Is a fish diet more ethical than plant based diet?

[poivron]

The OP appears to be working under the assumption that fishes are not conscious, or that if they are conscious, they must be so at a lower level than land animals.

Anyone who is unaware of the recent research on fish consciousness should watch the following video:

and read the book that inspired it, "What a Fish Knows" by Jonathan Balcombe. It's very difficult, once one knows the truth, to justify eating fishes.

 

[poivron]

the other claim that was brought up was that an avarage fish we kill also eats let’s say 5 times his weight. This claim is genuine but irrelevant, since unlike factory farmed animals, we do not make fish pregnant(don’t make them give births). Therefore, the quantity of the animals the fish eat is not increased by our consumption, unlike cows for example(that we rape to give birth).

You misunderstood (or intentionally misstated) the comment I made in the other thread. The factor of five refers to the fish who are actually removed from the ocean. In other words, five pounds of fishes are killed in order to bring one pound of fish to market. In other words, in the process of catching the fish that you eat, the industry kills many, many times more fish. The people who work in the fishing industry don't go and wait all day long to catch a fish so that they can take it to market and sell it to you. They use humongous nets, or they scrape the bottom of the ocean floor, destroying entire ecosystems.

It's pretty clear that the OP is a troll, but I feel it's necessary to correct the misinformation they have posted here, in case someone else reads this thread.

 

[Lou]

probably unnecessary for me to say .... but...
Fishing is also destroying habitat. Ruining fisheries. endangering fish populations. and damaging the ocean ecosystem.
In what world is that ethical.

 

[Graeme M]

It's pretty clear that the OP is a troll

Just as an aside, the original poster's name was Ohad. He seems not to have contributed since then, but he did identify that he is an animal rights activist. I do not think he is a troll. I do know that name and had previously seen some of his work and it's likely this is the same person.

Life According to Ohad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As to eating fish, I still think there is a strong case for eating fish you catch yourself. Sure, one *could* find ways to source plant-based foods grown without very much associated harm, suffering and death, but realistically that is unlikely.

Is it exploitation to kill an animal directly for food? Again, I don't think so.

@Tom L. feels I am wrong here, and he may be right. Certainly I think most vegan interpretations would say so. My view is slightly different. The exploitation we worry about is the unfair use of another for our benefit. "Fairness" is what counts here, which is why we *can* use people to benefit ourselves, providing we are fair when we do so. Breeding animals purely to take advantage of their lives and reproductive lifecycles does seem unfair, especially if they suffer greatly in the process. However, hunting and killing another animal for food and fibre does not seem inherently unfair. There are various nuances I could talk to but for now, I think that killing other animals is fine when necessary or when it seems the least unfair option. So, I think catching one's own fish to eat is fair and probably less harmful than eating typical plant-based alternatives.

 

[silva]

You misunderstood (or intentionally misstated) the comment I made in the other thread. The factor of five refers to the fish who are actually removed from the ocean. In other words, five pounds of fishes are killed in order to bring one pound of fish to market. In other words, in the process of catching the fish that you eat, the industry kills many, many times more fish. The people who work in the fishing industry don't go and wait all day long to catch a fish so that they can take it to market and sell it to you. They use humongous nets, or they scrape the bottom of the ocean floor, destroying entire ecosystems.

It's pretty clear that the OP is a troll, but I feel it's necessary to correct the misinformation they have posted here, in case someone else reads this thread.

Did you really read through the Ohads post, or just skim and make assumptions?

 

[poivron]

Did you really read through the Ohads post, or just skim and make assumptions?

I read the whole thread, including the original thread in which I posted the factor of five comment. My original comment was clear, but they misrepresented it in a new thread, making it difficult for me to realize that my statement had been misrepresented.

I do not think that it is responsible or benign to make a thread titled in such a way that the title, on its own, spreads misinformation (by suggesting that there is even a question about this). Every time anyone posts anything in this thread, what comes up under "New Posts" is a suggestion that eating fishes may be more ethical than eating plants.

Thank you for demonstrating the nastiness that is typical of this forum. If you ever wonder why more people don't participate, this is the reason.

 

[poivron]

As to eating fish, I still think there is a strong case for eating fish you catch yourself. Sure, one *could* find ways to source plant-based foods grown without very much associated harm, suffering and death, but realistically that is unlikely.

Killing and eating a fish is as ethical as killing and eating a dog. A fish is no less conscious, and no less intelligent, than a dog. A fish being pulled out of the ocean suffers no less than a dog being strangled.

I strongly urge you to watch the video I posted above ("How Conscious Can a Fish Be") and read the book I recommended ("What a Fish Knows" by Jonathan Balcombe).

 

[Lou]

I read the whole thread, including the original thread in which I posted the factor of five comment. My original comment was clear, but they misrepresented it in a new thread, making it difficult for me to realize that my statement had been misrepresented.

I just reviewed this thread. but I'm not sure what the "orriginal thread" was or where it is now.
So I'm not sure how your comments was misrepresented

I do not think that it is responsible or benign to make a thread titled in such a way that the title, on its own, spreads misinformation (by suggesting that there is even a question about this).

there is nothing wrong with questioning. I realize that trolls or whatever will sometimes post questions that are sort of like traps. And of course sometimes they spread misinformation. but I don't think that is the case here.

