1. It's no help that the global economic system and the rising human population in many regions of earth are at levels that demand insane livestock and fish stock production. Many countries overfishing, plenty of fish also gets wasted too.

  2. Louie Psyhoyos won’t tell you about tons and tons of waste are destroying previously pristine Greek Island or how leaching PCBs and separately dioxides from open-air burning of plastics is contributing to cancer, and destroying the ecology in his home country. Rather he wants to focus on dolphin hunting in Japan which has been severely limited to an small number (hundreds) considering a population of 126m people. Most Japanese people extremely seldomly have had whale or fish. All the Japanese I have met in Tokyo have never had it in their lives. Propellor ships kill many more whales and dolphins than are harvest in the quota. The US Naval base causes a significant number of whale deaths. So why then are there violent clashes, and terroristic actions, vandalism, and propaganda directed against a small village of Japanese people doing what they have done forever when there are bigger priorities where resources can make a larger impact? I am against dolphin and whale hunting and harvesting. I try to limit cow and chicken and fish consumption. But it’s rather clear there is a double standard when it comes to criticizing cow and pig welfare versus marine life welfare, just as there is a double standard when it comes to critique of sources of death of endangered or threatened species. Australia had a record high carbon footprint last year. Their natural forest loss is one of the worst in the world. The United States is the single non-signatory to the Climate Accord. The United States and China are the biggest carbon emitters on an absolute basis, in the world, but China as a population 3x the United States. Other than oil and LNG-industry dependent countries, the United States and Luxembourg are the greatest per-capita emitters destroying our planet. So why are there violently abusive Australians and Americans and Greek in Japan spreading mischaracterizations about fishing and whaling, when there are much higher priorities? It’s because 1. People like Psyhoyos are inherently racist but need a socially acceptable pretext for what has become unacceptable; 2. They gravitate to conflict that drives sensationalist media coverage because of the profit motive; 3. They would rather not face overwhelming pushback, just the right amount of controversy. And thus their mjsguided stereotype that Japanese or Asians will largely be docile and passive is attractively convenient. In fact it is more that they are generally polite, and less culturally barbaric than those that approach with controversy first. And 4. Cowardice, in facing a backlash, looking at the biggest environmental problems in ones own country of nationality or residence. Some racist bigots call this “don’t sh*t in your own backyard”.

  3. Joe Rogan is prime example of why a little bit of knowledge about science through lay and popular sources, without actually studying it rigorously and coming to broad conclusions through talking to a mish-mash of scientists, fringe scientists, and pseudo-science gurus, is extremely dangerous. He’s especially harmful to the public understanding of science fact. I say this as someone trained at a high level in science. His audience members mostly are not adequately trained in science to be able to understand how he ends up unintentionally misleading people on a broad number of important issues, because for the most part, he doesn’t seem to be motivated by malice or hidden agendas. Nonetheless he has a professional responsibility to do better. In the least he needs a more robust scientific advisory. Take for example this claim that all fish is poison. This is the idea pushed by the American meat industry. Scientific funding has to be examined for conflicts of interest. Glyphosate is one example. Or aspartame labeled as a possible carcinogen in studies outside the United States in research papers not funded by the food industry. Who is emphasizing BeyondMeat as dangerous because it factually can have a moderately high level of sodium (as can saline injected meat)? Who is emphasizing the “processed” nature of these meat substitutes as if “processed” per se is harmful? Rather it is the lack of bioavailable, bioactive nutrients, the addition of excess salt, hydrogenated fats, sugars— from all sources, chemical additives, and “label-gaming” low bioavailability vitamins that make “processed” food generally unhealthy. Other highly nuanced things matter as well, for example, barm mono-culture commercial yeast producing bread that could be contributing to a greater frequency of gluten intolerance. “Processing” is not all bad, and not all the same. Many processes that have undesirable side-effects have a desirable main-effect related to food safety, or taste, or shelf-life, or economics. It doesn’t make sense to talk about cons without talking about the pros, i.e. a logical discussion of what the tradeoffs are. This simplistic labeling of quasi-nutritionist gurus of “processing as poison” does more harm than good, because it feeds into intellectual sloth. Pureeing celery is “processing” as is hydrogenating vegetable fats is. But is unproblematic “processing” whereas the other has some benefit of shelf-life at the expense of it being more harmful especially without consideration for moderation. But the meat industry is so scared of people coming to understand that poultry and beef and pork in the quantities typically consumed by your average American is very unhealthy, unsustainable, and arguably inhumane, that they will effectively pseudo-science, and market against competing food sources (soy— phytoestrogen fear unfounded but perpetuated, Wild fish— fear of parasites and mercury and PCBs, farmed fish— fears of hormones, antibiotics, artificial additives in feed such as for color, meat substitutes— high blood pressure, “processed” paranoia). I’m not saying all of these concerns are unfounded, but that there is no other incentive for the meat industry propaganda machine than to keep funding supportive science, and marketing rhetoric that resonates with people’s underlying fears in attacking the competition and whitewashing or obfuscating criticism of their product (“everyone needs protein for muscle and beef/pork/chicken is the best source!”; “it’s ‘natural’ for omnivores!” — people are falling for these unscientific assertions en masse). The mercury fish idea is also one the land animal meat industry loves. It is completely overblown. Discussion of a “poison” is meaningless and pure misleading rhetoric without talking about dosage, and chemical form. This is why Rogan’s vague understanding is so dangerous. You cannot talk about trace toxins and metals without having a nuanced understanding of bioaccumation and differences in trace substances between freshwater fish, ocean fish, and farmed fish. You cannot have a meaningful conversation without talking about the alternative of whole vegetables and fruit (the best for your health, the most sustainable, but for some, subjectively bland or unfulfilling); and the cardiovascular risks associated with getting too much saturated fats from poultry, beef, and pork. Abruptly transitioning into a discussion of corporate malfeasance that led to methylmercury poisoning in fish is a total deception analogous to talking about a specific instance of pesticide poisoning in vegetables, or a case where someone ate too many apple seeds and died from cyanide, or where there were parasitic outbreaks due to undercooked pork, or an outbreak of prion disease from contaminated beef. For the conversation to flow that way, you have to really question the objectivity, affiliation, and conflicts of interest of the speaker— none of which Rogan seems to be keen on looking into— he generally invites guests he’s already somewhat inclined to believe whether about fungal intelligence or multiple universes or there being some metaphysical truth uncovered in psychedelic drug use or abuse. It’s all anti-science in a way because science is about assuming a disconfirming thesis, rigorously determining scope, checking assumptions and checking for sources of bias, and trying to prove oneself wrong. In contrast, his show is an exercise in trying to confirm pre-existing beliefs and tilts, not checking assumptions nor biases, extending theories applicable to a specific case faultily to a much broader “rule-of-thumb”. A good example is his statement here that “tuna is [all] endangered”. There are some species chronically on the endangered species list, and ones often ‘threatened’ like big-eye tuna and yellowfin. The fishing industry organization ISSF points to usually 60-80% of harvested tuna as coming from stocks at “healthy” levels, and usually ~10-20% “overfished” and ~5% “very overfished” depending on the year. One can keenly question the objectivity of this organization, their funding source, and conflicts. This is a ‘scientifically sound’ thing to do and should be encouraged. But without drilling down into the details, the conversation is low-level, and low-value at best, but misleading, confusing, and effectively wrong at worst. This is often the case with broad-strokes ‘scientific mind conclusions that Rogan makes. They’re almost always wrong, and detrimental to critical thought, and the public’s understanding of the issues at hand. So while he should be credited with raising awareness on many important matters, he is effectively nullifying much of that good, and sometimes doing ‘more public harm than good by spreading poorly analyzed ideas.

