Is a fish diet more ethical than plant based diet?

[Strugglepuss]

Funnily enough, I do.

A lot of people are nicer than me I will avoid stepping on critters if I happen to notice them, but only up to a point. I consider myself to be a natural beast, no different than an ape in the jungle (though hopefully slightly more intellectually evolved). If I eat a plant with a bug on it, and don't notice it, so be it. I recently fixed up a basement in an old house I own that had been neglected for years. There had to be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of spiders down there. If I had taken the time to save them before I started cleaning, renovating, and painting, I would have spent a month doing so and would still be at it. In fact, that process would never end. Even after doing a lot of painting, I still see spiders everywhere as I continue to fix things. I read somewhere that there are so many spiders that you are almost always within a couple of feet of one. I'm a biologist. There is a bug for every niche on the planet, way more than most of us think. Our senses limit our perception, so we don't give much thought about what we can't see - all the life forms that are all around us at every moment, from microbes to mites to tiny spiders. If we could see through microscopic eyes and only saw molecules, we'd realize that we are so infused with life in and all around us that there's really no separation between us, and that we are barely, if at all, an individual entity. So if I'm going to worry about the critters around me, where do I draw that line? Technically, to keep every living thing safe, I'd have to stay still and never move, have someone spoon feed me carefully with healthy foods, making sure not to eat anything that was harmful to the bacteria in my gut.

 

[digitarian]

I think this post really doesn't take into account all the ways vegan food can be raised without harming insects. If you take the most ethical fish-based diet with the most ethical vegan diet - the vegan diet wins. You can have indoor, vertical farms and bioreactors - which really avoid insects - and plant pest-resistant crops (lavender is one, but there's likely staple crops that're pest resistant - I believe peas are. At the very least you can use pest-resistant crops as a 'decoy' against your vulnerable ones). Maybe killilng salmon that're just sitting around waiting to die will take them out of their misery - but there's also a future where we can 3d print plant cells and avoid both worries of insects and harming plants. If you eat plants that avoid insects - then you can focus your time on how to improve the lives of animals in the wild - without killing them. Maybe even provide them plant food or nourish yourself to go up to said fish and spend your energy to entertain them to help them feel better. You don't even have to worry about eating these fish - as they tend to be the food source of other animals - it's for them to help these animals out - that you don't have to take it upon yourself. If you really care - try to help in the fight to protect such predators, like bears - from hunting, etc. and let them do the job of eating for you. In a perfect world, nature has no waste and takes care of itself.

 

[Stardust1986]

I’m sorry for writing so much. This topic is important to me so I couldn’t shorten it. Please read until the end, i bet you won’t regret it at all!
in the last thread, I figured out that I was not clear enough, so I’m posting this new thread because I really want to reach the truth. This was the last thread: EU - Consuming fish is more ethical than eating plants

What I said was:

People didn’t get it right in that thread, so I want to make this clear now: I hate animal abuse just as much as everybody else in this forum does, and I do not tolerate excuses. This is not an excuse, but a genuine ethical concern that has harmed my animal right activism(that’s right, I am a new activist). My ideal form of activism has been driven by my absolute hatred for the exploiting industries, and by my certainty that it is wrong, in every way , shape and form.
And another thing- I am not talking about a regular carnivorous diet(animal flesh, cheese, milk, honey and eggs), I am talking about a diet that includes only vegans stuff, and marine animals that we don’t feed with crop- Because vegan food production harms mammals, rodents and insects(and it’s not a troll, I truly care about insects because they obviously can feel). Keep in mind I’m not talking about cows for example or any other animals that we do feed with crops. I’m talking about marine animals that we just drag out of the ocean and kill them on the spot, without giving them any food.
And if you still think I should just ignore my ethical concern, keep in mind that the process of ignoring such ethical concerns- is the very reason why people do bad things and also don’t go vegan, therefore I refuse just letting it go.


the single legit claim that was brought up last thread was: fishing causes dropping garbage in the sea, and also sea pollution which also harms third side animals. However- I’m not sure that fishing harms animals less than vegan food production. But for now, It actually makes more sense to me that the crop process harms animals the most(because seriously- ants and insects must be huge in number where they grow the vegan stuff). This is the only argument I know of, that veganism might not completely destroy that easily, or not at all. It genuinely freaks me out because I used to think that veganism can destroy any single claim for animal eating, in terms of pure ethics, and pure objectivism.

