it’s not clear it did anything at all.
It’s not like somebody is throwing nets in the water because I don’t eat fish.
they don’t care whether you eat fish. they’re throwing the nets regardless.
Common misconception. It’s simple supply and demand. Do you think people would be destroying the seas if nobody would pay them for it?
supply and demand is a theory about price discovery. it has no bearing on this discussion.
You’re claiming my choice has no impact, but it does because of supply and demand. It’s very small, but it’s still there.
this is just handwaiving. supply and demand isn’t a magic phrase that makes your actions have the desired effect.
That’s why I’m sharing the solution:
Don’t contribute to the problem.
If we don’t eat fish there would be close to no nets in the oceans.
that hasn’t worked so far.
If no one ate fish anymore, would it still be profitable to fish in an industrial style?
I don’t think that’s likely to happen. do you have another method that might be effective?
