That’s not so simple. Subsistence fishing is the sole means of livelihood and self-sustenance for a significant global population. It provides essential food security and supports local economies, particularly in coastal and island communities. This traditional practice ensures families have direct access to nutritious seafood, often using simple, low-cost methods. It is crucial for maintaining resilience in the face of environmental and economic challenges.
There’s only a very small amount of humans living off fishing. If those were the only ones, there would be no problems. These people do not justify any fishing for people who don’t need fish to survive.
Common misconception. It’s simple supply and demand. Do you think people would be destroying the seas if nobody would pay them for it?
@x00z @nsrxn
That’s not so simple. Subsistence fishing is the sole means of livelihood and self-sustenance for a significant global population. It provides essential food security and supports local economies, particularly in coastal and island communities. This traditional practice ensures families have direct access to nutritious seafood, often using simple, low-cost methods. It is crucial for maintaining resilience in the face of environmental and economic challenges.
There’s only a very small amount of humans living off fishing. If those were the only ones, there would be no problems. These people do not justify any fishing for people who don’t need fish to survive.
supply and demand is a theory about price discovery. it has no bearing on this discussion.
If no one ate fish anymore, would it still be profitable to fish in an industrial style?
I don’t think that’s likely to happen. do you have another method that might be effective?
You’re claiming my choice has no impact, but it does because of supply and demand. It’s very small, but it’s still there.
this is just handwaiving. supply and demand isn’t a magic phrase that makes your actions have the desired effect.
That’s why I’m sharing the solution:
Don’t contribute to the problem.
If we don’t eat fish there would be close to no nets in the oceans.
that hasn’t worked so far.
Yeah because there’s too many people who are too stubborn to give it up.
regardless of the excuses you want to make for your plan’s ineffectiveness, I’m trying to find an effective solution
Maybe you can get people to stop eating fish, so fishermen lose their job of destroying the sea.