Re: Call To Ban All Fishing In 1/3 Of World's Seas

"usual suspect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jon Janssen wrote:
> > This is a good wake-up call maybe,
>
> No, it's not an alarm; it's just alarmIST.
>
> > about how much food humans consume,
>
> There are over six-billion of us now. We must eat something.

>
> > the degree humans can degrade ecology,
>
> We're pretty good stewards of our resources, despite some excesses in
> fairly recent history. We're not like other species that wipe out entire
> ecosystems since they're unable to plan for future generations.
>
> > and possibly questioning humans eliminating species...
>
> Most extinction has occurred without ANY human involvement. Indeed, most
> extinction on our planet occurred before Homo sapiens sapiens happened
> along.
>
> > and maybe even the question of using them as tools
>
> What question is that?
>
> > From what i've read, there's much less harm done in the process of
killing
> > fish, compared to the suffering of chickens, pigs, calves (veal -
> > inseparable from the dairy industry- cows only lactate because of
pregnancy,
> > like humans), and hens for eggs.
>
> Veal is not inhumane in and of itself, especially when grown outside of
> the conditions misrepresented as the norm by ARAs. That's true of all
> animal husbandry. Your ARA friends are showing you the worst examples,
> all of which are punishable in western nations. FWIW, US veal is grown
> with a healthful diet, plenty of room to move around, and the ability to
> see other livestock (i.e., they're not isolated in tiny crates).

Crap.

http://tinyurl.com/lvo5
http://tinyurl.com/lvod
http://tinyurl.com/lvoh
http://www.osseoplastics.com/hutches.htm


>
> > It might be the case that if there is a ban on fish, many people will
> > replace the fish flesh with the flesh of other animals....
>
> Yes, this is what will happen. Rather than consuming fish, which has
> beneficial fats that help raise LDL and lower LDL, they'll turn to
> livestock like lamb, beef, pork, and poultry.

This is what may happen. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

>
> > if the
> > authorities would be promoting consuming more plant foods, i'd support
it
> > strongly.
>
> Do you take marching orders from authority figures? Why should we care
> what the "authorities" promote?
>
> > Scarey stuff, seen a lot on the state of the oceans and other water we
> > depend upon, and it's shocking that there isn't a gigantic effort to
make
> > things better.
>
> Bullshit. The fishing industry wants sustainability and profits. What
> good is a profit today if there's no chance of one tomorrow? That's why
> the fishing industry is working for sustainable practices.

Crap. Some fishermen what sustainability. Some what whatever they can get.

>
> > Though as long as elected officials owe favors to the
> > industry groups who have donated large amounts of money...
>
> Bullshit. Why do you fail to take on AR groups and other anti-business
> PACs who spread around just as campaign funding? Two sides of the story,
> and you're going against the one for jobs, a strong economy, and a
> sustainable future.
>
> > gov't efforts
> > aren't likely to do anything that will reduce profits of the very
industries
> > who are giving them money.
>
> You're naive and ignorant. Money given to campaigns isn't for personal
> use, at least in these United States. You fail to assess *any* blame on
> anti-business PACs, AR groups, and other assorted influence peddlers on
> the other side of the issue, whose ideas often mean fewer jobs, less
> competition, and other economically insane positions.
>