Pants-of-Dog, trying to win the consolation prize in a vegetarian argument he created, wrote:Like fishing does.
Fishing is as harmless as hunting venison. It's
less harmful than venison consumption as long as it's done within the limits of not altering the natural population.
It would theoretically be perfectly green to eat fish if they are caught - like venison - by hand in a primitive way that guarantees that their numbers remain ideal. With both wild fish and wild game, it's theoretically possible to
live off the interest.But this would probably mean a
95% vegetarian diet complimented by occasional fish or venison. Most people can't afford venison, and with 7 billion people, it's probably best to think of how to eat minnows or other small fish that mature quickly. Or insects or pests, as another poster suggested.
In the meantime, a 95% vegetarian diet complimented by fish or dairy products is the safest and sanest diet for our current planet. This is the advice I would give to most people. Advising them to eat purely vegetarian, or to consume organic-fairtrade-local makes it too easy to slip back into high-meat, low veg eating. And pure vegetarianism can make you really sick, even if you think you know a lot about nutrition. I wouldn't want my advice to make people really sick, would you?
As a significant number of humans become vegetarian, the dietary science will accumulate, and we will understand nutrition enough to completely forgo unsustainable dietary cultures.
Our gods speak to us as if we were children, and we respond by never growing up
(ie. marketing destroys epistemology)