Wild hunting vs Domestication. Hunting has to be done very specifically in order to make it sustainable meaning the animals going extinct otherwise. Domestication on the other hand can be expanded as needed to feed an ever growing population.* The end problems of domestication of animals isn’t that the animals went extinct.
Tuna aren’t hunted they are fished, as are lots of other versions of sea fauna. Fishing isn’t really analogous to per-historic hunting for the simple reason that commercial fishing requires a level of sophistication that simply didn’t exist back then.
Sustainable fishing absolutely Can, and Does exist in some areas of the world today. But not for all species, and not for all nations and of course under capitalism the rewards for cheating will always threaten sustainability.
But to your original point, tuna could be sustainably harvested, but enforcement is basically impossible.
In this case, fishing is very much comparable to hunting. Only we use much cruder and more destructive hunting methods underwater because we are not at home in the ecosystem.
As predators, tuna are involved in the regulation of numerous other species, migrate almost all over the world throughout the year and dive for miles depending on the time of day. Fishing them is like normalizing the hunting of tigers. Maybe even worse. After we have already wiped out some tiger species. And all for a cheap pizza topping.
I mean I guess? I don’t see a world where humans are eaten to extinction by other humans and since humans aren’t really that special, nothing about us would make us unsustainable via farming/husbandry. It seems like you are using a different definition of sustainable then what is commonly understood.
It’s not about being eaten to extinction, obviously, but nice.
If you consider cultivating new zoonotic diseases and pandemics into existence and wasting energy and resources on feeding animals the nutrients that humans can more efficiently benefit from directly to be “sustainable”, then I think it’s you that is using a definition of sustainable that is different from what is commonly understood.
Sustainability isn’t about absolute energy usage or energy usage per capita, or anything like that. It’s about ensuring that the activity at it’s current level of energy consumption can continue. So if it takes a 1000 acres of land to have a genetically diverse herd of animals that can feed a village of a given size forever, then the fact that 1000 times more calories in the form of anything else could be used on that land instead doesn’t mean the herd of animals are unsustainable.
Diseases are a non-sequitur for sustainability discussions as is “wasted” energy. Efficiency is nice, but not necessary for sustainability.
Why is that? Seems to have been sustained and even expanded for multiple millennia at this point.
Even thousands of years ago, it still involved great expense to the environment. Human arrivals on continents coincides with extinctions of megafauna
https://ourworldindata.org/quaternary-megafauna-extinction
Wild hunting vs Domestication. Hunting has to be done very specifically in order to make it sustainable meaning the animals going extinct otherwise. Domestication on the other hand can be expanded as needed to feed an ever growing population.* The end problems of domestication of animals isn’t that the animals went extinct.
*Obviously other limits apply.
Tunas however cannot be domesticated, only hunted.
Tuna aren’t hunted they are fished, as are lots of other versions of sea fauna. Fishing isn’t really analogous to per-historic hunting for the simple reason that commercial fishing requires a level of sophistication that simply didn’t exist back then.
Sustainable fishing absolutely Can, and Does exist in some areas of the world today. But not for all species, and not for all nations and of course under capitalism the rewards for cheating will always threaten sustainability.
But to your original point, tuna could be sustainably harvested, but enforcement is basically impossible.
In this case, fishing is very much comparable to hunting. Only we use much cruder and more destructive hunting methods underwater because we are not at home in the ecosystem.
As predators, tuna are involved in the regulation of numerous other species, migrate almost all over the world throughout the year and dive for miles depending on the time of day. Fishing them is like normalizing the hunting of tigers. Maybe even worse. After we have already wiped out some tiger species. And all for a cheap pizza topping.
By that same logic, exploiting and killing humans is sustainable.
I mean I guess? I don’t see a world where humans are eaten to extinction by other humans and since humans aren’t really that special, nothing about us would make us unsustainable via farming/husbandry. It seems like you are using a different definition of sustainable then what is commonly understood.
It’s not about being eaten to extinction, obviously, but nice.
If you consider cultivating new zoonotic diseases and pandemics into existence and wasting energy and resources on feeding animals the nutrients that humans can more efficiently benefit from directly to be “sustainable”, then I think it’s you that is using a definition of sustainable that is different from what is commonly understood.
Sustainability isn’t about absolute energy usage or energy usage per capita, or anything like that. It’s about ensuring that the activity at it’s current level of energy consumption can continue. So if it takes a 1000 acres of land to have a genetically diverse herd of animals that can feed a village of a given size forever, then the fact that 1000 times more calories in the form of anything else could be used on that land instead doesn’t mean the herd of animals are unsustainable.
Diseases are a non-sequitur for sustainability discussions as is “wasted” energy. Efficiency is nice, but not necessary for sustainability.