fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · edit-210 months agonetsmander.xyzimagemessage-square100linkfedilinkarrow-up11.34Karrow-down142
arrow-up11.3Karrow-down1imagenetsmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · edit-210 months agomessage-square100linkfedilink
minus-squareNSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·10 months agothey don’t care whether you eat fish. they’re throwing the nets regardless.
minus-squarex00z@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·10 months agoCommon misconception. It’s simple supply and demand. Do you think people would be destroying the seas if nobody would pay them for it?
minus-squareNSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·10 months agosupply and demand is a theory about price discovery. it has no bearing on this discussion.
minus-squareLileath@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·10 months agoIf no one ate fish anymore, would it still be profitable to fish in an industrial style?
minus-squareNSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·10 months agoI don’t think that’s likely to happen. do you have another method that might be effective?
minus-squarex00z@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·10 months agoYou’re claiming my choice has no impact, but it does because of supply and demand. It’s very small, but it’s still there.
minus-squareNSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·10 months agothis is just handwaiving. supply and demand isn’t a magic phrase that makes your actions have the desired effect.
minus-squarex00z@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·10 months agoThat’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.
minus-squareNSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·10 months agothat hasn’t worked so far.
minus-squarex00z@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·10 months agoYeah because there’s too many people who are too stubborn to give it up.
minus-squareNSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·10 months agoregardless of the excuses you want to make for your plan’s ineffectiveness, I’m trying to find an effective solution
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.
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?
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.
Yeah because there’s too many people who are too stubborn to give it up.
regardless of the excuses you want to make for your plan’s ineffectiveness, I’m trying to find an effective solution