Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.co.uk

121–130 of 143 posts

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

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 outsi…

It exists in plenty of places. The problem is that it's buried under denialist crap, and refutations of denialist crap. We should be teaching it in schools. When you try, the denialists demand equal time. In exactly the same way that the creationists demand equal time, because it's exactly the same people. I cannot win on this. I've simply accepted the loss. I get through my life by not talking to conspiracy theorist…

For what it's worth, as a kid in late 1980s California public schools, I do remember learning about the basics of the Greenhouse effect and why it would likely become a problem in our lifetimes, sometime between 4th and 6th grades, I think. This was in the era of Deukmejian and Wilson as governors, when California was still run by Republicans.

I have no idea if that still gets taught, or how much of an effect it had on the late Gen X/early Millennial generations to be taught this (assuming it wasn't just California), but I feel like it did have an impact at least on me. As you say, the physics is extremely simple and straightforward to the point you can explain it to a 10 year-old and they'll understand it. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. Beyond that, you can look at a very simple plot of average global temperature and see it rising almost in lockstep with anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The fact that there are often local abnormally cold winter events in specific places doesn't change that the global averages are still rising.

I'm not really sure what to say beyond that. I could see some plausible case being made through the 70s and 80s that we were just coming out of the post-medieval Little Ice Age, but the trend has only accelerated since then and we are way past the hottest it has been since the Holocene and thus the dawn of agriculture. I still see a few David Friedman types out there trying to argue we can't know for certain if it won't be a net positive as places like Siberia become arable land in the coming centuries (he'll definitely never know since he's almost 80), but to deny that warming is happening beyond what might be expected from purely cyclical natural phenomena at this point is willful ignorance.

Even the actual oil companies don't try to make this argument any more. It's pure culture war, reflexive rejection of any piece of information, no matter whether it is fact or opinion, based on its having been associated at some point with some conception of an academic "left."

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

#122

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…

>Morality is relative, please don't inflict yours on others. Suffering is not relative. “It just isn't possible to mass produce meat without torturing animals. In fact, raising animals specifically for consumption, i.e., “humane slaughter” is an oxymoron.” — https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cynic.html

Should we let all carnivorous animal die so that their prey can live a 'suffering free' life?

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

#123

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…

I think one of the biggest problems is that the fishing nets are made out of thin plastic wire which then degrades over time and ultimately fragments into microscopic pieces of plastic that fish and other sea life end up eating.

The reason they eat is is because the microscopic particles floats in the water column like "snow", just like all of the other tiny things that fish eat while they swim around.

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

#124

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…

Regardless of whether or not it was "gotcha" journalism, I learned a LOT of stuff that I didn't previously know.

For example, I had no idea that the "Dolphin Safe" label was just marketing and didn't actually represent any sort of guarantee.

When you think about it, it all makes logical sense. These fishing trawlers are dragging huge nets across the ocean to catch giant schools of fish. Who else eats that fish? Dolphins and sharks. So of course they are going to get caught in the nets along with all the other fish. This had never really occurred to me before.

It was also incredibly eye opening to find out what really happens at most fish farms. They have all these fish contained in a relatively small area and they are feeding them all the other waste fish byproducts that come from normal fishing. The farmed fish just sit there in their own filth. It's hard to believe that's a healthy or sustainable way.

I also learned that a lot of the health benefits of fish such as omega 3 oils actually originate from the algae that fish eat. This means that you can just avoid eating fish entirely and just source omega 3 oils from algae. No reason to even eat the fish.

It was also very eye opening to discover just how much more toxic the ocean is becoming over time as humans keep using it as our dumping ground.

Ultimately, there only seems to be one solution: Stop eating fish.

But that begs the question... if the ocean runs out of fish, then we have to stop eating fish, right? So if we just all stop eating fish now, how is that any better than running out of fish later? The net effect is the same!

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

#125
post #7

"Others have argued it oversimplifies a complex issue - many communities depend on fishing for their livelihoods and for food, and are in fact practising sustainable catching methods." I guess this pretty much answers the question whether seaspiracy film is correct or not. People are trying to justify as if industry care about sustainable catching methods? Really? And there is common practise "The Solution to Polluti…

I wonder if in 10-20 years we will be writing "Remember Vaccine Industry?"

We most certainly will be.

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

#126
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

Maybe we are picking small fish, but not with cargo ships.

I'd be all for a system with deposits like you describe. Most coke bottle here in Scandinavia at least do have a deposit fee, but it's not significant enough for anyone except children and the homeless to care.

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

#127
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think it's achievable, most people would rather not inconvenience themselves, but why is not a reasonable thing to consider? It's stupidly easy to be vegan in a first world country.

It's easy even in underdeveloped countries. For example, Ethiopian cuisine is quite vegan friendly.

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

#128
post #49

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.

There's a huge misconception that eating vegan is expensive. Vegan diet staples are dirt cheap. Legumes are absurdly inexpensive, especially when compared with meat. If governments ever get around to closing the loophole of externalizing costs (for instance, through a carbon tax), then the difference would grow even wider.

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

#129
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…

I'm not sure what you mean with "there is no sustainable industrial fishing"? If you look at e.g. Norway, fishing has been industrialized literally since the Byzantine empire was around. While there was indeed a crisis with overfishing in the post-war period, today it is a well-regulated and sustainable industry with quotas set on the basis of scientific measurements of the population sizes of different species. So it seems to be unambiguously possible?

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

#130
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.

As others have said, this is simply wrong. Shocking footage, be warned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWaYYbIpnmU&t=104s

Post reply on HN