rocking the lobster

Chin-chin Gutierrez has received int'l recognition for her efforts in promoting environmental protection. I wonder how her recent statements, though, will be taken, especially by those whose primary means of livelihood depends on the ocean's bounty.

I couldn't find the news article I came across a week or two ago, so all I have is a summary of her words. Chin-chin expressed her desire for fishes to be left where they belong--the sea--and not to be eaten at all. What was she thinking? Did she even consider the numerous fishermen worldwide and the thousands of others who depend on these marine animals for their meals as well as for their income? The Philippines is not landlocked (surprise!); in fact, having more than 7,000 islands means quite a huge part of the population earning their keep from the "produce" of the sea.

What's next? "Fruitarians" taking to the streets, protesting the harvest and sale of their "beloved"? Would Congress one day declare that fruits have emotions? Would apple-munching and mango shake-making be considered forms of murder?

That's strange--vegetarians stick to veggies and keep meat off their diet; "fruitarians" (if Nottinghill is to be taken seriously) believe that fruits have feelings and that eating these is a most horrifying idea.

Back to the fish. Chin-chin's suggestion to let the scaly, crabby and shelled creatures remain under the sea would probably make sense if she found a way to compensate in full all those affected by a supposed "fish ban." But then, I'd prefer that she spend a lot of time (if she hasn't done so yet) with fisherfolk, market vendors, seaside residents and all those who depend on the ocean's bounty for their survival. Then she can think again about the hierarchy of importance among the creatures that roam the planet.