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

91–100 of 143 posts

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

#91

Post by DennisP »

_23sd wrote: post #67
exoque wrote: post #15

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.

If the answer is yes, I think the far more important question is how do we stop destroying it. That's where the little "nitpicking" details start to matter. An even greater conspiracy at work here is one the filmmakers are complicit in: teaching Americans to express their moral outlook through consumer choices. You would have thought they would have learned by now that swearing off fish (or meat, or processed foods)…

The film also mentioned that governments are subsidizing the industrial fishing industry. That's an obvious angle of attack that goes beyond consumer choices.

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

#92

Post by dsincl12 »

cies wrote: post #81
dsincl12 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't really fly unfortunately. Eat vegan/vegetarian and you will have a minimal impact, that is what you see/hear everywhere. But in the meanwhile these new vegan/vegetarian companies are a huge cause of the deforestation of the Amazon [1]. The amount of vegan/vegetarian food necessary to actually get the same amount of nutrients are on a different planet and simple math shows that it wouldn't even work if we…

> Eat vegan/vegetarian and you will have a minimal impact This is mostly true. You could maybe have a "mostly rice + meat once a month diet" that has less impact than a vegan diet rich in Impossible/Beyond meat and avocados. But apart from comparisons of "outliers" this statement true. > But in the meanwhile these new vegan/vegetarian companies are a huge cause of the deforestation of the Amazon [1] Might be so, but…

I hear you (I was a vegetarian for over 12 years), but I don't think there's a simple solution to the problem. The reality is that most of the new "good" companies are just as bad as the old ones they're replacing.

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

#93

Post by rozab »

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…

Legit, did you read the same article as me? I read another comment here that seemed to be referring to this BBC article as if it wasn't the one linked. Was the link changed?

I think this article is very fair. It does a good job linking to sources where available, and calling out where estimates lack hard sources. They've brought in a variety of experts, and they do mention the claims which might seem unbelievable but are accurate. I've never had much problem with the Reality Check series.

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

#94

Post by neaden »

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…

It's interesting that you use cigarettes as an example of something there is consensus on, because for years the tobacco companies denied the health effects using the exact same techniques that the oil companies now use with global warming. The reason it seems so clear now is because the government and courts finally took a stance on this issue.

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

#95

Post by cies »

dsincl12 wrote: post #92
cies wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eat vegan/vegetarian and you will have a minimal impact This is mostly true. You could maybe have a "mostly rice + meat once a month diet" that has less impact than a vegan diet rich in Impossible/Beyond meat and avocados. But apart from comparisons of "outliers" this statement true. > But in the meanwhile these new vegan/vegetarian companies are a huge cause of the deforestation of the Amazon [1] Might be so, but…

I hear you (I was a vegetarian for over 12 years), but I don't think there's a simple solution to the problem. The reality is that most of the new "good" companies are just as bad as the old ones they're replacing.

I was vegetarian "for the animals" for 12 years as well! But I found that I was a hypocrite towards milk cows and their families and to egg laying hens and their families. So I went vegan.

I found that vegetarian is a weird cultural diet that does not have clear lines, and veganism is a well defined ethical stance (i also dont go to zoos and dont take leather etc.)

No animal will ever be caged up of mistreated "for me". And that feels quite reassuring.

You mention companies again. Please think of it in more basic terms: it's not all about more/higher tech. In case of food I like low text stuff: lentils, tempeh, sweat potato, greens and lots of fruits.

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

#96

Post by kiliantics »

_23sd wrote: post #67
exoque wrote: post #15

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.

If the answer is yes, I think the far more important question is how do we stop destroying it. That's where the little "nitpicking" details start to matter. An even greater conspiracy at work here is one the filmmakers are complicit in: teaching Americans to express their moral outlook through consumer choices. You would have thought they would have learned by now that swearing off fish (or meat, or processed foods)…

I agree with you. There is some mention in the film about regulation and how there would need to be dramatic changes in policy and enforcement but this definitely seemed to be minimised compared with the "eat less fish" recommendation.

However, I think it's really difficult for them to send a message of what we should do for political change. What would they say? It's not like voting has ever caused the kind of substantial, rapid change that is now necessary. Pointing the finger at political parties would have probably hurt their ability to publish the film to get the message out. And they can't go and suggest sabotage of the fishing industry or rioting/revolution, even if those would be the most effective.

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

#97

Post by cies »

stevehawk wrote: post #90
dsincl12 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't really fly unfortunately. Eat vegan/vegetarian and you will have a minimal impact, that is what you see/hear everywhere. But in the meanwhile these new vegan/vegetarian companies are a huge cause of the deforestation of the Amazon [1]. The amount of vegan/vegetarian food necessary to actually get the same amount of nutrients are on a different planet and simple math shows that it wouldn't even work if we…

i feel like every week i'm told some new thing is why we are taking down rain forests. is it for beef cattle? palm oil? vegetables? lumber?

I'm afraid this is classical FUD. (some cases of this have been proven). The truth is so obvious and bad for profits in some sector that they want us to doubt it.

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

#98

Post by BrandoElFollito »

neaden wrote: post #94
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…

It's interesting that you use cigarettes as an example of something there is consensus on, because for years the tobacco companies denied the health effects using the exact same techniques that the oil companies now use with global warming. The reason it seems so clear now is because the government and courts finally took a stance on this issue.

Absolutely, and sugar companies as well (they lobbied to tag fat as bad, instead of sugar)

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

#99

Post by DennisP »

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 thought I was aware of the problem, but it turned out the ugly side was a lot uglier than I'd imagined. Definitely worth a watch.

The most "conspiratorial threads" consisted of sustainable seafood labels being mostly a sham and funded by the fishing industry, which is not exactly surprising. The film also documented rampant criminal behavior and some oppressive police action, but I wouldn't call any of that "conspiratorial" rather than depressingly common.

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

#100

Post by Johnjonjoan »

jfengel wrote: post #86
bboylen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is some climate change deniers openly accept that having more CO2 will heat the earth but also say that having more CO2 in the air will "green" the Earth. This is true in a sense - plants need CO2 - but it doesn't account for the horrible side effects of rapidly shifting the planets atmosphere.

Sure. As if CO2 were the limiting factor in photosynthesis, which it isn't. But that's OK, because they don't really care about being right. They'll just shift on to the next argument, even if it's contradictory to the ones they're already using. That's how a Gish Gallop works. You can just point them at https://skepticalscience.com/oneliners.php for a lengthy list of the arguments they're going to use and the trivia…

But increased CO2 is strongly linked to the greening effect.

>Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.

>Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...

Post reply on HN