Thus spake some dude: we should get rid of all predators

OK, this is a bit of a detour, but sometimes a man just runs across something that is so crazy that he has to address it on his organization's blog. 

Over at the New York Times, a professional philosopher has written a piece so ridiculous - nay, ridonculous - that it pretty much defies explanation or analysis. The gist of it:  "Suffering is bad and we should prevent it whenever we can.  Predators cause pain, which equals suffering.  Hence, we should make predators go extinct."

I jape you not.

Pity the idiotfish. Someone has to.

There's a fish out there that's not doing too well. I'mma let you get some tissues, because you're going to be using them. Take a good look at this guy, and then commence sobbing.

My life is so hard.
Image: NOAA via Wikimedia Commons

Which is worse for the oceans - eating meat or eating fish?

It's a commonly-encountered sentiment amongst people who care about oceans: many marine ecosystems are in trouble; fisheries are a primary cause for much of this trouble; ergo, to help the ocean a person should stop eating fish.

This seems like a fairly straightforward argument. However, it gets murky very quickly if the person replaces seafood with meat from terrestrial production systems. Consider this: the UN FAO estimates that 18% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to livestock production. Read that again - 18% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions are associated with livestock production. This is more than the share attributable to transportation. (Read the FAO brief here).

Fisheries heavyweights pound MSC

Today, Marine Stewardship Council finds itself where it doesn't want to be: in the spotlight taking a public whuppin' from some smart people in the journal Nature.