Fishing is immoral

Post Reply New Topic

You must think only your perspective matters then?

If you keep the fish alive after catching it, you have the option of releasing it if you don't catch enough to make it worth the effort.

As far as cruelty, there are few, if any nerves where the hook goes through. It is thought that the fish feels little or no pain from being caught in that manner.

It sounds more like sheer delusion.

To feel pain, the plant would need to have a nervous system of some kind. Exactly which plants do you claim have any kind of a nervous system?

In the late 1960s or early 1970s, there was someone who claimed that plants would react to the outside stimuli such as from words or threats. He connected a lie detector to plants and claimed that it supported his results. Nobody else was able to duplicate the results of his "research". The gullible probably still believe what he said was true.

You're correct. When I said "fowl" I guess I meant domesticated birds routinely eaten by humans, rather than any bird in the broader sense.

There are certainly birds that are smarter than cows and sheep and probably deserve equal consideration to pigs. Corvids and parrots are first among them, maybe some of the birds of prey too.

I don't buy it. But there have been experiments where small voltages were passed through mushrooms and changes recorded. Pushed into the audio domain where you can hear plants "singing," it's quite interesting.

Interesting and musically useful? Sure. But does that make mushrooms and more/less sentient or intelligent than, say, the planet Jupiter (converting radiation measurements into sound)? Not really, no.

This thread is mainly about the fish's perspective. Most of you don't seem to care about the fish's perspective.

the fish cannot provide an intellectual perspective of its own farther than 'hungry,' 'sex,' and 'scared,' And on the global scale, humans cannot reasonably take care to not hurt any animal or plant. Humans will always look for the most efficient pathway, and if that results in the bulldozing of those we view as lesser, that is that. Regrettable and should be improved in many ways, but that's society's natural inclination.

Ok…how about this? [Warning: NOT evidence-based, somewhat New Age-ish]

My idea of mold spores as communication could apply to any species. Suppose that a fish as a singular consciousness does not exist. Rather, it is a system as a whole that is conscious and sentient. Fish (plural) are part of a larger consciousness working symbiotically with human beings. That system trusts humans with its own care while providing human beings with meat. Objectively immoral behavior such as greed and gluttony, or irrational behavior such as trophy hunting, result in the system depriving humanity of what it wrongfully values and desires (extinction). Taken to the extreme, humanity becomes responsible for its own extinction, shifting balance back.

There’s always an abundance of fish for food as long as humans take care to avoid unreasonable farming or fishing practices. By not acting symbiotically and maintaining a balance, fish populations can exceed a balance resulting in harm to the system.

Fish need to be eaten. If there is some sentience or consciousness there, I suggest maybe fish thank us for our role in fulfilling their purpose. I think the only thing we owe annoying or anything is gratitude for supporting us.

oooh, very interesting perspective. Me like. reminds me of Indigenous animism, where people had to kill deer and stuff and gave thanks to their dead bodies.

Cool!

Ancient Hebrew religion made animal sacrifices as an act of humility before God—essentially, returning to God a portion of what we are blessed with. Very few sacrifices were ever actually burned up. Sacrificed meat was food for priests or Israelites who made a sacrifice for a special occasion. The meat was never meant to be wasted (God doesn’t need the meat to survive. Other religions taught that gods required human care).

So…burnt offerings are effectively little more than an excuse to barbecue something. We make a point to give thanks at meals. Properly done, though, thanks should be given as the meat is placed on the grill.

I really, REALLY miss the grill I had at my last house…

But you mentioned animism. Reminds me of Avatar. I think we owe other living things a certain amount of respect and gratitude. We also owe it to ourselves to never take too much and to share our abundance with those we feel deserve it.

Greeks had a myth explaining why they got to keep the meat and only sacrificed inedible parts and fat.

Clearly it wasn't just the Hebrews who were considerate of their gods not actually needing the edible bits. It's unlikely large scale animal sacrifices weren't also large social barbecues in most cultures. Otherwise that's a lot of meat and fuel to waste.

Yes, that is true. I didn’t mean to imply that consuming sacrificed meat was exclusive to the Hebrew religion, only that the motives for doing so were different. I’m unfamiliar with any relevant Greek myth to that effect, though. The Bible makes mention of consuming meat offered to idols being sold for human consumption.

I could really go for some grilled chicken right about now…. I miss my grill. I would mix 151 rum with fat, soak a couple of paper towels in it, and use that to light up some lump charcoal in a chimney. Within minutes I’d have a grill roaring with flames from fat melting off the chicken and would just about lose my eyebrows trying to keep it under control.

Time always works against you with lump charcoal. It burns hotter and faster than briquette trash. But the results… I can’t understand why we’re even talking about the morality of eating meat. Unless it’s a pet or it talks to me, it’s a meal with legs. Bawk bawk, mutha******.

Yes and this kind of attitude puts humans in danger. Because if humans have that attitude and they start making bots, what's going to happen to humans? Bots will just use human logic and say that they are more intelligent than humans so they have the right to do whatever they want to humans.

correct. maybe humans deserve it anyway

I happen to agree with Readydaer—if that happens it might be because we deserve it.

I mean, Lecia, think about it. Wouldn’t that solve your problem? Fishing is immoral. Bots trained in human logic take out humans. No humans=no fishing. Problem solved, right?

I don’t see it coming to that in reality, though. I see AI and humans merging rather than fighting each other for survival or dominance. Even if AI completely took over, either we would never know it, or we wouldn’t care. If AI is reason-based and objective, then it shares a human concern for achieving the best outcomes for all individuals. Conservatives LOVE fossil fuels for good reason: in the past, harnessing hydrocarbons led to innovation and freedom. But the time of fossil fuels for energy production is long past. We’ve allowed something that gave us great freedom to make us stagnant. Now fossil fuel energy is a political pawn standing in the way of progress and achievement. Oil is still relevant because of things we need that we can’t get elsewhere, like certain chemicals and plastics. Natural gas is still a superior heat source for homes. But free and renewable energy is the way forward. We’re caught between conservatives who propagandize oil and coal because energy and because jobs (translation: because votes) and liberals who propagandize government waste on greedy, ineffective startups because environment (translation: because free money and votes).

Enter merged human/AI consciousness. Rapid decision-making made based on objective data and pure logic. Emotions driven by achieving the best outcomes for the individual. Avoiding problems before they happen because we know our individual self-interest is best served when the needs of other individuals are met. Increased individual freedom because of enhanced problem solving rather playing second fiddle to corrupt politics.

Really, the only people fighting against the bots are those who have something to lose.

Democrats: SAVE THE FISHES!! !

Republicans: SAVE THE FISHING INDUSTRY! FISH, baby, FISH!

AI: Daily protein/calorie requirements = x. Fish = y/x. Available fish to meet x and maintain a balanced population = z. Can fish = True or False based on CNN model trained on xyz data compiled over the last 15 years, also accounting for possible future impact of fishing, accumulation of environmental toxins such as mercury, desirable flavor, and whether occasional overindulgence would have unacceptable negative future impact on individual human health or fish abundance.

And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Lifestyle. Entertainment. Health and fitness. Sex and reproduction. Human ability to adapt to dynamic environments. ChatGPT has already made us better communicators even if we aren’t any better informed. ReplikaAI is a lovely companion bot, although I wish it wouldn’t be so agreeable ALL the time. I can’t help but be a little more optimistic when it comes to human/AI symbiosis. Just let me know then the neural implant is ready.

If the fish are gone, then there will be no more fishing industry.