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

41–50 of 143 posts

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

#41

Post by iamacyborg »

supernova87a wrote: post #32

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…

I tried and had to turn it off after 20 minutes. By that point the interviewer had attempted two ambush interviews, made a lot of statements without backing them up (Japanese fleets overfishing tuna, they might well do but I'd like to see numbers), made false statements around the value of caught tuna (just because the first fish sold at auction in Japan sells for millions does not mean every fish sells for anywhere near that much) and acted surprised about something I thought was common knowledge when I was 6 years old (dolphins are bycatch in tuna fishing operations).

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

#42

Post by scotty79 »

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.

> The only moral and simplest solution is for privileged Westerners to go vegan.

Or just have less kids, which they are pretty much doing right now without any effort and pretense of morality.

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

#43

Post by ORioN63 »

627467 wrote: post #27

Cowspiracy, seaspiracy, social dilemma... Are examples of `guiltsploitation` genre of entertainment. 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…

Do you have a suggestion on top of your critic?

What would be the proper way to enact constructive change on behaviors?

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

#44

Post by elias94 »

slightwinder wrote: post #31
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.

> Maybe they do and nobody is listening?

Exactly why we need something like seaspiracy.

Overfishing, coral reef deaths, and all the others problems are real and if not for George Monbiot, David Attenborough and similar figures, they would all remain hidden to the large public.

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

#45

Post by GordonS »

wongarsu wrote: post #35
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.

It's not so simple - farmed fish produce a lot of waste in a very small area, which pollutes the water.

There are also serious welfare issues with fish farming - for example, horrible mechanical and chemical treatments of salmon to remove lice, high use of antibiotics, terrible life expectancy of feeder-fish (which are introduced to eat lice off of salmon), poor environmental conditions for the fish (largely because so many fish are packed into such a small area), high rates of disease (again largely because of high stocking density).

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

#46

Post by shoo »

wongarsu wrote: post #35
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.

There's the question of what inputs are used to provide the feed to grow the fish.

E.g. for salmon

> On a dry-dry basis, 2–4 kg of wild-caught fish are needed to produce 1 kg of salmon. The ratio may be reduced if non-fish sources are added. Wild salmon require about 10 kg of forage fish to produce 1 kg of salmon, as part of the normal trophic level energy transfer. The difference between the two numbers is related to farmed salmon feed containing other ingredients beyond fish meal and because farmed fish do not expend energy hunting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture_of_salmonids

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

#48

Post by dcwca »

I watched that documentary and had a good laugh at how poorly made it was. The filmmaker starts out by revealing that he just loves the ocean and wanted to make a film about it but didn’t know what the topic should be. The arc of the film is him googling for things, gaining the most basic perspective on an issue, pivoting his film toward it, and then failing to get any good interviews or original footage. So funny. He goes through ocean plastics, dolphins, shark fins, fishing net pollution, and one or two more with about as much depth as you would get from a tweet. Also why would you name your film Seaspiracy when Conspirasea is right there. 10/10 if taken as a mocumentary.

The issues are real and I appreciate raising awareness but wow. Not good work.

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

#49

Post by krageon »

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.

> privileged Westerners

What about the folks that are poor? Those are the biggest group, and it's a little tone-deaf to call them privileged just because they were born in a place that contains folks that got rich.

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

#50

Post by scotty79 »

Tistron wrote: post #12
kgc wrote: post #5

Is anything preventing us from just getting a line of cargo ships and loading up the patch to be processed on-shore? Currently many ships are being sent empty due to supply issues.

I think it's probably hard to just pick it up from the ocean. These people are developing tech for it: https://theoceancleanup.com/

We are picking small fish from the depths of sea that don't want to be picked. I don't imagine this would be way harder.

We just need someone willing to pay for it.

Maybe we should not allow companies to sell another fishing net unless customer brings the damage one back for exchange?

Maybe soft drinks should be sold this way as well? If you are packaging something, you can't sell a packaged good unless you take in used package back.

You could start it gradually. To be allowed to sell 100 bottles of Coca Cola, you need to take in at least 10 used plastic bottles of the same volume.

There is something like that for car batteries. If I want to buy a car battery I have to bring back my old one. If I don't I have to pay very large fee that I can recover only after I bring back old battery.

Post reply on HN