The Tin Lizard

How Sustainable Can We Be? Plus, The Ethics Of Food

Concern about sustainability of world fish populations isn't new, but for the consumer it can pose a few problems, as writer Brian Palmer is at pains to point out in "Guides to Sustainable Fish Can Help...."    

Selecting fish from a menu or from a seafood market can present a lot of choices, based not on just the kind of fish, but where, how, and when it was caught.  So, like telephone company deregulation or the Affordable Care Act, the felt need to choose what you're eating based on its "sustainability" adds to the complexity - and the stress - of modern life.  But, argues Palmer, the very complexity of the guides being issued is a positive sign; a sign that more people care, and are learning to make distinctions, even if perhaps many of the restaurants and fishmongers they go to are a little behind the trend. 

They might save themselves some trouble by heeding the advice of one trendy chef I heard the other day:  Ultimately, no fish is "sustainable."  Fish do reproduce themselves, but can't do so indefinitely as human demand for them grows exponentially.  The lesson?  Enjoy fish when you can, but think of it as an occasional, special, and nutritious treat rather than everyday fare that you should eat in large quantities daily.  And blame yourself for the human population explosion.

It's necessary to take issue with one point in Palmer's catalog:  Eating meat is not an "ethical" dilemma -- ecological yes, but not ethical.  Nor is it "cruel" to the animals we slaughter for food.  Anyone who thinks otherwise should watch the excellent series of shows aired recently on the Discovery Channel, entitled "North America."  Every living creature is the prey of another, and even though the series goes out of its way not to show any "too cute" critters being devoured, it nevertheless demonstrates that being eaten is natural, but never fun for the ingestee, nor an ethical dilemma for the ingester.

Blending ethics into eating will almost certainly lead humankind down a blind alley.  Right next to Palmer's article in today's paper was another short feature, reporting that researchers have found that vegetables continue to "live" after being picked.  Will we soon be persuading ourselves that it's not ethical to eat vegetables either? 

Barack Bush, George W. Obama

Whatever your take on the media scandal-of-the-month over Verizon's telephone records, everybody's got to love the mashup of Bush + Obama photo that's making its rounds on the internet:  http://now.msn.com/george-w-obama-viral-picture-shows-president-getting-attacks-from-the-left/

Should we want to be serious for a moment, this eerie photographic artifact might make us reflect on a truth that I find cause for optimism:  That Presidents, whether Republican or Democratic, share a concern for national security and inevitably turn to the same or similar means of combating the threats we face.

We Know It's Wrong. Do We Still Need A Sign?

We watched a DVD at home last night.  I was amused to find that the preview on-screen warning about the dire consequences of piracy is now being policed by not just one government agency (the FBI) but two (the Department of Homeland Security is also now in on the act).  Can the Departments of Justice and Commerce be far behind?

The whole warning thing strikes me as unnecessary and ineffective anyway.  By and large, those who pirate films, music, and the like by copying them illegally know they're breaking the law.  For the teenagers who do it for their own personal benefit, that's part of the fun - it's online shoplifting.  For the Chinese cartels who pirate on a worldwide scale, it's the risk (albeit minuscule) of doing business. 

In other words, common sense tells us that these warnings have zero practical effect.

But they're part of a fast-developing culture in which local authorities -- egged on by lawyers, I'm sure -- seem to believe that we won't know it's wrong unless there is a sign to tell us so.

We see it in many other places.  Driving comes to mind.  A few short decades ago, when the "right turn on red" rule was introduced and began spreading like wildfire, I knew it was a mistake.  It would get out of hand, people would take it for granted.  It did, and they did.  Now, at nearly every intersection, every red light is decorated with a little sign advising us that we can't turn right on red ... "when pedestrians are present."   Duh.  That was part of the original rule, but now we have to have a sign to tell us so.  A sign that most people ignore.

The same is true of running red lights.  Everyone knows red means stop, and continuing against it is (and should be) reason for a fine or worse.  Yet when the authorities put up cameras to enforce this clear and simple rule, they seem to feel obliged to tell people cameras are present, so they shouldn't run the light.  These signs cost big bucks to install; they shouldn't be necessary; and unfortunately, the introduction of a few means more will be needed, as violators who choose to run lights without signage will go to court to claim they didn't know it was illegal.

There is worse to come, at least in my area, where we now are starting to see people who decide not to wait for a light to turn green; if they don't see anyone coming they will turn left, or even continue straight through the intersection, on red.