulations around fake and/or air guns are pretty hardcore already.
To maybe give another example - as a consumer I shouldn't care if a phone I'm buying was made using child labour or not - I expect the authorities in every country involved in its production to enforce laws against child labour.
To maybe give another example - as a consumer I shouldn't care if a phone I'm buying was made using child labour or not - I expect the authorities in every country involved in its production to enforce laws against child labour.
If you don't eat fish, it will just drive down the price and be fed to your cat.
consider fruit in the supermarket, that came in plane from another continent. By not buying them, in the short term, there'll be a bit of waste and donations to associations. In the mid/long term supermakets reshape their strategy, stop buying them as well, exporters then reduce their shippings, etc..
same goes for fish/meat productions, if you cut down the consumer stream, the producers will be forced to adapt, takes time sure..
About pets, our planet is overpopulated (at least over-consuming), the fact there are over a billion of pets is already a nonsense, it's like virtually increasing human population by 5-10%, do we really need this?
same goes for fish/meat productions, if you cut down the consumer stream, the producers will be forced to adapt, takes time sure..
About pets, our planet is overpopulated (at least over-consuming), the fact there are over a billion of pets is already a nonsense, it's like virtually increasing human population by 5-10%, do we really need this?
My family is good friends with a vegetarian that has had health problems. She’s been a vegetarian for the past fifteen years after a previous 25+ years as a vegetarian since she made the choice as a child. She used to buy fast food cheese sandwiches (hamburger with no burger, pickles, onions, or ketchup) for her child because that’s all her child would eat and could eat when they were busy, as she enforced vegetarianism on her also.
I sympathize with vegans and vegetarians like her, and I don’t like thinking of the machines some fast food chains use in their supply chain to slaughter massive numbers of animals, as humanely as you could do such a thing, with an automated spike that goes through their heads after they squeeze their hips to stimulate comfort.
I know caged hens may get excessively fat and maybe aren’t as happy, because I’m not happy when I’m fat. Cage-free egg can mean that chickens are packed into an ever more stressful pen, which is similar to the chick pens, where dead chicks have to be plucked up regularly from the moving masses. Free-range chickens may not have a temperature-controlled environment.
I like to eat chicken, and I’m told it’s healthy. But I spent time with a chicken yesterday that seemed like it wanted to talk with us and ask for food or other help, and it seemed to be patient with us, but eventually raised it’s voice when we weren’t understanding it.
Before I eat, I pray by quickly thinking of the sacrifices made for us and our comfort- the chicken that provided her egg, those that harvested the vegetables, and anything else I think of. I don’t want to cause harm, but until I understand how I can eat in a healthy way with the least negative impact, I eat meat.
I understand from others we may be eating unsustainably, and food may not be shared to all of those who need it. Some of those considered in poverty level in richer countries eat too much of poor nutrients that lead to obesity and health problems, and education alone is not the answer, as it’s the only food that’s affordable; being richer and fatter than others globally with much less food and money, they may be the least healthy.
Where do we go from here? I’m told fish, eggs, chicken, and beef are good for me, but I should eat more vegetables.
Greenpeace can tell us how to choose tuna: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/eat-tuna-know-fish/
So long and thanks for all the fish.
I sympathize with vegans and vegetarians like her, and I don’t like thinking of the machines some fast food chains use in their supply chain to slaughter massive numbers of animals, as humanely as you could do such a thing, with an automated spike that goes through their heads after they squeeze their hips to stimulate comfort.
I know caged hens may get excessively fat and maybe aren’t as happy, because I’m not happy when I’m fat. Cage-free egg can mean that chickens are packed into an ever more stressful pen, which is similar to the chick pens, where dead chicks have to be plucked up regularly from the moving masses. Free-range chickens may not have a temperature-controlled environment.
I like to eat chicken, and I’m told it’s healthy. But I spent time with a chicken yesterday that seemed like it wanted to talk with us and ask for food or other help, and it seemed to be patient with us, but eventually raised it’s voice when we weren’t understanding it.
Before I eat, I pray by quickly thinking of the sacrifices made for us and our comfort- the chicken that provided her egg, those that harvested the vegetables, and anything else I think of. I don’t want to cause harm, but until I understand how I can eat in a healthy way with the least negative impact, I eat meat.