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).

I want to clarify one more thing: don’t get me wrong- I still think veganism is overall better that the avarage carnivorous diet, no matter if eating fish is less harmful, because the avarage carnivorous diet is really also includes a lot of factory farmed animals, and also factory farmed fish.

a huge thanks to the people who read it so far. It’s really important to me. So if you got any useful piece of information about it, please let me know. I just wanna know for sure what is harmful the most- non factory farmed fish or vegan food. And please don’t bring up the assumption that indirect/unintentional killing is less bad than intentional, because I’m an educated vegan- I’m pretty aware about the consequences of my food choices. I am not ready to use the “unintentional assumption” as an excuse to not care about the objective suffering count of my choices.

 

[Stardust1986]

I personally wouldn't find eating honey inhumane either, but honeybees are threatened, so we have to advocate their survival by not taking their food. Responsible fishing isnt bad, in my opinion, but so many people are practicing unsubtainable fishing methods, so much that fish are in danger. If everyone just does their best to avoid them as food, their population can recover

 

[FredVegrox]

Regardless of what you think you know about it honeybees are being controlled and a number of them killed off, while honey the workerbees spend much of their lives getting nectar for, for feeding the young of their hives, is stolen from them, for the demand from people, that pays for that continuing, it is not appropriate treatment to bees. I care about sustainability in living, a whole lot, really. Yet animal treatment remains important, and proper treatment for them is essential in vegan values.

 

[FredVegrox]

There is nothing better than food from plants for us

 

[Col]

You are all being careful with your ethics which I respect, and these are practical issues that are interesting to discuss.
Where I live in the UK I have been told by beekeepers that if there were not any beekeepers there would not be enough bees in the country to support growing crops. I believe this to be true and unfortunately we are locked in to a symbiotic relationship with our bees. This is a situation that could be improved in encouraging wild bees more. Similarly the number of fish in the seas is reducing near where I am so I do not want to be part of the systematic culling. We are approaching a situation where they cannot just be taken from the wild indefinitely.
The other thing mentioned in the original post is rodents. The example of rodents being killed on vegetable farms is a valid concern in my view, I don't imagine they would be encouraged in meat farming so I feel it's not caused by a vegan or carnivorous choice, I think protected wild areas should be allocated to save field mice and other wild rodents that may be endangered.

 

[majorbloodnok]

...
Where I live in the UK I have been told by beekeepers that if there were not any beekeepers there would not be enough bees in the country to support growing crops. I believe this to be true and unfortunately we are locked in to a symbiotic relationship with our bees
....

Despite many - beekeepers included - holding this belief, it's based on an assumption. This article raises doubts about that assumption.

The article doesn't discuss the relationship between the honey bee and other bee species, but there is significant research on that subject. Very much summarised, the honey bee is a very successful generalist and so can retrieve nectar from a wide range of plants. Most other bees are rather more specialist, so if honey bees have flooded the area and done their stuff specialist bees can often find a real scarcity in their food sources and so dwindle in numbers.

On the flip side, many plant species have adapted their pollination techniques in line with the evolution of the more specialist species to form a significantly symbiotic relationship. If honey bees visit the plant, the pollination is rather less efficient than if done by a specialist species of bee, so the success rate for plant's reproductive cycle is diminished.

In short, bumble bees and red mason bees are far more effective pollinators than honey bees, but don't compete as well for the available food sources. Saturating an area with honey bees is no less detrimental than any other form of intensive farming, whereas balancing in favour of other bees produces a situation that can be just as effective as any other complementary form of agriculture.

I'm well aware you went on to suggest encouraging wild bees, but in practice it seems the best way to do that is curtail the number of honey bees being kept.

 

[Lou]

Where I live in the UK I have been told by beekeepers that if there were not any beekeepers there would not be enough bees in the country to support growing crops.

This is not a false statement. But it's what they say nowadays: Needs Context.

I'm not sure what the situation is in the UK. And I hate to admit it but I haven't read Major's suggested article. I'm pretty sure I should. Maybe later.

But I do know the situation here in California where a lot of America's food is grown and most of the world's almonds are grown.

Here in California, in February, Billions and billions of honey bees are shipped from all over the country. Almond trees have a short period in which to be pollinated. Thanks to the popularity of almond milk, there are millions of almond trees in our Central Valley.

