...
You took a survey of class mates and almost no one said that they would stop eating fish
if they already ate it. And all of you are not so desperate for protein, and fish is a
more expensive and more difficult option while you are here on the MIT campus, most
likely. Why would the vast majority of people in the world know almost nothing about
the extent of the problem which you spent a semester learning about stop eating fish
when even you won't? Do you think the majority of people are better ethically than
you? Do you think they are smarter than you?
The goal of our solution is to show the people the vastness of the problem, and we feel that the international scope of our problem can bring about an outcry like the outcry that was generated for global warming. That being said, our solution does not only rely on education. In the beginning, we are recommending individual transfer quotas, which limit the amount of fish that will be available. Thus, less people will be able to consume fish because the supply of fish will be decreased. Afterwards, when the international tax has come into effect, the disparity in prices will convince people to eat fish which are taxed less heavily, and as these fish are at more sustainable levels than their counterparts, this will be beneficial to stopping the problem of overfishing as well.
You say the public should be educated in a manner similar to the film an inconvenient
truth? Do you have a figurehead in mind as prominent as Al Gore to back your case,
because you would need one? Do you know of the effectiveness of an inconvenient truth
the majority of Americans? To the majority of Europeans? To the majority of the world?
...