PRC fishing mostly on international waters is an act of war now? NVM PRC DWF about as well behaved as other distant fishing fleet in terms of clipping EEZs and they're still underfishing per capita relative other large fishing powers, i.e. they're taking less from commons then entitled.

Countries dependent are migratory transnational resource extraction are frankly living on a retarded business model and have only themselves to blame. Reminder 80% of PRC fish comes from sustainable aquaculture that control in their soveign waters. That's your sustainable ecology model, but it requires capex / infra to manage husbandry instead relying on gaia like some hunter gather.

I was going to post the exact same comment. The Chinese, and probably others, are not cooperating and are basically stripping the oceans clean. So it really doesn't matter what anyone else does when there are such egregiously bad actors present. Now every budding Maoist sympathizer on here can downvote me, lol.

Did you mean black soldier fly? Farming them is a thing and there should be a lot more of them -- converting waste to protein is a major win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetia_illucens

There are countless carbon sinks within the ocean. It finds its way into the shells of creatures (calcium carbonate) and hangs around for a very long time in solid form. And lots of creatures die/defecate, that sinks to the bottom of the sea, and much of the carbon there doesn't rise back up since not all of it is consumed.

And when you're spreading seaweed over a fish farm, a good chunk of that is flowing back out into the ocean and contributing to the cycle of carbon deposits.

https://animatingcarbon.earth/fish-the-excretion-effect-boos...

By avoiding fishing, you stop damaging many of the carbon sink systems in the ocean, and so as a second-order effect improve the sinks we used to have.

Shitting it will not release it into the air. Maybe a small percentage, depending on it's circuit in nature. But yes, your point about the CO2 circuit stands.

Over time it would gradually remove CO2 since not all of it goes back, but stuff like this isn't even a rounding error compared to the amount of CO2 we'd need to remove.

Planting billions and billions of trees would pull a lot more, but still would only make a small dent. Greening large desert regions with large scale water and local climate engineering projects, ocean seeding, etc. would also pull more but still only make a dent.

Tell that to the anti-cow people, they will have a cow

he's saying the plant breathes the CO2 then turns it into food, then you feed that food to the fish instead of other fish, putting the carbon back into the life cycle

and the earth probably did turn into an ice ball millions of years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

To clarify for other readers... The point about "Schizochytrium is not algae" is that they do not photosynthesize and thus don't create sugars from CO2. Rather, this organism is a heterotroph and consumes various organic molecules from its environment. Industrial cultures are fed simple sugars and nitrogen sources, plus waste products like spent brewery yeast, cheese whey, and molasses.

Is that eating fish that fish eat or eating fish that eat other fish? And why?

We are going to end up without seafood eventually anyhow. There's no good solution, global fisheries will continue their collapse as long as we lean on them.

Of course it is. You just don't like the expectation. What we should do is eat waaay less meat and seafood. It takes less land, water, and outside calories to product veggies and beans over meat and fish. Obviously this is not a reality for many people on the planet but it also is a reality for many people on the planet who just choose not to do it.

Except they do!

Sea Shepard DOs:

- Document illegal fishing or whaling with evidence.

- Intervene to prevent illegal capture of protected species.

- Promote awareness and education about marine conservation.

- Buy local

- Boycott trawling method of catch

Unless the grow multiple species, it's pacific white shrimp [1] which seems to be a salt water species. Also the pictures do not look like Marcobrachium

[1] https://www.gourmets.net/salon-gourmets/2025/exhibitors-cata...

The color in the farmed Salmon is the same compounds as the wild:

https://www.dal.ca/news/2023/03/21/farmed-salmon-colour-heal...

The amounts differ, and the farm feed may be synthetic.

Greenhouse gas emissions shouldn't be the only factor people consider for sustainability of their food. In the case of fish, this very article talks about the issues with farmed fish. Even a plant-based diet can be filled with unsustainable sources, such as plantations that destroy endangered habitats for palm oil, or industrial farming operations that spray lots of pesticides to harm the insect population and allow lots of fertilizer runoff into natural waterways. We're still polluting and depleting resources for many many vegetarian foods in the world.

