21–30 of 143 posts
Are we destroying the biggest ecosystem on the planet or are we not? That's the only question that matters everything else is just nitpicking.
Why present serious evidence when you can simply harass your local chippy about what kind of forks they sell?
If 46% of the Pacific garbage patch is fishing nets doesn't that make it easier to clean up? Some of the nets will have disintegrated but surely some must have large pieces of them intact? All the photos of the patch I've seen tend to be individual plastic items - bottles, cups etc. – so wondering if anyone's seen different EDIT: Found this https://mymodernmet.com/ocean-voyages-institute-great-pacifi... the majority…
the problem is - where do you put it and who takes on that burden?
That's literally nothing. How much garbage do you think a small city collects from residents daily? Google shows variety here, but that garbage trucks can handle between 10 to 20 tonnes per load.
Again, not saying it's good. There's clearly a lot more down there. But I dislike stats/info in articles which seems like a lot (eg tonnes, They dredged up tonnes!! Over a large, massive section of sea, over more than a month.). Worse, they talk as if they actually did something:
we are continuing to help restore the health of our ocean, which influences our own health and the health of the planet.
No, they're doing nothing. It's like I walked to a garbage dump, picked up a can, then took it home and recycled it.
"I created a cleaner world!", uh, yeah, sure.. good job? It's just a meaningless tiny bit of nothing.
Both cowspiracy and seaspiracy, received a lot of critics and fact check by prominence professors. "oversimplifies a complex issue", so why don't try to explain it to us? Instead of criticizing and discrediting real issues that we're going to face in a few years. Ah, they're quoting multiple times professor X and study Y without links or reference... I'm not a Netflix fan/users, but I saw those documentaries and I re…
The reason why experts don't "try to explain it to us" probably is exactly because they think it's complex and nuanced. They probably don't even think there is an "issue" that need to be explained to begin with.
Think it this way: you're in a field, and you know its pros and cons. You are not going to randomly speak anything about it because that's just.. like everything else in the world. Now, suddenly someone, likely an "outsider", wrote an article to describe the field/area in a certain one-sided way (good or bad). Of course you now suddenly have a strong opinion on it.
Note: above is about the common question I saw "why these experts only appear to refute others but never explain the thing themselves", not about Seaspiracy in particular.
The same pattern can be seen with regards to pandemic warnings before this one.
There's a very strong tendency to do business-as-usual and it's my non-optimistic belief that we will experience empty oceans and complete ecosystem collapse in our lifetime.
These events are white swans (just like the pandemic) and it's quite clear that our tendency for response towards white swans is inaction with "educated" dismissal.
Ok, they mention empty oceans by 2048, yes the study is applying a linear estimate (as oceans empty there might be some regulation to slow down the curve and the linear estimate is incorrect) but they are just discrediting the study without confirming the trend. What should I believe, that oceans are emptying or flourishing? Should I expect empty oceans in my lifetime or should I leave this worry to other generations? Also, I'd say that linear estimate is a wrong one because depletion can happen exponentially and regulation is just a small damp to an exponential collapse.
It's quite easy to see a pattern. Same pattern appeared for Cowspiracy [0] and a similar one for The Game Changers [1]. The same pattern can be seen with regards to pandemic warnings before this one. There's a very strong tendency to do business-as-usual and it's my non-optimistic belief that we will experience empty oceans and complete ecosystem collapse in our lifetime. These events are white swans (just like the p…
This made me feel very uneasy.
I believe this is the most important topic of our lifetime, as much as climate change is a major issue, retaining and preserving biodiversity and its 4 billion years of knowledge is surely just as important.
I'm less concerned on whether their "storytelling" is being fair or an oversimplification, and more concerned on whether it leads to constructive atitudes by those influenced by them.
Given the lengths they seem to go at shocking people I see little depth in their work at actually wanting the enact constructive change on behaviours.
It's quite easy to see a pattern. Same pattern appeared for Cowspiracy [0] and a similar one for The Game Changers [1]. The same pattern can be seen with regards to pandemic warnings before this one. There's a very strong tendency to do business-as-usual and it's my non-optimistic belief that we will experience empty oceans and complete ecosystem collapse in our lifetime. These events are white swans (just like the p…
I agree we’re likely to see empty oceans before then — climate change will cause famine in a lot of places, increasing the demand for food (and particularly meat, given how resource-intensive it is).
Sure, there are things like lab-grown meat but those aren’t going to be realistic on any scale outside of wealthy western nations. The other ~6 billion people in the world are gonna be totally screwed and that’s going to have consequences to our ecosystems. It’s a nasty feedback loop.
Are we destroying the biggest ecosystem on the planet or are we not? That's the only question that matters everything else is just nitpicking.
In the mean while: just eat plants directly.