Post Normal

Post Sushi

Curbing our insatiable appetite.
Post Sushi
Photo by Kenji Aoki

We may well be the last generation to eat wild sushi. A report from the UN Environmental Programme released in May 2010 states that 30 percent of fish stocks have “collapsed,” and it warns that unless we alter our fishing practices, in 40 years we’ll be effectively out of edible fish. Paul Greenberg, author of Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food, writes that globally we catch and consume 170 billion pounds of wild fish per year, an amount “equivalent in weight to the entire human population of China.” Greenberg points out that we would need four or five oceans to meet the appetites of the world’s seven billion humans.

If a human controlled demolition of wild fish stocks seems shocking, it would seem even more so to previous generations. Wild fish, to quote Greenberg, seemed “a crop, harvested from the sea, that magically grew itself back every year. A crop that never required planting.” For our ancestors, the very idea of us humans fishing the ocean to the point of collapse would seem preposterous. The oceans took months, even years, to sail across. The oceans were the very definition of vastness. But when a single bluefin tuna can fetch over $10,000, market forces become a deadly current that our oceans’ most delectable creatures must struggle against. Can we reverse that current somehow? Or is it too late now?

44 comments on the article “Post Sushi”

Displaying 11 - 20 of 44

Page 2 of 5

Anonymous

Im sorry, this probably seems peculiar, but I dont recall. There are many studies that purport that it would be dangerous however, more often than not obfuscated by bias as I was outlining. If you poked around im sure you could find lots. Im sorry that I dont keep a record. Loren Cordain comes to mind, you could start there.

Anonymous

Im sorry, this probably seems peculiar, but I dont recall. There are many studies that purport that it would be dangerous however, more often than not obfuscated by bias as I was outlining. If you poked around im sure you could find lots. Im sorry that I dont keep a record. Loren Cordain comes to mind, you could start there.

Anonymous

Two prominent and mainstream organizations - the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada support healthful vegan diets as being appropriate for all stages of life. http://www.eatright.org/ - search for 'vegan'

I recommend the book 'Becoming vegan' by Brenda Davis and Vesanto Melina. Very comprehensive. More info at amazon http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Vegan-Complete-Adopting-Plant-Based/dp/1570671036/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299633279&sr=8-1 not that I'd necessarily recommend a purchase from there! Check your local library if you are lucky enough to live near one. If you ask they will probably get it in for you.

Also these blogs are really useful if you're concerned about nutrition:
http://jacknorrisrd.com/
http://www.theveganrd.com/
PCRM are also good http://www.pcrm.org.

The China study was already mentioned, I'd second that if you're at all interested in the affects of animal products on your risk of cancer etc.

It makes sense for vegan advocates to be on top of things nutritionally and to give good advice. Just be aware that some can be a bit carefree about nutrition in an attempt to paint veganism as easy. Veganism can be easy but there are lots of factors that affect its ease - access to nutritional knowledge is just one. Make sure you read good material that is comprehensive. There's a tonne of recipe sites online (seriously, just Google 'vegan recipes' or 'vegan blogs') to get you going with new ideas on what to do with ingredients. Lots of vegan cookbooks include at least a little bit on the nutritional side of things. Good luck!

Anonymous

Two prominent and mainstream organizations - the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada support healthful vegan diets as being appropriate for all stages of life. http://www.eatright.org/ - search for 'vegan'

I recommend the book 'Becoming vegan' by Brenda Davis and Vesanto Melina. Very comprehensive. More info at amazon http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Vegan-Complete-Adopting-Plant-Based/dp/1570671036/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299633279&sr=8-1 not that I'd necessarily recommend a purchase from there! Check your local library if you are lucky enough to live near one. If you ask they will probably get it in for you.

Also these blogs are really useful if you're concerned about nutrition:
http://jacknorrisrd.com/
http://www.theveganrd.com/
PCRM are also good http://www.pcrm.org.

The China study was already mentioned, I'd second that if you're at all interested in the affects of animal products on your risk of cancer etc.