  4. Western nations need to put pressure on Japan and China to start actually caring about the environment. They care so little about the wildlife in the seas that their waters are empty and they are sending their fleets hundreds of miles away to empty the waters of other countries. They also don't follow international laws and regulations.

  5. I'm a commercial fisherman for 20 years also second generation. In Oregon they are managing many fish stocks well. It's the factory trawlers that are the problem. In one tow of the net they catch more than I do in my entire life. I'm hook and line as well as troll. Many net fisheries are effed.

  6. What is his definition of soon? I checked the forecasts and the United Nations projects world population to reach 10 billion in the year 2057. To me 38 years isn't soon but it isn't really far away either. Definitely need to do something.

  7. Yellowfin tuna are what you find canned, bluefin tuna is more expensive and sought after by richers. Because rich people are willing to pay so much for it, it becomes a very sought after fish. I think one just sold for a couple million not too long ago. That's not something the general population does, that's something richers do

  8. Im a commercial fisherman and i call bullshit on alot of there numbers. In florida they have red snapper endangered and they are infested offshore . You can go out and catch more red snapper then other species day in day out 365 a year. They manipulate the numbers all the time to support there agenda. We have fwc in florida and they are just as bad as corrupt politicians

  9. How about let’s focus on stoping overfishing overhunting and overall greed instead of pushing your vegan bs there’s not enough animals for everyone to be a carnivore nor is there enough land for everyone to be vegan

  10. Why don't we just factory farm fish in the same way we do cows and pigs? it's not like we go out to the forest to collect wild boars or wild cattle. Why do we insist on eating so much wild caught fish as opposed to farm raised fish?

  11. WE kill animals for food and if given the chance animals will kill humans for food if WE just leave shyt alone IM sure life and the circle would take care of the planet ITs simple people trying to tell people what they should think and DO

  12. My local lagoon is overfished. Its a nature reserve, no fishing other than one, 15 foot long area. Constant foreigners there with buckets, taking everything they catch, leaving modelo cans, graffiti, cigarette butts, etc. Used to be able to catch a halibut every session as a kid. Nobody catches halibut there now. Youre lucky to get a small bay bass with open, infected wounds on em

  13. He can't compare feeding 7lbs of mackerel to make 1 pound of tuna…mackerel are in abundance compared to tuna ffs. Fun fact: mackerel are a species of tuna 🤔

  14. Fish is a lose-lose: wild-caught is polluted beyond belief and is extremely unsustainable, while farmed is less nutritious and extremely cruel (crammed together for their entire lives at the ratio of a dozen salmon in your bathtub). Farmed fish are also concentrated sources of pollutants, just not as bad as wild-caught.
    Fish isn't even healthy, it's just less unhealthy than other meat. So in studies when you replace steak with salmon, yeah you'll get favorable outcomes. If you replace any fruit, vegetable, whole grain, legume, or nuts or seeds with salmon, you WON'T get favorable outcomes. If you replace that steak with GARBANZO BEANS AND GROUND FLAX you'll see much much more favorable health outcomes than replacing it with the polluted fish.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.