this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
13 points (63.3% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26909 readers
1848 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 35 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Why do you think they do not apply?

Some reasons why I think they apply:

  • fish are animals
  • industrial fishing is destroying the oceans and sea life (way more is killed than what ends up sold and eventually maybe eaten)
  • international waters are a lawless playground for every abuse imaginable

I eat fish so I am not playing the guilt game, they're just the ethical considerations I can think of.

[–] PP_BOY_ 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Counterpoint: we really don't know how much self-awareness fish have versus the mammals that the OP seems to be referring to. Call it gross anthropocentrism, but most people respect the lives of non-humans in terms of intelligence. Pigs are pretty well understood to he intelligent and are probably conscious of what's going on around them. Some shrimp? Maybe not.

This doesn't really address the meta concerns w/r/t procurement in your comment, but if I had to choose between a plate of fish or a plate of pork, this would be my thought process.

[–] ozymandias117 14 points 9 months ago (5 children)

We do know octopi, for example, can solve complex puzzles

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just to be the super-nerd, octopus is not a regular latin word.
I think it is actually a greek loan word in latin.

So the plural is either octopodes to follow the original greek or octopuses in regular english.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The correct plural is whatever word you say that people understand as meaning more than one octopus. That's how language works.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

If enough people make a language mistake, it becomes a rule.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PP_BOY_ 3 points 9 months ago

That's true, and a lot of westerners take issue with octopus as food

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

@ozymandias117 octopuses can also teach puzzlesolving to others and also display altruism.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

@PP_BOY_ but more and more research is showing us that fish are smart.

E.g goldfish driving "cars" around in a room, the research on those fish that choose eels to hunt with and communicate via gesture, etc

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Zarxrax 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In a global ecological sense, it is worse to eat fish than pork, we are sucking the seas dry, we have known it for decades, and invented new methods to do it more efficiently.

With land animals you can see the conditions and the effect of over production, with fish you don't, and we keep at it.

Grown fish is less bad, but still contribute to pollution of the seas.

Trawling should be banned globally for a minimum of 50 years.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We have also invented ways to do it more sustainably, and even have handy wallet sized Sustainable Seafood Lists for each region of the US to make sure you make sustainable choices when eating at restaurants or purchasing at the market
Seafood Watch Guides

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

@Alue42 we used to have these in New Zealand. It was a card you could keep in your wallet, listed all the common eating fish from best to worst, with sustainable ones coded green at the top and endangered ones in red.

But it was depressing over the years with each new edition to slowly see all those green fish turning orange and then red as each species became depleted.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Was that particular fish a dick?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Spiny dogfish. Those spiny, bait-stealing little jerks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] roofuskit 10 points 9 months ago

They are certainly a lot of issues with eating fish. Maybe not the same as factory farmed land animals. More along the lines of extinction of species and the destruction of ecosystems. It's worth looking into if it's something you are concerned with. There's also indirect cruelty to more intelligent species like dolphins.

[–] pavnilschanda 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Fishing is industrialized too, so that can be a problem, specifically with the aquatic ecosystem. For vegans, fish still have a central nervous system so they are deemed undesireable. I still would eat fish because of health reasons, though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

I'm reminded of the thought experiment of the vegan oyster.

The oyster lacks a CNS and cannot feel pain or suffering. It's farming is a net benefit on the environment its in as it acts as a natural filter for purifying waterways. It is nutritious. Is it vegan? If not, why? Is it that is merely alive? How does that differ from a plant or mushroom?

While I don't think one could seriously suggest an oyster is vegan friendly food, it's an interesting line of thinking to inspect one's own values.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

On a simple level I'd say it depends on the brain structure so it'd vary by fish species even. Though as others have said, things like living conditions and overfishing are ethical issues nonetheless.

Though I just wanted to post this silly video, Would You Eat a Fish if it had Arms and Legs? by Mattias Pilhede. Mirror link

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

All I can say is I truly embrace the fact that I'm a human and an omnivore. I don't deny there are ethical horrors with the way animals are raised for slaughter, it's quite disgusting in fact. But I ALSO can't deny that I love eating meat off the bone - chicken wings, spare ribs, steak, you name it. When I'm eating meat I'm very happy indeed. And I don't try to pretend I can justify it as somehow OK with regard to how the animals are slaughtered.

I'm a walking contradiction in many regards. I don't try to reconcile my love of meat with my love of animals. I have both, and they sometimes are in conflict. I eat all kinds of things, veggies and grains and all kinds of stuff, but my primary love is meat. I don't deny it, and I don't justify it. It is what it is, and so am I.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What about eating meat is ethical or unethical and how does that apply or not apply to eating fish?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

extreme environmental issues, mass execution of innocence, destruction of indigenous culture and land.

theres definitely a couple easy ones to point to.

idk why it wouldnt apply to fish

[–] Paragone 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Depends on the perspective being considered:

Are fish sentient? Yes.

Are they very sentient, with lots of free-will? No.

Does our current industry's completely-gutting the marine food-chain have global consequences? Yes.

How are we doing with respect to keeping that food-chain alive? Terrible: any species that becomes our industrial prey, gets reduced to 10% of its normal population within 1 decade.

Cod used to live to be about 80y old, ttbomk, now they live to be 8, or less.

The smashing of the coral-forests they breed in, at the bottom of the ocean, with dragger-nets ( falsely called "rock hoppers" ), means the cod-fishery collapsed & stayed collapsed, and all fisheries are "managed" like that, by lobbying to protect industrial-ignorance.

Accountability won't ever happen, because industry/money won't tolerate that.

There's a ScientificallyTestablePrediction in the Christian bible, in Rev, that both terrestrial & marine food-chains collapse ( at the time of the "3rd Seal" ).

That is going to happen this century, no matter what political/religious rabies goes rampaging where.

All the political & religious & food-insecurity & ClimatePunctuation wars that we must enact in order to "manage" our unconscious-minds' stress/fear/panic, and all of the nihilist malicious-actors ( China cyaniding other country's seas, because those other countries are not breaking & obeying China, in recent news )..


Morality is contextual.

Personal-context can say 1 thing, or another, global context can be quite different.

Buddha said that eating the flesh of another's life was faulty because they never consented to be butchered/consumed, and that is true.

I can't remember what other reasons were given, that one stuck on me.

I don't eat any meat, or that aweful "Beyond Meat" or "Impossible Meat" stuff, because I can't then reach the meditations I'm using to rip my continuum out from this world's ideology-driven death-spasms, and remaining in this world, now, is indulging in being ground-to-hamburger, in my eyes.

I want out.

Eating meat of any kind blocks me from progressing on that through the meditations, exactly as the ancient rishis of India said.

That tested to be true.


You have to live with yourself, not with my conscience.

You decide on your own morality: you have to live with it.

I've never bothered learning the "precepts" or any of the other stuff of AwakeSoulism/Buddhism: I care about results, not about dogma.

What tests to be true, that is worth relying-on, for me.

_ /\ _

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

"It's okay to eat fish 'cause they don't have any feelings." - Nirvana

[–] Zehzin 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

My entire ethical framework for what animals are ok to eat is wether or not it's cute.

I say eat them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Could you envision a fish so cute you would feel it is unethical to consume it?

[–] Zehzin 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I started imagining what it would look like and it was just a baby seal

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Fish would eat you if they got the chance.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›