I'd argue that if we're looking for a full top-to-bottom sustainable food system, animals will play a role. But we need to be cognizant of the whole system, not playing whack-a-mole with issues.

"...among the most..."

According to your source, there are 15 sources of protein that emit less greenhouse gases (GHGs) per 100g of protein than farmed fish, including poultry and eggs, and 16 sources that emit more (including items that are not known for their protein content like coffee, apples, and dark chocolate). Being highly charitable, farmed fish is squarely in the middle.

Additionally, farmed fish emits twice the GHGs of tofu, and almost 22 times that of nuts. So just comparing placements on the list paints a misleading picture.

As for "not willing to go full vegetarian": you may as well say "not willing to stop eating fish", because they are equally unserious limitations when discussing these topics. "Not being willing" is only a slightly more mature version of a child saying "I don't want to".

Farmed seafood is among the worst garbage you can eat. Tons of antibiotics, growth hormones, fish are fed utter cheap junk so ie salmon meat has more like pork composition than a wild salmon, shrimp are even worse. If you ever saw a shrimp 'factory' and grow pond/cage and its surroundings in a typical 3rd world country where most come from, you wouldn't eat it for a long time if ever again. Literally nothing lives around those places.

Good in theory, horrible in practice.

Probably because just easier to catch a predatory fish than a land predator

Throw a line in the pond, whatever bites will bite. Clean it and you've got dinner.

Versus with hunting, historically (and even now) if you miss your shot or don't hit a part that immediately takes it down, now you've got an angry wolf/bear/moose bearing down on you. Wolf is also probably too close to dog for most cultures.

Nowadays you can get meat from bear/moose/whatever, but there isn't much of a culinary tradition associated with them. So the only people out for them are the curious or macho types

I have a redneck-y enough background to have eaten some predators. The meat doesn't taste as good. A lot of it is tougher or stringier. I think pigs are omnivores though, but I don't know what they are fed on farms.

I expect it has something to do with muscle and fat composition and the physical requirements of predating on land vs. in water. A followup question would be what about water-based mammal predators like seals and whales? And what about water-based herbivores like beavers? Can't say how it tastes personally.

Maybe because fish predators are still fish? So they still taste like fish. It seems fish-eating birds taste fishy, which is not really a desirable flavor in a bird. Maybe mammal predators are also not as tasty - then also what do you feed a farmed bear or a fox, they need to eat meat... So you'd feed them cows that we could eat ourselves? Or we raise rabbits just for them?

From a practical matter, most fish in the ocean feed on other marine life. herbivorous and omnivorous fish do exist but they are a bit more rare, and it is more common for smaller/juvenile fish. Also even among those that are primarily herbivorous, they usually go after eggs or very small fish which makes them omnivorous.

The most common fish that we eat are those that other fish also eat, like herring, and there aren't a good comparable land based animal in our current diet. It would be a bit like if a primary diet for humans would be wild rodents.

One reason could be that fish like herring schools, but wild rodents don't. It is easier to hunt large quantity of animals if they are located in the same location and bunched up.

Because another land mammal is far more likely to accumulate diseases, parasites, and maybe toxins that are harmful to us than a fish is.

Bear is (or at least can be) delicious. You can get a lot of tasty meals out of a fat berry-fed bear.

I've never had the chance to eat cougar, but I've talked to folks who have, and they say it's their favorite meat - like a light, tender pork.

We're mammal predators too. Mammal herbivores travel in herd and are pretty easy to hunt. They also pose little risk. The answer is the same as to why lions don't have leopards as their main food source.

I assume it's because there aren't enough of them and they're relatively difficult to hunt/farm. Otherwise I'd be happily chowing down on lions and polar bears.

I think part of it is that the larger animal predators tend to be more muscular, so the meat isn't as delicious.

Black soldier fly larva seems pretty simple to farm using organic waste too. Lots of backyard chicken keepers make simple grow boxes for them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzedftrQJw

Why can't the bait fish eat the fly larva?