I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again but
Pescetarian as a diet choice makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Like, okay, you think factory farms are bad (they are), you think eating animals is ethically wrong (up for debate, but I’m not going to stop you and will in fact support you in that), you acknowledge that a specific parcel of land can support more herbivores than carnivores or omnivores, but you’re okay with overfishing?
Fish are not less than other animals. If you say “oh well I get my fish ethically”, then why can’t you do the same for our land animal meat sources?
Because the argument can be made for any consumption whatsoever that even if your specific ~thing~, fish, meat, clothing, whatever, comes from a sustainable and ethical source… it’s still kinda.. not helping.
Yes, please tell me more about your ethical fish, but somehow ethical pork or whatever is impossible,
I know nobody (who cares about these issues) is actually saying overfishing is good or okay, but idk how that cognitive dissonance works. Fish are animals capable of the same types of suffering as other sources of animal protein.
And if you’re pescetarian for dietary reasons.. okay? I still don’t understand the strict division between land meat and fish meat? Unless somehow it’s a health diet thing which is fair enough, I get that, but.
I’m an omnivore sure so maybe I have no right to talk about this but it literally makes no sense to me
Like, it basically looks like that one pic of a blobfish except arguably even more fucked up, but unlike the blobfish it’s not due to it being dead/depressurized, it just naturally looks like that!
Beyond just reducing hazards we need to recognize that cities can be a positive force on behalf of birds, and for the conservation of biodiversity more generally. Cities can play a significant role and serve as an important counterbalance to the loss of habitat elsewhere. Every design and building project in the city should be seen as the chance to make room for other species of life, especially birds. Habitats that will be good for birds will be good for humans as well.
Our city planning must change to better take the movement of birds and other animals into account: Ecological networks and connectivity will be essential. Most city plans rarely mention birds or take them into account. I think that should change, and we should usher in the era of bird-centric planning. When we do what is necessary to accommodate and make room for birds, we support many other animals as well. Cities should follow the example of Vancouver preparing a bird strategy and appointing a standing Bird Committee. We need to give more explicit attention to the interests of birds in the governance and planning of cities.
Cities can also be a force for the conservation of essential and intact ecosystems essential for many bird species. Cities can join together to support the many migratory birds they share in common, working both to protect habitat at home but also the habitats and environments they will travel through or spend time in during their lifecycle.
Architects, builders, elected officials, and others must recognize an ethical duty of care to protect birds and to minimize their pain and suffering. If this happens many things will change, and cities will see the adoption of bird-safe building standards as a moral imperative on a par with efforts to protect human health and safety.
Abundant bird life is the
secret sauce for soul-nourishing cities. Birds matter tremendously, and
their presence near to us in cities delivers delight and awe. It is hard
to be lonely when birds are nearby. Our lives are richer, our days
fuller, when we hear their magical voices of the fluttering energy and
blur of color that birds provide. They make cities more interesting,
infusing urban neighborhoods and spaces with a life force.
This is all good and informative but just reading the title alone I was like “yeah why not”
ifesbob 