The pair restarted their work in Massachusetts with about 400 brook trout reared for up to eight months in tanks. The scientists kept some of the fish in waters set at 59 degrees Fahrenheit while others at 68 degrees Fahrenheit. All were fed the same diet.
By the end of the experiment, the difference was stark. The trout raised in warmer waters were on average less than half the size as the other fish.
No one has to eat fish.
There are places in the world where without eating fish, people would starve. So actually, some people do.
Currently in a small number of places, but this is very much a solvable problem, not something inherent.
Many people are poor, rural coast dwellers
Sigh. Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it? Not everybody can afford high-priced foods or have access to the same foods you do.
Doesn’t matter – fishing, as an industry, is entirely unsustainable and we’re both dredging the bottom of the ocean destroying ecosystems and polluting the waterways with hundreds of tons of plastic refuse every year.
Whos the ignorant one? The one that thinks the vast majority of fishing isn’t abhorrent industrial practices. The one repeating known propaganda from the fishing industry.
There is a difference between a negligent fishing industry, plastic pollution, and people who need fish for their diet because they cannot afford otherwise. I’m speaking to the last one, which has nothing to do with the other two; one of which has very little to do with the other. Your argument is all over the place.
Yeah and if there are places that rely on fish to survive then it’s kinda evil of anyone in an affluent nation to est fish from our big trawlers depleting their reserves.
Stop eating fish, it’s thy only moral option.
What’s your plan to convince billions of people to stop eating fish?
You cant. The fish will just be gone one day and that’ll be that. Then those that relied on eating fish will starve.
This is already happening btw.