The majority of wild animals ...
The majority of wild animals killed to grow crops are killed intentionally. Farmers do not shoot/trap/poison wild animals in the expectation that most will not be harmed.
The intent is to protect the crops not kill the animals. Like I said in the other thread, the solution is stricter farm regulations, NOT doing a whataboutery of a problem.
Say there is a house and hear a noise of a break in. The resident pulls the trigger and kills the tresspasser.
There is another house where a child one has adopted and brought up was killed by planning for years by a resident of the house.
Are these are killings the same. Since it's a same human life lost, are they the same?
No, this is not likely to be true. The total number of fishes killed by commercial fishing/farming is perhaps several trillions. Quadrillions of insects are killed on croplands. Even Fischer & Lamey's conservative estimate of "sentient" insects killed by pesticides came to over 10 trillion globally.
Like I said insects are lower in sentient hierarchy than fish.
Fish farms are generally a bad thing for the environment, but catching your own fish to eat is pretty low on the impact scale (providing one is careful with fishing tackle - discarded tackle is a big problem). All farms are harmful to the environment to some degree, but one of the worst forms of farming would be growing crops. I feel it would be hard to argue on environmental grounds that it is better to buy commercially grown crops than to catch one's own fish.
Our aim is also to reduce ecosystem disruption or destabilization. Every fish you catch is going to make the bigger fish or sharks hungrier, or if it's the biggest fish you catch, its going to make the medium fish numbers increase and they will overfeed on the young fish. Ecosystems are very complex . When we say the ecosystem is in a balance, it means all the animals food source, it's reproduction and survival is in balance. It's bad enough as it is how cruel nature is, the last thing we need is humans doing their share of cruelty.
The farms, as bad as they are, are the least in terms of ecosystem disruption per square area. With regulations we can make it even better.
Well, true up to a point. Most crops are grown for either human food or some kind of industrialised use such as biofuels. I suggest only about 20% of all crops grown are specifically for animal feed. Still, a lot of crops can be grown because the feed market exists as a potential buyer and without that I think farmers would be more judicious about how much to plant. The question - at least in terms of harm - is whether or not someone is likely to cause more animals to be harmed/killed by catching and eating fish versus eating the same quantity of protein bought from commercial cropping.
1/3 of agricultural land for crops, 2/3 of agricultural land for slaughter-animal grazing, Out of 1/3 crops, 50% for humans, 38% for slaughter-animals and 12% industrial and fuels. It is pretty bad.
If we gave up that 50% and relied entirely on fish, it would decimate the marine ecosystems. Per square area of distruption to food provided, farms are the best of the worst.
Whether you are responsible or not (and I'd say you are), the bottom line is that growing crops in today's context *does* require the killing of animals. Saying it doesn't hardly changes what does happen, does it?
Let me ask the question this way. If you could eat a year's worth of food and in one scenario, 100 animals are killed for you to do that. In the other, 120 animals are killed, plus land is cleared, water polluted and soils degraded. Which is better, from a preventing harm perspective?
Of course, I agree that veganism isn't only trying to prevent animals being harmed, but it's still a consideration. I don't think it's exploiting the fish and it is no more cruel than killing pest animals in croplands. I think there is a good argument for saying it is fairer to catch and eat one's own fish, IF there is no clear advantage in terms of harm for either.
I doubt the number of trespassing animals killed is more than the fish getting killed by humans.
Plus we are distrupting a larger area of a marine ecosystem, more animals killed because of distruption. Farms are sure have completely overtaken the original ecosystem and now have an artificial ecosystem of trespassers and pests. But per square area they are very efficient to produce food and ecosystem distruption.
Insects are lower in hierarchy than fish.
So we have:
Crop farms
#Smaller area of human induced distruption/destruction
#Efficient food generation per square area
#Lesser number of higher sentient animals(boars, rats etc) killed as side effect of protecting the crops. Can be addressed by farm regulations.
#Large number of lower sentient animals(insects) killed as side effect of protecting the crops. Can be addressed by farm regulations.
#The psychological impact. Would take the human appetite away from flesh and into less cruel plant based food. Would make the thought grow that animals aren't food.
Fishing
#Very large area of marine ecosystem getting disrupted by human activity.
#Inefficient food catch/generation per square area.
#Medium sentient animals(fish) killed in large numbers, as the PRIMARY INTENT of killing them and eating them.
#Other higher, medium and lower sentient animals killed due to ecosystem distruption.
#Would de-sensitise humans seeing dead animals on their plate. Not the way forward.