The bee keepers who bring in these bees aren't even that interested in honey production. They get paid by the farmer for pollination. When the almond flowers are gone so are the bees. the beekeepers take them to the next crop or back home. They are essentially migrant farm workers.

The bees aren't competing directly with native species. Although honey bees aren't native to the region, almond trees are not native either. The native bees probably see an almond orchard as a giant dessert to be avoided.

 

[Lou]

..unfortunately we are locked in to a symbiotic relationship with our bees. This is a situation that could be improved in encouraging wild bees more.

Maybe. The real issue isn't honeybees. the real issue is monoculture.
Unless the crop you are growing is native - you can't depend on native bees but must use honey bees to do the pollinating.

Colony Collapse Disorder has put a spotlight on how dependent we are on honeybees. Creating an environment more friendly to native bees is part of a solution.

But maybe as part of that is reducing monoculture. Creating an environment that can support a resident poplulation of bees (honey bees or not) should help in restoring both our environment and the bees.

 

[Lou]

The other thing mentioned in the original post is rodents. The example of rodents being killed on vegetable farms is a valid concern in my view, I don't imagine they would be encouraged in meat farming so I feel it's not caused by a vegan or carnivorous choice, I think protected wild areas should be allocated to save field mice and other wild rodents that may be endangered.

I don't think any of rodents living on farms are even close to being endangered.

I also don't think farm machinery kills that many rodents. There have been at least 3 studies on how farm machinery affects small mammals. The one that I like to reference is the one where they. radio tagged mice. it turns out that the mice can hear the harvesters coming and run the other way. All of the mice who were tagged lived thru the harvesting (although no one knows what happens to the baby mice who weren't tagged).

Interestingly, all the radio tagged mice were gone in a day or two. Maybe they moved out of range but the biologists think that they were killed and eaten by predators after their cover was removed. So maybe in an indirect way, harvesting kills mice.

We have an endangered rat in my county. But he doesn't live in farms but in parks and he is endangered mostly because of habitat destruction. Land is expensive here so it's hard to create new parkland but what we have is protected. And places where the dusky footed wood rat are discovered end up being protected too.

 

[Col]

Thanks Lou and Majorbloodnok for the informed information about bees I think there is a lot more to it to what I was told,
I have found a vegan rewilding society in my area.
I encourage them how I can in a small garden,
There is a real symbiotic element to insects, for example bees and plants or aphids and ants but they deserve our respect.

I have been losing sleep over the rodents! Not literally but I live near a stream!
I feel it is some sort of propaganda towards meat eating, but the truth is that overall vegan food involves less killing than carnivorous diet.
Here is a report I found Peta.org How many animals does framing klll)
I was just trying to express a rational view with my concerns,
but if it is proporganda it has only strengthened my resolve to not be party to the killing as much as possible.

 

[majorbloodnok]

I don't think any of rodents living on farms are even close to being endangered.

Two off the top of my head; dormice (directly affected since they live in and around the crops) and water voles (indirectly affected as a result of the manifold conflicts between agriculture and natural waterways and wetland). Both species are struggling in the UK.

Agree with your earlier comment about monoculture.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Thanks Lou and Majorbloodnok for the informed information about bees I think there is a lot more to it to what I was told
....

No problem. It’s a voyage of discovery for us all.

...
There is a real symbiotic element to insects, for example bees and plants or aphids and ants but they deserve our respect.
...

Yes, they deserve respect. However, aphids are garden pests whether we choose to live with them or not. Ants are pretty evenly balanced benefits-wise. However, it saddens me that many beneficial species are vilified just for convenience’ sake, wasps being at the top of the list. Don’t flap about trying to hit them and they won’t sting you; they’ve far better things to do.

 

[Col]

No problem. It’s a voyage of discovery for us all.


Yes, they deserve respect. However, aphids are garden pests whether we choose to live with them or not. Ants are pretty evenly balanced benefits-wise. However, it saddens me that many beneficial species are vilified just for convenience’ sake, wasps being at the top of the list. Don’t flap about trying to hit them and they won’t sting you; they’ve far better things to do.

