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

101–110 of 143 posts

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

#101

Post by jfengel »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #88
jfengel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, in essence, the crux of the problem. With your level of education it shouldn't be at all difficult to find a resource that answers your questions. Instead you've sought out two comic strips and two extremely ideological sources. The basics of climate change can be taught standing on one foot. Carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation, while oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to it. There was an equilibrium betwee…

OK, I see that the "you are dumb" argument is towards me now. I know that cigarettes are bad for my lungs and for my heart. How do I know that? Because I can read ONE COMMON OPINION everywhere. All the time. Nobody claims it is good. Global warming? I hear everything pro and con and then more. Your answer is essentially: go learn something because it is true. The funny part? I know very well this is true. How? Where…

I just handed you the ELI5 version. Would you have been any happier if I had said nothing more than my second paragraph?

I can go out and find somebody else saying the same thing, if that would help. But I'm trying to locate the source of the issue here. I gave you the thing you wanted and you don't appear to have acknowledge its existence. So I'm trying to figure out the actual issue here.

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

#102

Post by DennisP »

iamacyborg wrote: post #41
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…

He was surprised that dolphin bycatch was a big problem in fishing operations labeled "dolphin safe." That probably surprises a lot of people.

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

#103

Post by iamacyborg »

RHSman2 wrote: post #69
iamacyborg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe you should have watched to the end then your comments may have been very different

Why would I when the first 20 minutes were so painfully bad?

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

#104

Post by steve_adams_86 »

galangalalgol wrote: post #87
smackay wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately humans like to eat predatory fish - salmon, tuna, etc. So although farming would be a way forward most farming needs large-scale industrial fishing to support it. The pet food industry also has the same problem. Moving farming to vegetarian species like tilapia would solve this but it's going to take a monumental effort to change the attitudes of generations.

Does that imply that some tilapia is raised sustainably? I can live with tilapia. I'd like herring or sardines better, are they low enough in the food chain to harvest sustainably? I can't handle vegan though, I'll switch to cannibalism before trying that again.

Tilapia farms are mostly disgusting, unfortunately. Hopefully it can be done cleaner. If you look into it, they are often cesspools of feed sediment, waste, and antibiotics. The runoff is terrible for surrounding life. The incredibly heavy use of antibiotics is seriously problematic.

I know the united states and Australia have some cleaner operations, but they’re much lower density and nowhere near as profitable. I’m personally fine with that, but I don’t think most people are. Hence the constant races to the bottom

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

#105

Post by BrandoElFollito »

jfengel wrote: post #101
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I see that the "you are dumb" argument is towards me now. I know that cigarettes are bad for my lungs and for my heart. How do I know that? Because I can read ONE COMMON OPINION everywhere. All the time. Nobody claims it is good. Global warming? I hear everything pro and con and then more. Your answer is essentially: go learn something because it is true. The funny part? I know very well this is true. How? Where…

I just handed you the ELI5 version. Would you have been any happier if I had said nothing more than my second paragraph? I can go out and find somebody else saying the same thing, if that would help. But I'm trying to locate the source of the issue here. I gave you the thing you wanted and you don't appear to have acknowledge its existence. So I'm trying to figure out the actual issue here.

> gave you the thing you wanted and you don't appear to have acknowledge its existence. So I'm trying to figure out the actual issue here.

The actual issue is not of ME not knowing (my question was intended to provide the "typical person not interested" perspective but apparently I failed to do that). As I said, I do know what global warming is.

The issue is that people are stuck between some who will say "look outside, it is -5°C, let's laugh about global warming", some that will say "you should just make an effort and learn", and the ones who will say "the conjecture is that the Navier-Stokes equations shows that laminar wagoo wareeh mawawaw".

I do not see the ELI5 version being broadcasted and pushed with a shovel into people's head. In which case the "look outside..." wins.

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

#106

Post by IgorPartola »

fireattack wrote: post #61
IgorPartola wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think there is a fundamental difference between the two groups about how much simplification/inaccuracy can be accepted. The TV producer would take 90% fact, 5% oversimplification, and even 5% misleading info all day every day. The experts probably won't accept that. This is not to say they are unable to simplify things (which as you said, is a very crucial skill on its own) if asked , they just won't go ahead and…

As a subject matter expert you must sometimes communicate with non-experts. If you can’t do that, you are failing at half the job because being an expert is not just about knowing the subject but being able to communicate well about it.

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

#107

Post by yllorepap »

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 most sustainable thing to do is kill yourself.

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

#108

Post by nobodywasishere »

krageon wrote: post #49
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.

I think they meant "those people who are Westerners who are also privileged" and not "all Westerners, who are all privileged".

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

#109

Post by kylebyproxy »

AnonC wrote: post #71
kylebyproxy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So why would you inflict your morality on others just because they belong to another species? With the impact of consumption by privileged people hitting the poorest and most vulnerable people the hardest, why would you inflict harm on those people by using morals that don’t help? There’s always a “can be” for everything. The question is whether you’re willing to take personal responsibility in doing something while…

> So why would you inflict your morality on others just because they belong to another species?

I don't. I'm indifferent to any sort of value judgment in the matter. I simply acknowledge and accept that my biology requires the consumption of nutrients. Circle of life, and all that.

Organisms are the only sufficient source of nutrients I have access to. Unless you're here to enlighten me about how to cook rocks, I don't know what you're on about.

Post reply on HN