Home / H. Environment, ecology and agriculture / Part IND

H10

"Sustainable fishing and aquaculture solve it."

Before answering: an indirect argument

This argument is about the environment and agriculture, not whether animals deserve respect. Many activists question this kind of argument in defending animals, because it sidesteps what matters: no one defends the rights of people who face discrimination by saying that treating them fairly is good for the environment.

Why it is not good to use it, or why always to pair it with an ethical argument: If veganism were defended on environmental grounds, low-impact exploitation would be acceptable, even if it killed more sentient beings. And it is already being promoted: insect farming, "sustainable" hunting, "sustainable" leather. It is possible to reduce environmental impact and increase exploitation at the same time.

When used to justify exploitation, arguments like this one usually fail twice. They get the facts wrong, which often arrive distorted. And they get the morality wrong, because they leap from what is to what ought to be: even a real benefit would not show it is just to make someone suffer and die to obtain it.

So show the facts and correct what is wrong, but always come back to what matters: respect for animals and justice toward them. Learn why

The answer in one sentence

fishing and aquaculture have problems no label solves. According to the FAO, more than a third of marine fish stocks are overfished, and the share has been rising. Bycatch kills dolphins, turtles and birds. Aquaculture uses meal and oil from wild fish as feed. And above all, fish are sentient beings, killed by the billions through suffocation or crushing.

Short answer

According to the FAO, more than a third of marine fish stocks are overfished, and the share keeps growing. Even well-managed fishing kills dolphins, turtles and birds as bycatch. Aquaculture uses meal and oil from wild fish in feed. And fish are sentient beings, killed by the billions, often by suffocation. No label changes that.

For children

Many fish are disappearing from the sea because people catch too many. Dolphins and turtles also get caught in the nets by accident. And fish raised in tanks eat feed made from other fish from the sea. Besides, fish feel pain and fear, like other animals.

Ask a question back

"Does the sustainability label say anything about how the fish died?"

Como pode aparecer

"I buy certified fish."

Everyday conversation

"Farmed fish don't affect the ocean."

Everyday conversation

"Sustainable fishing solves it."

Everyday conversation

"Farmed tilapia is the most sustainable protein."

Social media

"Aquaculture is the future of food security."

Technical version

"Fish and invertebrates don't feel pain." (which is A6)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

"I buy certified fish. Farmed fish don't affect the ocean."

Strongest version (steelman):

P1Some fish stocks are well managed and certified as sustainable.
P2Aquaculture can reduce pressure on wild fish.
P3So it's possible to eat fish without depleting the oceans.
CSo eating sustainable fish isn't a problem.

P1 and P2 are true in some cases. The problem lies in the conclusion: even well-managed fishing has bycatch, aquaculture depends on wild fish, and the argument ignores the suffering of the fish themselves.

The argument is valid as far as fish stocks go. Its soundness fails when it concludes there's no problem.

Full answer

a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument talks about the stock, not the fish:
Problem Does "sustainable" fishing solve it?
Overfishing Partly, in well-managed stocks
Bycatch Not entirely
Aquaculture feed made from wild fish No
The fish's suffering and death No
b
Where the argument breaks
1. Overfishing is large and growing.
According to the FAO's 2024 report, more than a third of marine fish stocks are overfished, an increase on the previous report.
2. Bycatch continues.
Nets and hooks catch non-target species, including dolphins, turtles, sharks and seabirds.
3. Aquaculture depends on the sea.
Many farmed fish, such as salmon, are carnivores and still eat feed with meal and oil from wild fish, although the share of plant ingredients has been growing.
4. Fish are sentient.
The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness recognizes a realistic possibility of consciousness in all vertebrates, including fish (A6).
5. The number of fish killed is enormous.
Estimates suggest that between about 1 and 2.7 trillion wild fish are caught each year, many killed by suffocation or crushing.

Problem	Does "sustainable" fishing solve it?
Overfishing	Partly, in well-managed stocks
Bycatch	Not entirely
Aquaculture feed made from wild fish	No
The fish's suffering and death	No

Data and sources

Source	What it says	Note
MSC, on the FAO's SOFIA 2024 report	The share of overfished stocks increased compared with the previous report; more than a third of monitored stocks aren't fished sustainably	Checked from the summary; the MSC is a fisheries certifier
Fishcount, estimate of the number of fish caught	Estimated about 1 to 2.7 trillion wild fish caught each year	A 2010 study; approximate figures
The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness (2024)	A realistic possibility of consciousness in all vertebrates, including fish	Signed by hundreds of researchers

d
The strongest counter-reply: herbivorous farmed fish
The most serious version grants the problems with fishing, but says herbivorous farmed fish, such as tilapia, don't depend on wild fish and have a low environmental impact.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Environmental impact is only part of it.
Farmed fish suffer from high stocking density, disease and slaughter often without stunning.
There's pollution and disease.
Aquaculture can pollute rivers and spread disease to wild fish.
There are plant alternatives.
Protein and omega-3 can come from plants and algae (G6).
f
Back to the moral question
Even if fishing were perfectly sustainable, every fish caught would be a sentient individual killed. Sustainability talks about the species and the stock, not the fish. The moral question remains: what justifies its death when there are alternatives?

Reasoning errors

Logical

Is the form valid?

Shift of focus

Talks about the stock, not the fish

Epistemological

Does the evidence support it?

Overconfidence in labels

Assumes certification solves every problem

Moral

Is the criterion coherent?

The individual treated as a resource

The fish becomes part of a stock to be managed

Biases

Mind denial

Fish seem to have less mind than other animals

Bastian et al., 2012

Halo effect

The label makes the product seem good in every way

General literature on the halo effect

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "if a population is well managed, killing its individuals isn't a problem".

If it applied to…Stray dogsTap to see

Killing dogs would be acceptable if the population held steady

No one accepts this

If it applied to…Wild animalsTap to see

Hunting would be acceptable whenever the population was stable

This is the argument of H11

If it applied to…FishTap to see

Fishing would be acceptable if the stock held steady

Ignores the individual

Contradictions

Doesn't always buy certified fish.

Eating out, they rarely know where it came from.

Cares about dolphins and turtles.

Which die as bycatch.

Ignores aquaculture feed.

Which comes from the sea.

What the argument gets right

What is true

Concern for the oceans is legitimate, and there are real differences between well-managed and predatory fishing. Labels and management policies can reduce environmental harm, and some forms of aquaculture have a lower impact.

But

But the sustainability of the stock isn't the sustainability of the fish. Each fish is someone who feels, and no label changes the fact that they were killed.

Connections

Usually comes before

G6 Only fish provides omega-3.Defends sustainable fishing

H10this argument

Usually comes after

F7 Oysters and mussels don't feel.Says oysters and mussels don't feel

A6 Fish and invertebrates don't feel pain.Says fish don't feel pain

H13 If meat is sustainable, there's no problem.Sustainability becomes a justification

"Sustainable fishing and aquaculture solve it."

Short answer

For children

Como pode aparecer

The strongest version

Full answer

Reconstruction and diagnosis

Where the argument breaks

Data and sources

The strongest counter-reply: herbivorous farmed fish

Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion

Back to the moral question

Reasoning errors

Logical

Epistemological

Moral

Biases

Mind denial

Halo effect

Extrapolations

Contradictions

What the argument gets right

Connections

References

Fisheries and oceans

Science

Psychology