Is there something in particular necessary about animal protein, that it gets a distinct category from just protein in general?

It also stands to reason that if that many people really are dependent on fish, it will be devastating to them when overfishing and pollution destroy fish stocks. All the more reason to reduce fishing and build alternatives now.

Well yes, but actually no. Not all proteins are equal, they have different quantities of different kinds of amino acids. Humans need 9 distinct amino acids for a healthy diet, and animal proteins are by far the easiest source of "complete proteins" from a single source. It's absolutely possible to get plant-based complete proteins (e.g. soy or quinoa), but often that involves deliberately mixing different protein sources to get a complete balance.

Turns out that eating the exact same thing every day is bad for you. That goes for meat as much as it goes for not-meat.

What do you mean “gets a distinct category”? Nutritionally it’s certainly possible to survive without eating fish, but a very large number of people do eat fish to survive.

Statisticians will collect and analyze data at many levels of granularity. Obviously it’s nice to know the types of food billions of people eat more generally than “fat”, “protein”, and “carbs”.

It stands to reason that fishing should be done sustainably, just like anything should be done sustainably, lest it become unsustainable. In other words, this says essentially nothing, right?

Only in the context of what the substitute is, how readily available it is, how comparable in cost, how comparable in nutrition, how much is it preferred or disliked compared to the status quo, and what negative externalities might exist in scaling up the alternative, only in that context can a useful discussion be had.

> Is there something in particular necessary about animal protein, that it gets a distinct category from just protein in general

Pretty worrying that people don't know that the only real sources of essential acids critical to humans are from seafood, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)

They aren't optional and the body sucks at synthesising them.

Humans can get EPA from algae, same as where fish get it, among other sources. Just look up "algae based omega 3 supplement". The body synthesizes DHA from all sorts of seeds and oils, else we'd be screwed.

Weirdly smug, alarmist post.

There are people who never eat seafood. Reading your post, you'd have to assume such people would be dead.

Historically none of the above is true. iodized salt, and the OM3 where almost universally received from sea based foods.

You are talking about sources that have only affected people in the last small period of time. There are a couple of million years of development that got you to the point of fortified cereals and pills.

> There are people who never eat seafood.

Woosh

There are entire countries and cultures that survive without meat for centuries. I’d love to know how you decided sourcing those proteins from fish is “not optional”.

These are people in some of the poorest countries like Bangladesh. Are pea proteins cost effective and available in sufficient enough quantities to feed all these people? Other people brought up that it isn't just about the protein but other essentials things like amino acids.

Amino acids are the building blocks of protein. All of my aforementioned foods have the complete spectrum of amino acids.

I don't know the details but look at what Slippery_John said in his comment:

> Well yes, but actually no. Not all proteins are equal, they have different quantities of different kinds of amino acids. Humans need 9 distinct amino acids for a healthy diet, and animal proteins are by far the easiest source of "complete proteins" from a single source. It's absolutely possible to get plant-based complete proteins (e.g. soy or quinoa), but often that involves deliberately mixing different protein sources to get a complete balance.