is eating fish really that bad?
 

Do you think eating fish is bad? And what about sneaking in some dairy?

Hahaha. I don't think so but I'm not a vegan. It will ALWAYS depend who you talk to. Guess it depends on the real reason for the crusade your on. If it's to help the environment think about the pros and cons. If it's just because your peers are doing it. Go for it, have a piece of fish or a glass of milk. I won't tell. :wink: wine might be a better option, it's made of plants. :tongue:

You have to do what you feel is right for you. There is no one-size-fits-all.

I don't eat anything with mammary glands. That rules out all land and sea mammals (platypuses don't have nipples but they have mammary glands... lowest common denominator :biggrin: ). But I do eat fish and other seafood, and poultry (chicken, turkey, duck if I can get it). I'm not vegan, so I don't have a problem with dairy or honey or using animal products. Leather is questionable but often a necessary evil.

That said, there is a cognitive dissonance for me. I know that chickens and turkeys, stupid birds that they are, have a right to live. So do fish, probably one rung higher on the intelligence ladder than an amoeba. Yet, I don't know that I could go completely vegetarian and not eat any animals. It may be a cop out but I tell myself I'm probably Kshatriya from past lives, the ancient Indian varna ("caste") that includes warriors, law enforcement, societal protectors and guardians, and don't do well without eating animals.

So again, do what's right for you.

Lol, that sounds like me. Do whatever feels right within yourself. The only thing with fish imo is the plastic issue. Micro plastic they ingest, then of course so will we. I've found a great alternative for milk to go on cereal and in my coffee. It's called Oatly whole. Not sure if that's available where you are. I try and buy organic dairy if poss.

Ethically, there’s no meaningful difference between mammals, fish and birds here. They all feel pain and pleasure. The diets that idolize cows but ignore fish are cultural, and not really based on animal ethics, but more along the lines of “we like cow milk therefor cow is highly “evolved”. Fish and crocs are bad, mmmkay?”. Humans tend to like mammals more because we are mammals.

If one is concerned about the environment and impact of diet, but still wishes to eat meat, then it’s best to eliminate at least beef (main cause of deforestation and takes up too much land) and fish. With fish, the biggest issues are overfishing and by-catch. Dolphins are declining because of that. Fisheries can’t be trusted and farmed fish creates problems too.

I think the problem goes far beyond plastic because fish suffer too. Imagine yourself pulled under the water and struggling to get back to the air so that you can breathe. For fish, it is the opposite. Humans drag them up into the air and they can't breathe and it's like they're suffocating in the air because their gills can't get the oxygen that's all around them.

They even feel pain, fear and have some experience of joy and fun. Years ago, I came across the following, a video of a guy who plays with his pet fish and he says, she looks for him and comes to the corner seeking attention. It's actually pretty cute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BVMyfFhjW8

People will have a variety of ethical stances, but I take a purely nutritional standpoint, and from that perspective there is no such thing as bad food. Fish is nutrient dense, a leading protein source, rich with essential fatty acids, A,B,D and K vitamins and some minerals. Some folks might not want to eat fish, but that only means they need to get the nutrients from other food sources.



The whole problem with ethical eating is not eliminating animal products per se, but eliminating animal products at the expense of adequate nutrition. As we eliminate more food options from our diets it becomes increasingly difficult to get the nutrition we need, so personally I don't advocate eliminating any food options. For example, vegans eliminate a vast array of animal products, but they also present with a host of issues related to poor nutrition and the majority of them go back to animal food to save their deteriorating health. It's remarkable that vegan eating is socially projected as 'good' both ethically and nutritionally. It can be a healthy way of eating, but you need to know nutrition and take a few supplements. Most people don't know these things, so they lack essential nutrients, and their heath deteriorates.


That said, this is my comment - don't restrict your diet to the detriment of your nutrition. If you really need dietary advice, see a properly qualified dietitian

I shouldn't have used the word only.

So do all animals that are deliberately killed when humans need to eat food (domesticated or wildlife). With this topic of fish it's once again a matter of ecology, and not human projection of ''rights''. If it's about rights than the dolphins and the bears shouldn't eat fish too, as fish ''suffer'' at the hands of other animals as well.

Veganism conflates ethics with ecology/environment. As I've done volunteering for a number of environment and nature organizations over many years I've come across a fair number of vegans and this conflation and inability to see that the two (animal welfare and environment) don't always match is a painful show to watch.

This is about ecology, not ''suffering''. If it was about suffering than no human or animal should exist in this world because their breeding will continue to perpetuate suffering. So ask yourself if this is really about ''suffering'' or something else.

Well it's not good for the fish that suffocate and die in the nets or those that have no space to swim in a crowded factory farmed fish tank. It's also not good for the millions of dolphins, sea turtles and other marine life that might unintentionally be killed because they get caught in sea nets.

It's also has health risks such as mercury and saturated fat.