"Sustainability" is a remarkably foamy concept when we try to apply it to aquatic animals.  It is simply incredible to pretend that anyone truly thoroughly knows what affects the health of freshwater species and marine species.  We should always be doubtful about claims of "sustainable" when applied to meat brought up from rivers or the sea.

As for the huge difference between "self-denial" and "wise reserve," that can wait for another occasion.

Then, the motto, "Sustainability need not mean self-denial," seems quite to miss the point.  Our selves are most selfishly united with the living creatures whom we are talking about, when we are talking about what must be sustained.  The division between "us the (wannabe)sustainers" and "them the non-human creatures to be sustained" does not hold up, when it comes to biology, and the systems of Mother Earth.

That aside, the recipe sounds nice.  Mind any loose bones, though.  Thanks to our fishy ancestors, and what worked fine for them, we have these strange throats, which do not always require us to decide between our esophaguses and our tracheas, until it is too late ...

And, not for the first time, may I say: There is no humane way to catch and kill a fish (save perhaps by dynamite, which however is problematic for other reasons).  Bony ray-finned fish, i.e. actinopterygians (we are the children of bony lobe-finned fish, by the way, fairly close cousins), such as trout, are sentient beings; and they are as interested in staying alive, and accomplishing the things that living beings might accomplish, as we are.

with Canis Candida's comment that: "...the motto, "Sustainability need not mean self-denial," seems quite to miss the point." It was added to my article during the editorial process. I myself am totally fine with making sacrifices and consider certain sacrifices to be absolutely necessary if we are to get out of the situation in which we find ourselves.

I read an interview a year or so ago with a guy who was being hailed as an environmental youth leader and he said  something along the lines of  "I'm not going to do anything crazy like give up taking long, hot showers" and I remember thinking that if that was his attitude then he totally didn't get it. Giving up taking long, hot showers in one of the absolutely easiest things one can do, so why not do it?

There are some people who believe that the way to get the public to live more environmentally conscious lives is to present only happy alternatives to the way we do things now -- and it is certainly true that there are many ways to live a more environmentally-sound life that are, in fact, easy, pleasant, and sacrifice-free -- but that's not the whole story.

The way I look at it, it's better to make every single "easy" sacrifice that we can while we still have that option. If we don't change our way of living, we will soon find that we are forced to make larger, harder sacrifices about which we will have no choice. I think that a lot of the luxuries that many Americans now take for granted are eventually going to become distant memories -- affordable (for some) air travel, swimming pools, lush green lawns, fresh fruit imported from Chile in the dead of winter -- these may all be consigned to history.

The present reality  is all that any of us are familiar with, so it doesn't strike us as odd or unsustainable that we can walk into a grocery store in any major city and buy products gathered from around the world, or that, given enough income, people can travel to countries on the other side of the earth, and not just for business, but for pleasure. Compared to the rest of human history, however, this is an extraordinary expenditure of natural resources, particularly for things that are really luxuries rather than necessities.

As I said, it's not really a fault or failing that we accept this as reality. For most of us, whether we've personally been able to take advantage of these opportunities or not, it is still our only experience and expectation of what it means to be alive in the 21st century. We'd be foolish, however, to imagine that things will continue as they have while our energy sources and natural resources are rapidly depleted, and the time left to make changes grows ever shorter.

That's quieter.

I couldn't agree more... with Canis Candida's comment that: "...the motto, "Sustainability need not mean self-denial," seems quite to miss the point." It was added to my article during the editorial process. I myself am totally fine with making sacrifices and consider certain sacrifices to be absolutely necessary if we are to get out of the situation in which we find ourselves.

I hope and trust that meddlesome editorial interventions such as this that essentially reverse a contributor's beliefs are most rare at our cherished, straight-talking honest-to-goodness Grist.

"sustainable tuna from Hawaii"...consumed in CALIFORNIA, oh my.

Has dead tuna harnessed teleportation technology to relocated itself across the Pacific without using energy?