duhuh

That’s fine. The SF people think is SF, that used to be SF, does really well with 700,000 people and everyone with a shitty job.

I think op likes the Postal Service

It is as special as a canary in a coal mine I suppose

I have lessened the demand by myself and five people I was able to convince. It’s a question of ethics. What ethical stands have you taken? How are they helping?

I don’t believe humans should operate as pure, replicators– doing any action for the chance to continue to exist. Fishing is global and global fishing runs on slave labor. I am doing them a favor. It’s called ethics for a reason. You are presented with 100 things you can eat. Seafood and cocaine are probably the most unethical. Why not skip them?

I feel like op established that this type of thing does not usually affect them. Are you suggesting the LA Times has cracked the code to finally reach the psyche of op? Or can we take them on their word that the USPS situation rankles them. Seems silly to suggest that they don’t really care, “but for the media”.

This is a thread about worrying about seafood scarcity already. Not-anytime-soon has arrived on a food-by-food basis. In the case of seafood, it’s an entire food group!

If I eat seafood I rob from ocean species, illegal labor, the hungry poor, and the future. Sometimes, farmland represents the same problem, sometimes not. Seafood is an unsolved problem globally. It has no form of ethical consumption.

I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted, but yes, as a society if we find that we are over-using resources, we should cut out those foods. We seem to value a human population numbered in the billions. Some foods won’t work for that population.

As a resident of a first world country I stopped eating all seafood about 15 years ago. It seems unethical to support over-fishing if I have plenty of other good food to eat.

Like the choice we all have in healthcare? No thanks