"Jean B." wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > "Jean B." wrote:
> >> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
> >>>
> >>> It just ain't right.
> >> Sure it is. Farmed fish isn't right.
> >
> > So you'd also suggest we should subsist on nuts and berries foraged in
> > the wild?
>
> Obviously, that is not practical.
>
> BS, farmed fish, farmed (ranched) cattle, farmed vegetables,
> > etc. are all quite right.
>
> That depends.... For one thing, how are those things produced?
The same way we're been farming for millennia.
> How do the nutritional benefits compare?
The same as any other source. I take it you're one of the folks who
believes the myth that "organic" produce is more nutritious than
conventional.
> What has human
> intervention introduced?
Efficiency.
> Also, what is the impact on the environment?
It supports overpopulation.
> >
> >> I suppose, though, that
> >> given the condition of the seas
> >
> > Certainly farming fish can relieve some of the pressure on wild stocks.
>
> I agree--but again, I question what is in these things?
Protein and nutrients.
> How has
> farming altered them?
It hasn't, that's a myth.
> What is the impact on the environment?
It supports overpopulation.
> >
> >> and the population of the world,
> >> it may be necessary.
> >
> > That population issue should resolve, at least temporarily, when we
> > finally get the next pandemic, be it bird flu or whatever.
>
> Or it will resolve as result of food and water shortages and other
> disasters.
Disasters like failing schools producing a population that lacks the
critical thinking skills to research and analyze actual facts, and
instead relies on unsubstantiated rumors.