Ethics of Fishing

[thank.darwin]

Just to let you know buraku, you are basing your opinion on one person and assuming things about the rest of us - and mithrilhack knows a lot - look at some of his other posts...

[mith]

Thanks for the kind remarks dar.

Let me explain my reasoning. You know that animals are higher up on the food chain than plants. And you should know that as you go up the chain, energy decreases due to inefficiency. Therefore, animals would be less nourishing than the equivalent of plants eaten at the lower level. Now you might be saying, "but you can't digest cellulose!" Well, true, but I'm talking about proteins.

The only sketchy part is when I said that amino acids are acquired exclusively from plant sources. Can anyone verify or disprove that?

[canalon]

Thanks for the kind remarks dar.

Let me explain my reasoning. You know that animals are higher up on the food chain than plants. And you should know that as you go up the chain, energy decreases due to inefficiency. Therefore, animals would be less nourishing than the equivalent of plants eaten at the lower level. Now you might be saying, "but you can't digest cellulose!" Well, true, but I'm talking about proteins.

The only sketchy part is when I said that amino acids are acquired exclusively from plant sources. Can anyone verify or disprove that?

A few problems here:
Plants tend to use a lot of their energy in form of sugar (cellulose being one) and have a reduced protein content compared to animals.
A second thind is that we, human cannot produce all the required amino acids from scratch, so we need to get them from food. And it is harder to get all those amino acids from plants, than to get them from meat.

In fact animals are probably much more nourishing than plants, but they are in fact more costly to produce, energy wise.

As for the humanity of animal raising it's a different question, that some people are trying to adress in organic or sustainable agricultural practice....

HTH

Patrick

[mith]

A few problems here:
Plants tend to use a lot of their energy in form of sugar (cellulose being one) and have a reduced protein content compared to animals.

I think you mean a lower concentration. I think the total amount would be similar.

[canalon]

[quote="mithrilhack" I think you mean a lower concentration. I think the total amount would be similar.[/quote]

I meant a lower percentage of protein in terms of weight.Hence, eating 1kg meat yielding more proteins than 1kg of plant, even the rricher in proteins (as soy). But I do not see what you call total amount, anyhow...

[mith]

Well from my original posting I said that animals get their amino acids from plants. So thats why I think the total amount of proteins in an animal, while concentrated, is equal to or less than(inefficiency) the amount of proteins in the plants eaten by the animal.

[canalon]

Well from my original posting I said that animals get their amino acids from plants. So thats why I think the total amount of proteins in an animal, while concentrated, is equal to or less than(inefficiency) the amount of proteins in the plants eaten by the animal.

Nope! Not really since amino acids can be both degraded and synthesized by animal, plants, and the bacteria in the guts of the animals.
Only plants can convert inorganic carbon (i.e CO2) into organic (in general as starch), but after that many transformations can occur to make all carbon molecules needed to sustain life. And plant are not the only one to be able to carry them out.

HTH

Patrick

[mith]

You're right, I looked it up and it seems that non-essential amino acids can be formed from common materials in the body. For instance alanine can be formed when pyruvate(from carbs) + NH3 molecule.

[canalon]

You're right, I looked it up and it seems that non-essential amino acids can be formed from common materials in the body. For instance alanine can be formed when pyruvate(from carbs) + NH3 molecule.

Of course I'm right
And "essential amino acids" can vary between species. And meat provide a greater variety of those AA essential for human than plants. But a balanced and carrefully chosen vegetarian diet can provide enough of all AA. It's simply harder to do.

[2810712]

Now,I think, the question doesn't remain limited to fishery.

As Canalon says, it is harder to get adequate amounts of all required AAs from veg. diet.
But, I think it is better to do this harder job rather than killing other animals. Killing other animals may disturb ecological balance or make some species extinct. So, we should give away the laziness and eat vegetables.

hrushikesh

[canalon]

As Canalon says, it is harder to get adequate amounts of all required AAs from veg. diet.
But, I think it is better to do this harder job rather than killing other animals. Killing other animals may disturb ecological balance or make some species extinct. So, we should give away the laziness and eat vegetables.

Killing animal raised for food production probably do not disturb any ecological balance... And sometimes animals could themselves become a danger for another species (I recently read about dears leading american ginseg to extinction.... in a region where natural deer predators are almost extinct too). And fishing can also be essential in regions where the land is not rich enough to provide all the vegetables needed.
In myhumble opinion a balanced use of both meat and vegetables is probably the best. And meat add so much different and delicious taste to food

Patrick

[mith]

Meat does taste soo good. But this goes back to the question, if a specie is dying due to a superior specie beating down their numbers, should humans intervene? This actually is more of a world politics question if you think about it.