But not if you care about fish.
I'm always gobsmacked hearing talk like this...from people that apparently have been taught to view animals as...just machines, tools for humans, as if they don't have a life of their own. Just atoms at the disposal of humans. "Stock." Somehow the limit of our "care" is killing them at a rate ("sustainably caught") that enables we can go on doing so.
"Self-sacrifice"? Is it a self-sacrifice for you to not, say, own slaves or eat people? No. Those things seem wrong so you don't do them, or they doesn't even occur to you as options, although they used to be societal habits. Not eating animals seems like that to me.
As a step in an argument, this doesn't look promising. And..?
>As long as it is ethical and not torture, I don't see an issue with fishing.
Yes, sure, people have to decide for themselves where on the scale of life from bacteria/viruses to, uh, humans, they draw the ethical "eat/not eat" line.
I couldn't parse/understand the two sentences after that, sorry. Good luck with your product... Oh, without plant deaths?! hehe. Sounds like you have something more complicated than a single dividing line.
They're less toxic too, being so low on the food chain and having a short lifespan. Good source of omega-3s and other nutrients, since you eat the whole fish.