… that make me think I’m not operating on the same logic as everybody else. In keeping with my last post, howbout that fishing industry, huh? I have to admit, I’m confused by this latest: Overfishing is a serious threat, right? Fish populations are on the verge of collapse, can we all agree that that would be A Bad Thing? And the fishing industry is too interested in short-term profit to do anything about it. But when someone calls them on it, they scream blue murder… and the somebody backs down. WTF? Why?
Fishing industry bigheads are mad because the Stinky campaign puts people off buying fish… well, it’s supposed to. They’re overfishing because we buy the fish, we have to hit them in the pocketbook if we want them to change. Specifically, until they see that the income they lose to a boycott is greater than the initial costs of establishing sustainable practices, they’ll keep on with the policies that have brought us to this point.
In the last paragraph of the Guardian article, some industry-dude miffs that the Stinky campaign people didn’t ask for their permission to point out that what they are doing is dangerous and stupid. Why are they entitled to this kind of consideration? Why does an industry watchdog need the industry’s permission to do its job?
I just don’t get it.
Song du jour of the day: Three Little Fishies, by the Muppets.