Every time anyone posts anything in this thread, what comes up under "New Posts" is a suggestion that eating fishes may be more ethical than eating plants.

well not a suggestion - a question.
and I think posting questions and getting clarifications is healthy.

Thank you for demonstrating the nastiness that is typical of this forum. If you ever wonder why more people don't participate, this is the reason.

Nastiness? I must be missing something. or perhaps you are more sensitive to it than I.

 

[silva]

I read the whole thread, including the original thread in which I posted the factor of five comment. My original comment was clear, but they misrepresented it in a new thread, making it difficult for me to realize that my statement had been misrepresented.

I do not think that it is responsible or benign to make a thread titled in such a way that the title, on its own, spreads misinformation (by suggesting that there is even a question about this). Every time anyone posts anything in this thread, what comes up under "New Posts" is a suggestion that eating fishes may be more ethical than eating plants.

Thank you for demonstrating the nastiness that is typical of this forum. If you ever wonder why more people don't participate, this is the reason.

I didn't mean any kind of nastiness in my comment. Titles everywhere are often created to suck you in, and often meant for those with opposing views who wouldn't normally be interested if they didn't align with preconceived views. Here of course it gets people who are already against what the title is suggesting but Ohad has expanded on our preconceived notions to get us to think outside our box.

I can accept that animals are food, that everything that lives is food. There is a very vast world with people who lives are far different from mine. I am not about to judge their fishing or hunting to provide for their families/communities. There are definitely situations where enforcing a vegan lifestyle could incur more harm than good (and not only for the humans)

 

[g0rph]

I can accept that animals are food, that everything that lives is food. There is a very vast world with people who lives are far different from mine. I am not about to judge their fishing or hunting to provide for their families/communities. There are definitely situations where enforcing a vegan lifestyle could incur more harm than good (and not only for the humans)

This is definitely true.
I've been thinking about some arguments made that I have seen on other forums. And whilst they are generally irrelevant "on a global scale", they do merit thought on a local scale.

If someone lives remotely, and they fish for their food in a local lake, river or coastline, then from a utilitarian POV, they could be contributing less to animal suffering and deaths than someone who drives to the nearest supermarket and buys only plant-based food.
Same if someone raises or hunts for 1 or 2 larger animals, cow, deer etc and uses those throughout the year.

Now I wouldn't personally want to live this way. I doubt I have it in me to kill a cow or a deer for instance.
But compare
Person A - Kills and eats 2 deer or raises and kills 2 cows a year, fishes in a local river, has a vegetable garden and is 80% self-sufficient.
Person B - Buys mass-produced vegan food from the store and eats vegan fast food at restaurants for all their meals.

From a utilitarian perspective, person A is likely creating less suffering than person B.
Are they more ethical though?

It would be interesting to hear people's thoughts.
On the one hand, person A is consciously ending lives for their own benefit. But if they are doing that because they are trying to reduce their footprint of harm done by the mass-production of vegan food then?

 

[Graeme M]

If someone lives remotely, and they fish for their food in a local lake, river or coastline, then from a utilitarian POV, they could be contributing less to animal suffering and deaths than someone who drives to the nearest supermarket and buys only plant-based food.
Same if someone raises or hunts for 1 or 2 larger animals, cow, deer etc and uses those throughout the year.

I think this is true. I don't believe that veganism, at least as conceived by the UK Vegan Society in their most recent definition, claims that humans should never use or kill other animals. First because their aim is subject to real world conditions, and second because behaving accordingly is a personal choice subject to one's circumstances. If someone's own take on things is that it is less harmful to hunt for their food - and that could be true - then hunting for their food seems consistent with veganism.

I take the view that humans can use and kill other animals for resources and food whenever necessary. That is how we lived in the distant past and many live today and there is nothing immoral about this. The reason for ideas like veganism is modern circumstances. The extraordinary power imbalance between humans and other species, allied with the vast reach of human civilisation, means we should wish to be much fairer in our dealings with other species. Hence my view that veganism is essentially the idea that we should have moral concern for other animals and seek to be fair to them when our actions affect them. But I don't think that means never harming them or eating them in any circumstances.

I don't think of veganism as any kind of "natural state" of humans, but rather a modern response to modern conditions.

 

[g0rph]

I don't think of veganism as any kind of "natural state" of humans, but rather a modern response to modern conditions.

Oddly, I think veganism, or at least plant-based eating and ethical treatment of all species IS the natural state. Or at least the state we are evolving toward.
The evolutionary lottery gave us increased intelligence. And over millions of years (or hundreds of thousands as homo species) it has gradually increased our empathy. For good reason. Increased empathy to others means less risk of harm to ourselves. And I think that extends beyond homo-sapien.

The sci-fi nerd in me imagines a galactic trading group, full of intelligent species. Right now, they are hiding their whereabouts from us because we are still savages, waging wars, fighting over whose deity is best and still torturing and killing sentient species even though there are easily obtainable alternatives. Once we've passed that hurdle we'll join the galactic trading group as the newest members..