Incidently I have a peach tree and ants appeared firstly to swamp it but they themselves more or less farm aphids under the leaves to eat their secretions; this evidences how animals have an intelligence.
I could spray the tree with garlic as this would discourage the event which is not good for the tree, but ladybirds also eat the aphids and ladybirds themselves are less numerous now. Human farmers use copper sulphite poison which is not biodegradable even in the ground and harmful to surrounding run off areas. Farmers do not always need to wontonly kill pests - if this did not occur the future of our wildlife would be more assured as well as food plants being grown.
I think I will save the garlic spray to try what I can to protect a surviving ash tree in a tiny unowned parcel of land behind the fence from ash dieback.

 

[Lou]

Two off the top of my head; dormice

I thought Dormice live in the woods. if they do visit the farm for lunch then they can easily avoid the harvesters. More likely Dormice are endangered because they lost most of their habitat to stuff. Maybe farms.

 

[majorbloodnok]

I thought Dormice live in the woods. if they do visit the farm for lunch then they can easily avoid the harvesters. More likely Dormice are endangered because they lost most of their habitat to stuff. Maybe farms.

We’re coming from different directions to the same point. The common dormouse in the UK does indeed live in woodland, but is inextricably linked with farmland because of the similarly useful habitat in the hedgerow. Its decline isn’t as the result of being chopped by harvesters, but the combine harvester is the reason fields have become larger and hedgerows more scarce.

I was answering your specific comment about rodents on farms and whether or not any species were under threat. I know of no animals that are vulnerable to harvesters in operation, but Col’s point about the value of rewilding to build up scarce ecosystems is an important one, and it links back directly once again to your comment on monoculture. Eventually, intensive farming of any sort is damaging in so many ways.

 

[Lou]

We’re coming from different directions to the same point.

Yup. we are on the same page.
Its sort of the same here too.
The only way a corn farmer can make more money is to grow more corn. so corn is grown all the way to the edges.
People who live in corn country are living in a veritable food dessert. the famers no longer have the space to put in a few fruit trees or a little kitchen garden - it's just corn.

One of the things I like about the Slow Food Movement is that a slow food farm has many things going on. Some wood lot, some cattle grazing, some crops, stuff for chickens, stuff for hogs.

 

[Clarec36]

Thanks Lou and Majorbloodnok for the informed information about bees I think there is a lot more to it to what I was told,
I have found a vegan rewilding society in my area.
I encourage them how I can in a small garden,
There is a real symbiotic element to insects, for example bees and plants or aphids and ants but they deserve our respect.

I have been losing sleep over the rodents! Not literally but I live near a stream!
I feel it is some sort of propaganda towards meat eating, but the truth is that overall vegan food involves less killing than carnivorous diet.
Here is a report I found Peta.org How many animals does framing klll)
I was just trying to express a rational view with my concerns,
but if it is proporganda it has only strengthened my resolve to not be party to the killing as much as possible.

Hi! You may find this video helpful

The video explains that animals are killed in crop production. However, the animals people eat are also fed crops, and the crop calories are not efficiently converted into human edible food. And that’s even when we consider that they eat parts of the crops that we can’t. According to a research paper by the Livestock Policy Officer at the FAO (not a vegan friendly org) it takes about 6lbs of human edible food to produce 2 lbs of boneless meat. And if you look at the amount of calories the crops would provide if we just ate those instead of feeding them to animals that we the kill and eat, we have about a 1200 calorie loss. Essentially, if you choose to eat animals, you kill not only the animal, but contribute to more crop deaths because more crops had to be grown to feed the animals than just eating the crops themselves. A lot of land is used to grow livestock feed too. For example, the majority of corn for animals is grown in Illinois and Iowa. It takes up a majority of their agricultural land. Instead of growing large amounts of corn, the land can be used to grow apples, green beans, oats, onions, blueberries, peaches, rye barley and wheat, which currently account for only 25% of crops grown. I hope this information was helpful to you

 

[Tom L.]

....... I don't know, what is exploitation? Is it using an animal's lifecycle to produce something for us (eg wool)? I would say yes to that. Is it killing pest animals to grow crops? I would say no. Is it exploitation to kill an animal directly for food? Again, I don't think so. But a rather more benign interpretation of exploitation is the use of any resources for one's own benefit, so perhaps it does count for something. I still think that just leads us back to the problem of numbers if we want to count animals killed to produce crops.

(bold/italic emphasis mine) I very rarely give someone's post a "disagree", so I wanted to clarify why I did with your post of Oct. 8, 2021, which I've partially quoted. The emphasized part is what I was disagreeing with; the rest I probably have mixed views on.