Sorry for the lack of clarity. I had understood that sardines and anchovies are not farmed. However, you say they have āannually adjusted and effectively enforced catch quotasā, so I am guessing that some people buying more of them instead of plant-based foods will mostly result in some other people having to buy less of them, and more of other fish. I think this other fish would be farmed because the catch of wild fish is broadly limited by quotas. So I expect that buying wild sardines and anchovies instead of plant-based foods has the net effect of increasing farmed fish.
I estimate replacing tropical and subtropical forests with cropland increases the welfare of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails by 18.2QALY/ām2-year, which is as good as averting 18.2 human-years of hurtful pain per m2-year for my guess that hurtful pain is as intense as fully happy life. I think that increase in welfare is much larger than the potential harm from additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and loss of biodiversity.
Relatedly, I believe replacing chicken meat with beef or pork increases the welfare of farmed animals much more than it decreases the welfare of humans due to increasing GHG emissions.
Do you feel like the above negative effects [on humans of GHG emissions], a few minutes of healthy life lost in total spread across billions of humans over roughly a century, which is not more than a few billionths of one second per person-year, justify one sentient individual experiencing tens of hours more of annoying pain, tens of hours more of hurtful pain, a few hours more of disabling pain, and a few seconds more of excruciating pain? I do not.
As mentioned in the āFish Populationsā section, sardines and anchovies are mostly used for aquaculture feed and pet food. Since total catch is capped, increased demand for human consumption would raise prices and thereby likely incentivise feed producers to switch to alternative proteins, rather than leading to more farmed fish overall.
I appreciate the focus on comparing direct animal suffering, although Iām somewhat uncertain about the extent to which soil nematodes, mites, and springtails should be considered sentient, but I havenāt looked into this in depth so far. However, I wonder whether this analysis fully accounts for the long-term and potentially irreversible consequences of increased GHG emissions, particularly the risk of triggering climate tipping points, large-scale biodiversity loss, and the associated risk of human extinction. Ecosystem collapse and permanent species loss represent a qualitatively different kind of harm than direct animal suffering, and may be ethically more significant in the long run. Though of course, there is a lot of uncertainty around all of this.
Thanks for clarifying too! I agree the increased cost of wild sardines and anchovies would tend to increase the production of alternative feed for the fish being fed wild sardines and anchovies. However, more than 1 kg of alternative feed would be needed to produce 1 kg of farmed fish. So humans eating 1 kg more of wild sardines and achovies would result in more than 1 kg more of alternative feed. As a result, eating wild sardines and anchovies instead of plant-based foods would still increase agricultural land if 1 kg of alternative feed requires as much agricultural land as 1 kg of the replaced plant-based foods.
Thanks Vasco, I really appreciate your thoughtful engagement!
I agree that feed conversion losses mean more than 1 kg of alternative feed would be needed to produce 1 kg of farmed fish. So if that alternative feed uses as much land as the replaced plant-based food, land use could indeed increase. However, many promising feed alternatives (based on microbial fermentation, insects, or algae) may have a much smaller land footprint than typical crops grown for human consumption. So the net effect on land use depends on what those alternatives are. That said, many current feed alternatives might be less efficient.
I think itās important to also consider not just the calories or kilograms involved, but the nutritional value. Sardines and anchovies are exceptionally nutrient-dense, as discussed in the āHealth and Nutritionā section. So even if land use were slightly higher per kilogram, the nutritional return per land area might still be better. Itās definitely a complex question, and Iād love to see more data on this.
You are welcome!
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I had understood that sardines and anchovies are not farmed. However, you say they have āannually adjusted and effectively enforced catch quotasā, so I am guessing that some people buying more of them instead of plant-based foods will mostly result in some other people having to buy less of them, and more of other fish. I think this other fish would be farmed because the catch of wild fish is broadly limited by quotas. So I expect that buying wild sardines and anchovies instead of plant-based foods has the net effect of increasing farmed fish.
I estimate replacing tropical and subtropical forests with cropland increases the welfare of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails by 18.2 QALY/ām2-year, which is as good as averting 18.2 human-years of hurtful pain per m2-year for my guess that hurtful pain is as intense as fully happy life. I think that increase in welfare is much larger than the potential harm from additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and loss of biodiversity.
Relatedly, I believe replacing chicken meat with beef or pork increases the welfare of farmed animals much more than it decreases the welfare of humans due to increasing GHG emissions.
Thanks for the clarification!
As mentioned in the āFish Populationsā section, sardines and anchovies are mostly used for aquaculture feed and pet food. Since total catch is capped, increased demand for human consumption would raise prices and thereby likely incentivise feed producers to switch to alternative proteins, rather than leading to more farmed fish overall.
I appreciate the focus on comparing direct animal suffering, although Iām somewhat uncertain about the extent to which soil nematodes, mites, and springtails should be considered sentient, but I havenāt looked into this in depth so far. However, I wonder whether this analysis fully accounts for the long-term and potentially irreversible consequences of increased GHG emissions, particularly the risk of triggering climate tipping points, large-scale biodiversity loss, and the associated risk of human extinction. Ecosystem collapse and permanent species loss represent a qualitatively different kind of harm than direct animal suffering, and may be ethically more significant in the long run. Though of course, there is a lot of uncertainty around all of this.
Thanks for clarifying too! I agree the increased cost of wild sardines and anchovies would tend to increase the production of alternative feed for the fish being fed wild sardines and anchovies. However, more than 1 kg of alternative feed would be needed to produce 1 kg of farmed fish. So humans eating 1 kg more of wild sardines and achovies would result in more than 1 kg more of alternative feed. As a result, eating wild sardines and anchovies instead of plant-based foods would still increase agricultural land if 1 kg of alternative feed requires as much agricultural land as 1 kg of the replaced plant-based foods.
Thanks Vasco, I really appreciate your thoughtful engagement!
I agree that feed conversion losses mean more than 1 kg of alternative feed would be needed to produce 1 kg of farmed fish. So if that alternative feed uses as much land as the replaced plant-based food, land use could indeed increase. However, many promising feed alternatives (based on microbial fermentation, insects, or algae) may have a much smaller land footprint than typical crops grown for human consumption. So the net effect on land use depends on what those alternatives are. That said, many current feed alternatives might be less efficient.
I think itās important to also consider not just the calories or kilograms involved, but the nutritional value. Sardines and anchovies are exceptionally nutrient-dense, as discussed in the āHealth and Nutritionā section. So even if land use were slightly higher per kilogram, the nutritional return per land area might still be better. Itās definitely a complex question, and Iād love to see more data on this.
Makes sense. Thanks for all your engagement too, Chris!