I understand when people speak about the ethical problems with eating meat, but I think they do not apply to fish.

  • livus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I disagree. The two main arguments against eating land animals are 1) cruelty and deprivation of life and 2) effect on the planet.

    Both of these apply. Commercial fishing uses inhumane killing methods and fish are actually quite intelligent.

    Overfishing is completely destroying the ocean ecosystems and will even have a knock-on effect on land ecosystems eg salmon in rivers normally transfer masses of nutrients to land and trees via bears etc.

    • GONADS125@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The idea that fish do not experience pain is also ludicrous… They possess a central nervous system and can very much feel pain.

      I’m also opposed to catch & release fishing for fun/sport for this reason.

      Imagine a hyper-advanced species suddenly and painfully yanked you up into different atmospheric conditions where you’re desperately unable to breathe.

      Is it perfectly acceptable just because they put you back down in your natural environment before you died, with a new painful wound and traumatic experience?

      I certainly don’t think so…

      • Devi@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Their bodies are also formed to exist supported by the water. When taken out their very bodies are crushing their organs. It’s grim.

    • Alue42@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      OP didn’t specify commercial fishing. What about traditional fishing practices, or a singular fisher catching for himself/family?

      • Zarxrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        Commercial fishing just makes it happen at scale a lot more efficiently. If every person who ate fish was out there fishing for themselves, I would imagine it would be a significantly larger impact than the commercial fishing.

        • Alue42@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          You are deliberately not answering the question.

          “If every person that ate fish was out there…” exactly - they purchase fish caught commercially because either they don’t know how to catch their own fish or they don’t have access to catch their own fish (access either with time, money, or physically). Commercial fishing solves that by precisely doing it “at scale a lot more efficiently” as you pointed out and ships the fish to where people will purchase it.

          I didn’t ask “what if everyone went out and did it themselves”

          I asked your thoughts on people who DO fish for themselves, or those using traditional fishing practices.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        @Alue42 but that then still maps closely onto the ethical issues around meat-eating per se versus eating the products of commercial meat production.

        Which makes eating fish no different to eating other kinds of meat in terms of the ethics.