And yet, I think that the example of Al Gore framing the Climate Change issue as a moral one is the best approach. If you go at it from other angles, like economic for instance, you wind up trying to quantify matters that are not easily quantifiable (the numbers exist but I’d submit that the uncertainty boundaries are wide), plus you try to make an argumentation platform when the reality is that the economics change over time. Worst of all, you often cede the field to where opponents are stronger anyways (we don’t pay for clean air now–why should we in the future, etc.).

When you go for the moral angle the issues are clearer and they probably won’t change over time. Is this the world you wish to leave to your children and grandchildren? Are you proud of your stewardship of the world and it’s resources? Would you drink the water from this outflow pipe you are responsible for?

While I’m not sure how far aquaculture could go in reducing the stresses or successful such would be, I know here in the US it has developed quite a lot – it is actually what is used for all of the oyster production along the Oregon coast and there has been quite a bit of success with some fisheries in other areas (almost all lake and stream game fish are the result of fisheries, for example). As pointed out it is not so much the fishing and eating of the fish as it is a matter of how the fishing is done. Trawlers are very destructive to the entire fishery, along with being brutally destructive to the subsistence fishermen.

It is a very difficult discussion, with no easy answers. I hope all the vested parties are able to continue to make progress on finding long term viable solutions.

HS: “Eating domesticated animals like chickens seems to me far more sustainable than fishing.”

What are you basing this on?

HS: “Fish are a part of wildlife, livestock are not.”

Yes, which is why I mentioned aquaculture as a solution.

HS: “You could have ’sustainable fisheries’, but how would you go about verifying its sustainability?”

Environmental impact analysis; same as we do with hog farms.

HS: “It’s far too much trouble just to eat fish, which you can easily exclude from your diet. I honestly don’t see the problem at all.”

I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

Eating domesticated animals like chickens seems to me far more sustainable than fishing. Fish are a part of wildlife, livestock are not. You could have ‘sustainable fisheries’, but how would you go about verifying its sustainability? It’s far too much trouble just to eat fish, which you can easily exclude from your diet. I honestly don’t see the problem at all.

Plus, how can you be okay with waiting around for all 3rd world and developing countries to “hopefully” become wealthy enough to switch from seafood? The sad reality is that there will probably always be poor people, and besides, the oceans can’t wait that long.

Also, terrestrial animals as a source of protein isn’t exactly sustainable. Are you suggesting everyone switch to soy?

How so? It seems to me, an easy solution if you can stomach (pun!) the idea of excluding SOMETHING from your diet. Yes, many countries depend on fish, but a third world country or developing country hopefully won’t stay that way forever. In the future, they could slowly switch from seafood based to something more sustainable. In the meantime, us ‘wealthy’ folks can just stop eating seafood this very moment.

Jonsi: “We can allow much of the world to get their protein needs from seafood while we choose to go another direction, and that is where shame has a role.”

What you seem to be saying is that if only 1st world countries stopped eating seafood the oceans would be fine and the billion or so people who depend on seafood would be a sustainable number for our oceans. I don’t think that’s nearly enough to curb overfishing.

My short answer is more and better aquaculture.