Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#31

Post by slightwinder »

elias94 wrote: post #16

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…

> so why don't try to explain it to us?

Maybe they do and nobody is listening?

The crux with complicate topics is that oversimplification can lead to wrong conclusions. So experts are always eager to avoid the point that leads to the wrong direction and are careful with their explanations.

The question is whether cowspiracy and seaspiracy turned in the wrong direction or whether the critics are just to cautious.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#32

Post by supernova87a »

Would any of you say it's definitely worth watching, to someone debating whether to spend the 90 min?

Some of the reviews are pretty mixed, saying that the film's message is confused by conspiratorial threads and off-putting journalistic style.

Or, if you're already aware of the problems with industrial fishing, is it a pass/not much of an eye opener and not mandatory watching?

Watching episodes of David Attenborough's Blue Planet might have done more for me already to appreciate the value of sea life than what I imagine is lots of footage of industrial fish markets, processing facilities, etc. But maybe knowing the ugly side is important.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#33

Post by ORioN63 »

youngtaff wrote: post #2

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…

How do we account for selection bias though?

I think it's likely that nets are easy to catch. Floaty, big surface area, lots of anchor points.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#34

Post by IgorPartola »

fireattack wrote: post #23
elias94 wrote: post #16

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…

I can see both sides. I appreciate these documentaries for raising awareness as you said. 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 abo…

I can see both sides but the side of the experts can clearly do better here. “It’s too complex to explain to all you people” or “this isn’t really a problem, the documentary makes a mountain of a mole hill” aren’t good approaches. If you are an expert in a field you should have at least some ability to simplify the issue or point out the mitigating factors that the documentary missed.

The much more likely explanation here is that experts have a vested interest in looking smarter than some guy with a camera so they furrow their brows and talk about the complexities of the issue.

As an analogy, BitCoin is complex. Between its usage of a blockchain and energy usage and murky origin story with who knows who owning a large chunk from the get go. Yet you could probably explain the power consumption problem to someone pretty easily.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#35

Post by wongarsu »

s_dev wrote: post #14

My single biggest takeaway from watching it was that there is no "sustainable industrial fishing" despite every political advocacy group stating that as a bullet point "eat sustainable fish" to helping biodiversity and fish stocks. Basically unless the a dude has a fishing rod and is catching his own dinner it's unsustainable. Those boys over at impossbile burger better be whipping up some fish substitutes because I…

Fish raised in a fish farm is reasonably sustainable, especially those raised in lakes.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#36

Post by kylebyproxy »

CynicusRex wrote: post #25

Even if only 1% of Seaspiracy is true, or if the numbers are off by 99%, the fact remains that we can live perfectly healthily without animal based foodstuff. The only moral and simplest solution is for privileged Westerners to go vegan.

Morality is relative; please don't inflict yours on others. Animal consumption can be made sustainable. The main offenders are beef, lamb, and mutton, and their associated dairy[1]. Cutting just those out would put us back in the ballpark of responsible agriculture. Between pork, poultry, fish & other aquatics, and insects, there's room for sustainable meat farming.

[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#37

Post by sjg007 »

Salamat wrote: post #3

There has been a swift resonse to deny it by the "industry" with a little help from Nytimes and all.Yet,as a journalist, the guy asked the questions yet no one has given him in the documentary any comment.Now they are responding to public opinion.BBC's Reality Check team looked into some of the main claims in the Seaspiracy film on Netflix and most of them are somewhat accurate. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/44015…

You did not cite the bytimes?

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#38

Post by BrandoElFollito »

fireattack wrote: post #23
elias94 wrote: post #16

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…

I can see both sides. I appreciate these documentaries for raising awareness as you said. 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 abo…

This is the problem I have with climate change.

I am a very rational, science oriented person (actively promoting science, atheist, PhD in physics, actively hating homeopathy pseudo-science, you name it). I wanted to understand:

- why there is a problem with climete chnage

- how we know there is one

- my winter was cold, where is the warming (exaggerating that of course)

- etc.

I am not an expert, nor want to become one. I just want someone to tell me: this is the evidence, these are the consequences as seen historically, we are "here" in the timeline.

The only thing I hear is "you dumb believers!" and "you dumb non-believers" (or a disgusted stare).

The only pertinent information that does not come with 200 pages of explanations are, as usual, in xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1379/ and https://xkcd.com/1732/. And also https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/30/xkcd-succumbs-to-climat... and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-c... - as a counterpoint.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#39

Post by [deleted] »

kylebyproxy wrote: post #36
CynicusRex wrote: post #25

Even if only 1% of Seaspiracy is true, or if the numbers are off by 99%, the fact remains that we can live perfectly healthily without animal based foodstuff. The only moral and simplest solution is for privileged Westerners to go vegan.

Morality is relative; please don't inflict yours on others. Animal consumption can be made sustainable. The main offenders are beef, lamb, and mutton, and their associated dairy[1]. Cutting just those out would put us back in the ballpark of responsible agriculture. Between pork, poultry, fish & other aquatics, and insects, there's room for sustainable meat farming. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impac…

[deleted]

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#40

Post by emptyfile »

CynicusRex wrote: post #25

Even if only 1% of Seaspiracy is true, or if the numbers are off by 99%, the fact remains that we can live perfectly healthily without animal based foodstuff. The only moral and simplest solution is for privileged Westerners to go vegan.

Hahahaha, yeah, simplest solution is for everyone to go vegan. Totally reasonable and achievable.
Post reply on HN