I understand from others we may be eating unsustainably, and food may not be shared to all of those who need it. Some of those considered in poverty level in richer countries eat too much of poor nutrients that lead to obesity and health problems, and education alone is not the answer, as it’s the only food that’s affordable; being richer and fatter than others globally with much less food and money, they may be the least healthy.
Where do we go from here? I’m told fish, eggs, chicken, and beef are good for me, but I should eat more vegetables.
Greenpeace can tell us how to choose tuna: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/eat-tuna-know-fish/
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Thanks for sharing. I didn't know about the magazine, and as a lover of all things aquatic, I was missing something like this. It reminds me a lot of the old Italian magazine "Aqua".
This is a fascinating article, but I'm bookmarking it for the unreadable graphs. It will be a great example for future presentations.
This is nitpicky. There's 2 graphs; the second one is totally readable... The first one gets it's main point across just fine.
> unreadable graphs
Can you explain your issues with the second graph, it seems perfect fine to me.
The first graph is merely "meh" ... the two key data points for this article are readily apparent: over all harvesting of tuna is increasing and the percentage of shipjack in that harvest is also increasing. What message was this graph supposed to communicate that it did not?
Can you explain your issues with the second graph, it seems perfect fine to me.
The first graph is merely "meh" ... the two key data points for this article are readily apparent: over all harvesting of tuna is increasing and the percentage of shipjack in that harvest is also increasing. What message was this graph supposed to communicate that it did not?
That is an interesting insight. I would like to learn more about making graphs that communicate well.
Can you share some specifics about how these graphs are unreadable, and how they can be improved?
Can you share some specifics about how these graphs are unreadable, and how they can be improved?
Uhm... did you look at them? They both use very very similar shades of blue for all of the series which makes them impossible to distinguish.
The second graph is a little better but even in that one the very similarly coloured blue lines cross each other so you have to really look closely to figure out which is which.
The second graph is a little better but even in that one the very similarly coloured blue lines cross each other so you have to really look closely to figure out which is which.
The second graph links to datawrapper.de. The shades of blue appear to be the default palette in that application. It wasn't a stylistic choice "blue because fish".
I tried one of datawrapper's sample data sets, "Gender pay gap" and added a couple of extra columns. The resulting line graph has four shades of blue.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/g98Jd/1/
(There are "base color" and "customize colors" buttons so the author could have changed this. Seems like a nice little app).
I tried one of datawrapper's sample data sets, "Gender pay gap" and added a couple of extra columns. The resulting line graph has four shades of blue.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/g98Jd/1/
(There are "base color" and "customize colors" buttons so the author could have changed this. Seems like a nice little app).
Yes. They both could have been better but both communicate their key message.
I guess the point is ... I've seen many, many examples of worse graphs, graphs where the point was obscured or graphs that were deliberately misleading; so I'm trying to figure out how these two are worthy of appearing in a presentation.
I guess the point is ... I've seen many, many examples of worse graphs, graphs where the point was obscured or graphs that were deliberately misleading; so I'm trying to figure out how these two are worthy of appearing in a presentation.
Hilariously bad colour choices. If you're talking about colour these are good examples of how not to do it.
the first graph is completely useless, how can you distinguish between all these similar shades of light blue?
If you're on a non-touchscreen device then there is a hover-over pop-up with the fish name and tonnage caught.
That still doesn't cut it: there are 18 fish in the graph key but at first glance the graph has around half that number. The others can be seen if you zoom right in but it's still not easy to hover over the pixel-wide slivers of similar blue.
That said I don't think the tonnage details are the point of this graph but rather a more general message: "Tuna fishing increased 6-fold over 65 years, skipjack makes up most of the increase". I think it communicates this message well. Perhaps more "infographic" than "graph"?
That still doesn't cut it: there are 18 fish in the graph key but at first glance the graph has around half that number. The others can be seen if you zoom right in but it's still not easy to hover over the pixel-wide slivers of similar blue.
That said I don't think the tonnage details are the point of this graph but rather a more general message: "Tuna fishing increased 6-fold over 65 years, skipjack makes up most of the increase". I think it communicates this message well. Perhaps more "infographic" than "graph"?
> “People with industry or regulatory agencies will tend to say things are okay. [...].”
Does anyone know why that is? Is it regulatory capture?
Does anyone know why that is? Is it regulatory capture?
There you have it.