It makes sense for vegan advocates to be on top of things nutritionally and to give good advice. Just be aware that some can be a bit carefree about nutrition in an attempt to paint veganism as easy. Veganism can be easy but there are lots of factors that affect its ease - access to nutritional knowledge is just one. Make sure you read good material that is comprehensive. There's a tonne of recipe sites online (seriously, just Google 'vegan recipes' or 'vegan blogs') to get you going with new ideas on what to do with ingredients. Lots of vegan cookbooks include at least a little bit on the nutritional side of things. Good luck!

Anonymous

Thanks a lot for the resources! Ive got a buttload of vegan cookbooks, and theyre great, and i will check out your recommendations.

Anonymous

Thanks a lot for the resources! Ive got a buttload of vegan cookbooks, and theyre great, and i will check out your recommendations.

Anonymous

Of course vegans are biased against meat, and stopping there, its fine to be against the industry, etc. ... but sir, look at what I'm saying. Biased science is botched science. When I go scouting for nutritional SCIENCE on the subject, i rarely find anything that hasn't been effected by the author's bias, whether pro-meat or anti-meat. Page upon page of justification/condemnation of meat eating is simply not science. Science is cold. Science is dispassionate. You and I on the other hand are vehement. One doesn't do math when ones pissed, one would fuck it up! All I am saying is that approaching something that struggles to be empirical as it is with an agenda muddles it even further, squandering my or anyone else' effort to find out the numbers for truth!

I was reading, I forget which it was, but some kind of vegetarian magazine. There was some religious cult that forbid eating animals and animal products, and i was reading the letters of people who had written in, and so many of them were EXTOLLING the cult! I found it disgusting. Lies and propaganda and brainwashing are not legitimate means to an end here. And the same goes for faulty science with an agenda.

I am completely aligned with your views on the animal industry. And I'm not reluctant to give up meat. What I am saying is that if the path to vegetarianism was adequately trodden by dispassionate, unbiased science, perhaps people like me, who are very serious about their health, would more easily walk down it. That being said, at the moment I eat fish (self-caught) and eggs, and if the truth would reveal itself, i would be beyond joy to give them up.

I'm not here to take offense or offer offense, and so I hope none of this is taken the wrong way. Thanks for the suggestions, I'm very interested in reading The China Study, Ill probably pick it up. I could recommend to you, for kicks and giggles, the Vegetarian Myth. Not that I subscribe to its ideas, but if you at all want consensus, balance is key.

Anonymous

Of course vegans are biased against meat, and stopping there, its fine to be against the industry, etc. ... but sir, look at what I'm saying. Biased science is botched science. When I go scouting for nutritional SCIENCE on the subject, i rarely find anything that hasn't been effected by the author's bias, whether pro-meat or anti-meat. Page upon page of justification/condemnation of meat eating is simply not science. Science is cold. Science is dispassionate. You and I on the other hand are vehement. One doesn't do math when ones pissed, one would fuck it up! All I am saying is that approaching something that struggles to be empirical as it is with an agenda muddles it even further, squandering my or anyone else' effort to find out the numbers for truth!

I was reading, I forget which it was, but some kind of vegetarian magazine. There was some religious cult that forbid eating animals and animal products, and i was reading the letters of people who had written in, and so many of them were EXTOLLING the cult! I found it disgusting. Lies and propaganda and brainwashing are not legitimate means to an end here. And the same goes for faulty science with an agenda.

I am completely aligned with your views on the animal industry. And I'm not reluctant to give up meat. What I am saying is that if the path to vegetarianism was adequately trodden by dispassionate, unbiased science, perhaps people like me, who are very serious about their health, would more easily walk down it. That being said, at the moment I eat fish (self-caught) and eggs, and if the truth would reveal itself, i would be beyond joy to give them up.

I'm not here to take offense or offer offense, and so I hope none of this is taken the wrong way. Thanks for the suggestions, I'm very interested in reading The China Study, Ill probably pick it up. I could recommend to you, for kicks and giggles, the Vegetarian Myth. Not that I subscribe to its ideas, but if you at all want consensus, balance is key.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.