This is interesting, but I have to say that the language of it bothers me. 'To save' is an active verb and 'to spare' generally is also. Yes, choosing how to eat is an active choice, but that doesn't mean that it directly results in stopping an animal's death. Furthermore, this article implies that the 'solution' is for humans to stop eating meat altogether, thereby saving animal lives and magically fixing ecological imbalances. Of course, the article implies this only in relation to fish.

The reality is that vegetarians rely on agriculture, which in its contemporary form is just as unnatural as the meat industries. In fact, runoff from commercial agriculture is the very reason for ecological imbalances within certain sectors of marine life. Jellyfish and algal blooms, the destruction of corals, etc. Furthermore, the sheer contamination of water via agriculture, which was mentioned in another article posted on hubski, is truly stupendous and growing, even as we are moving toward what scientists predict will be a fresh water shortage.

I'm all for eating more healthfully and more responsibly, but merely converting people to vegetarianism clearly is not the answer.

There are Bibles of all kinds, and there's more thumping going on in the world than doing. I'm not up on my deadly sins, but I'm pretty sure that inaction is a form of sloth.