From a website that's trying to support sustainable fishing practices.
(I actually thought the number was 2 billion until I looked it up before making my previous post. It shouldn't be too surprising considering how much of the world's population lives on the coast AND fish basically take care of themselves, so it's an easy to way get your food.)
That doesn't say anything about starving, just that those people use fish as their primary source of protein. Presumably they could get that protein from poultry or even beans and pulses.
"Well, I presume that instead of going fishing once a day you can start a farm. Watch over and feed some chickens. Whatever."
And, like I said in my other post. If you can find a way to actually save the whales and let everyone still eat, then I'll be right there with you. But right now this looks like rich people who have time to go whale watching wanting the poor people who barely have time to get enough food to eat to stop eating so that they can still go whale watching.
Give me some actual numbers that show that people who rely on fish can actually farm to make up the difference and I'll be convinced. But right now I'm on the side of caution that says "let's not do something that might starve some percentage of 3 billion people" and the article is saying "eh, 3 billion people can probably find something else to eat".
That's OK as far as it goes but ultimately we are destroying yet another resource that people rely on. You can make a choice to change direction or get forced to further down the road. Being forced to do something is more painful than making a choice.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-seafood....
From a website that's trying to support sustainable fishing practices.
(I actually thought the number was 2 billion until I looked it up before making my previous post. It shouldn't be too surprising considering how much of the world's population lives on the coast AND fish basically take care of themselves, so it's an easy to way get your food.)