To quote The Goodies. “Why are you dumping oil and potatoes into the ocean?” “Well when the ocean is full of fish, potatoes and oil, I’ll throw in a match. Flash! Fry! Frizzle… Fish and Chips! Loads and Loads of Fish and Chips.”
We already massively overfish, is that really your solution? It’ll mean more intense factory farming of seafood, creating huge amounts of water based pollution.
Not all types of fish are overfished, some (like haddock) are sustainable. Just as some crops are farmed responsibly, and others (like California almonds) are not.
I see you noticed that mackerel had it’s “sustainable” status removed. Sad times. ^^’
I didn’t think Haddock had gotten back on the sustainable side either, most things can be done sustainably up to a certain volume. If the entire population turns its eye on it then demand far outstrips supply and goodbye sustainability.
There are more native English speakers in my country than yours. So I’ll continue to use the definition that they understand, which is also the definition used by Encyclopedia Britannica.
But if I ever visit your landlocked English-speaking country (assuming such a place exists), then I’ll try to keep in mind that local customs differ when eating at your restaurants.
There are more native English speakers in my country than yours
That’s for sure! My country’s native language is not English, so you’re again right that my landlocked country is not an English-speaking one.
Continue using whatever you want, don’t be surprised if your illogical words don’t make sense to someone else.
If you want to go by sheer numbers, I think in India there’s more native English speakers than in US and they use a variation of British English and as far as I know, seafood there means what any sane person would assume. Hell, you don’t have to go with English, my language’s version (literally translated to English as “fruits of the sea”) also means only fish/shellfish from the sea. And I guess most (if not all) countries use it the same way.
English words are neither logical nor illogical. The English language, more than most, depends heavily on context to confer meaning. Some English words can mean their own opposite, like “to dust”, “to sanction”, or “to cleave”.
Linguistics aside, even if your country is landlocked you will most likely find a variety of fish in your grocery store, including those from the sea. In fact, the fish in your grocery store most likely traveled less far than many of the fruits and vegetables.
Or switch to a seafood-based diet, which has a much smaller CO2 footprint than land-based agriculture.
“just eat seafood”. Brought to you by the comment thread on the article about the fact that the oceans are half way to literally fucking boiling.
Yes, precooked meals are an additional advantage.
To quote The Goodies. “Why are you dumping oil and potatoes into the ocean?” “Well when the ocean is full of fish, potatoes and oil, I’ll throw in a match. Flash! Fry! Frizzle… Fish and Chips! Loads and Loads of Fish and Chips.”
(This is from memory, will be somewhat paraphrased. Also see https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0591041/)
Well, I can’t give you gold obviously, so here’s my first comment ever. That comment was fucking gold!
We already massively overfish, is that really your solution? It’ll mean more intense factory farming of seafood, creating huge amounts of water based pollution.
Not all types of fish are overfished, some (like haddock) are sustainable. Just as some crops are farmed responsibly, and others (like California almonds) are not.
I see you noticed that mackerel had it’s “sustainable” status removed. Sad times. ^^’
I didn’t think Haddock had gotten back on the sustainable side either, most things can be done sustainably up to a certain volume. If the entire population turns its eye on it then demand far outstrips supply and goodbye sustainability.
Well, doesn’t sound it helps CO2 when you live in a landlocked country like I do.
Does your country have rivers or lakes? Seafood isn’t always found in a sea.
Seafood is literally always found in sea.
Seafood commonly includes freshwater species such as catfish, trout, and some salmon.
Ah, Americans are redefining words again.
Normal English:
US English:
I’m gonna go with the definition that makes sense and say that no, we don’t have any local seafood, simply because we don’t have any sea.
There are more native English speakers in my country than yours. So I’ll continue to use the definition that they understand, which is also the definition used by Encyclopedia Britannica.
But if I ever visit your landlocked English-speaking country (assuming such a place exists), then I’ll try to keep in mind that local customs differ when eating at your restaurants.
That’s for sure! My country’s native language is not English, so you’re again right that my landlocked country is not an English-speaking one.
Continue using whatever you want, don’t be surprised if your illogical words don’t make sense to someone else.
If you want to go by sheer numbers, I think in India there’s more native English speakers than in US and they use a variation of British English and as far as I know, seafood there means what any sane person would assume. Hell, you don’t have to go with English, my language’s version (literally translated to English as “fruits of the sea”) also means only fish/shellfish from the sea. And I guess most (if not all) countries use it the same way.
English words are neither logical nor illogical. The English language, more than most, depends heavily on context to confer meaning. Some English words can mean their own opposite, like “to dust”, “to sanction”, or “to cleave”.
Linguistics aside, even if your country is landlocked you will most likely find a variety of fish in your grocery store, including those from the sea. In fact, the fish in your grocery store most likely traveled less far than many of the fruits and vegetables.