I think the intent is great, but what is the percentage of the population that would utilize such a thing in their daily life? Not trying to be a downer, but I think most people don't have the bandwidth to be carrying around little cards reminding them to buy this/don't buy that, "oh, and is that tuna line-caught or pole-caught?", etc. If eating a certain kind of fish is causing environmental damage, we need regulation as a chokepoint somewhere in the chain, whether it be to stop it from being fished or at least from being sold.
We shit where we eat, and then we get angry at the turds in our cereal bowls. Who put them there? Is this satire?
Yes, fisheries in decline means that, voluntarily or not, we will lose our cedar plank salmon and our sushi-grade tuna. We will instead talk up the pleasures of the sardine, its ennobling humility and its clean taste, but it will be self-delusion covering up an obvious sense of loss, just as celebrating a birthday on Zoom is a pathetic loss no matter how much we try to put a happy face on it.
We are all getting a taste of what it feels to lose things, maybe lose them for good. This is the experience of our parents and grandparents, survivors of war, refugees, people thrown into sudden poverty. It's a common experience around the world, but many of us have forgotten it. It's time to get reacquainted. Families who lose everything in stock market crashes and hurricanes look at the wreckage of their lives and ask, "Is this satire?"
In 40 years, I fully expect to be an out-of-touch antebellum grandma, talking of lost pleasures to people who've never tasted coffee or traveled across the Atlantic, the same way I have never ridden in a phaeton or tasted ortolan.
The post I replied to suggested it is somehow reasonable to majorly inhibit a pleasure of life today so that others can potentially experience the inhibited pleasures in the future. The suggestion is comedic to me - "if you're worried about the decline of fish impacting your sushi eating habits, eat less sushi today so we can eat more sushi tomorrow", is what it reads as. The solution is to make more fish, not to have a segment of the population reduce fish consumption so another population can also consume fish. When the population of a country grows, the agricultural regions don't remain the same size - they grow to accommodate the growth in population. You increase your supply, not ration it out - that's how you end up with an abuse of power.
The birds react to the dark by gorging themselves on grain, usually millet seed, until they double their bulk. Reputedly,[weasel words] Roman Emperors stabbed out ortolans’ eyes in order to make the birds think it was night, making them eat even more. The birds are then thrown into a container of Armagnac, which both drowns and marinates the birds.[13][14]
The bird is roasted for eight minutes and then plucked. The consumer then places the bird feet first into their mouth while holding onto the bird's head. The ortolan is then eaten whole, with or without the head, and the consumer spits out the larger bones.
