Hacker Cinema
Seaspiracy
2021 · Film · documentary · 89 min
Directed by Ali Tabrizi
Passionate about ocean life, a filmmaker sets out to document the harm that humans do to marine species — and uncovers an alarming global conspiracy.
6 positive5 negative2 mixed6 neutralfrom 19 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
Videos commenters linked
From YouTube links in the comments below. Most are clips and trailers; “Full” means the uploader says so.
23 comments on Hacker News
'Seaspiracy' is a polemic with little attempt at balance or objectivity IMO. But I think it is still worth watching.
Seaspiracy is another eye opening documentary.
You seem to have taken the Seaspiracy video at face value and just accepting everything they say. I'm a working marine ecologist, and I can tell you that _at best_ they are twisting tihngs to the worst possible interpretation. Documentaries are not fair and balanced descriptions of reality. ALmost ever. You should take what they say with massive heaps of salt.
As for "I never said ALL fisheries were unsustainable".
Yes you did. When you refused to acknowledge nuance and that some of them were fine, and to not tar the entire industry with a broad brush, that was you saying that they are all bad. You can't have it both ways. You are trying to now admit nuance, when admitting nuance is all I wanted from you from the beginning. If you are willing to admit they aren't all bad and some are sustainable, then don't call the entire industry destructive. None of your links is going to get around that one fact, and none of your links are refuting it.
You're giving that documentary too much credit. It's full of deliberate misinformation, most of which is summarized here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seaspiracy/comments/mgtbe8/factchecking_seaspiracy/
I am conflicted about this documentary. I was totally amazed by it, but then saw a very long analysis of it by a supposed expert that said a bunch of things in the doc were untrue. I searched for more info but didn’t find much.
I didn’t see what I read by googling “seaspiracy facts” but you will see some opposing views, including some people in the documentary.
> If you ask the vegan, none of that works
Yes, because there are now 8 billion people, and nature is on the brink of collapse.
> It's not good enough to tax and penalize bycatch
There are 5 mil. fishing boats, there is nobody who could reliably monitor them. Doesn't work. See Seaspiracy movie for an example.
> vegans start from the end goal
I became a vegan primarily due to environmental reasons. It's a logical conclusion when studying the issues of climate change, the anthropocene, deforestation and biodiversity loss.
It's a complicated problem, and you would have to study the issue yourself, not enough space here. You'd have to read a lot of text that goes against your beliefs. Not many people are able or ready to do that. Many rather prefer to stay ignorant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).
Some links to get you started (more articles and papers @ https://www.plantbaseddata.org):
Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm
How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
Livestock and climate change: what if the key actors in climate change are... cows, pigs, and chickens?
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Livestock-and-climate-change%3A-what-if-the-key-in-Goodland-Anhang/6704c7a0777c82357704d82b9ae8007c1197cb07?p2df
Without Changing Diets, Agriculture Alone Could Produce Enough Emissions to Surpass 1.5°C of Global Warming
https://www.wri.org/insights/without-changing-diets-agriculture-alone-could-produce-enough-emissions-surpass-15degc
Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agriculture_production_as_a_major_driver_of_the_Earth_system_exceeding_planetary_boundaries
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/biodiversity
> Come back when you want to have an actual conversation
About how you want to keep eating meat even if it means total destruction of the environment? Do you have studies that show it's sustainable? Studies not paid for by meat & dairy industry?
Inside big beef’s climate messaging machine: confuse, defend and downplay
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-industry-public-relations-messaging-machine
Why Right-Wingers Are So Afraid of Men Eating Vegetables
https://newrepublic.com/article/171781/meat-culture-war-crickets
The meat industry is borrowing tactics from Big Oil to obfuscate the truth about climate change
https://www.salon.com/2022/11/11/the-meat-industry-is-borrowing-tactics-from-big-oil-to-obfuscate-the-truth-about-climate-change/
The Big Beef With the Meat Industry’s Advertising Tactics
https://medium.com/@jodi_64782/the-big-beef-with-the-meat-industrys-advertising-tactics-8de905010660
If you have the facts, bring it on. Don't talk to me about culture, though (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JE8j5Ncmw).
The way certifications and accreditations work in the fishing industry is covered in the documentary Seaspiracy.
> Fishing gear killed the whale.
Fishing (eating) killed the whale.
"... fishing takes 2.7 trillion fish from oceans globally each year. If this rate of fishing continues, the oceans will be “virtually empty” by 2048, according to marine biologist Dr Sylvia Alice Earle."
https://earth.org/facts-from-seaspiracy/
"More than 640,000 tonnes of nets, lines, pots and traps used in commercial fishing are dumped and discarded in the sea every year, the same weight as 55,000 double-decker buses."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/dumped-fishing-gear-is-biggest-plastic-polluter-in-ocean-finds-report
> If you want to rid the ocean of the vast majority of its trash, station a person to monitor each fishing boat
Doesn't work. There is 4.5 mil fishing boats in the world. On some of them there are people monitoring by-catch (protect dolphins & turtles), but it doesn't work (corruption, death threats, system inefficiencies etc.).
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14152756/ - Seaspiracy movie talks in length about this problem
> Coca-cola has nothing to do with it.
"While Coca-Cola topped the list of the wastage in a dozen countries including Bangladesh, Argentina, Malaysia, Kenya and Turkey, PepsiCo topped the list in both the US and India as the top polluter this year."
"The soft drinks company had, in 2019, admitted that it produces 3 million tonnes of plastic packaging a year — equivalent to 200,000 bottles a minute."
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/2022/11/15/coca-cola-is-worlds-top-plastic-polluter-survey-says/
"With Coca-Cola and her allies producing so much plastic, eight million tons of plastics every year end up in the ocean, eaten by whales ..."
https://adetokunbo.substack.com/p/whales-dying-from-consuming-plastics
Understand your points of view. I too ate meat for a long time. I too defended that position with same ferocity you do. But I was wrong to do it.
And you're wrong on too many points to discuss it at full - sorry, no space here, also have family to feed and work to do. My bookmarks folder about dangers of animal products/agriculture has hundreds of items. I'll cherrypick just few of them to get you started.
You'll find several of your viewpoints discussed here:
https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en
Want to learn more? (pun intended)
Movies:
- I'd recommend Dominion movie again, but you won't probably see it, and even if you do, i don't think the suffering of animals/horrors of the meat production will be enough to change your opinions, so I'll talk about it from different angle.
- Cowspiracy
- Seaspiracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JE8j5Ncmw - This man makes you think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI - Dairy is scary
Health:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ - Dr. Michael Greger | How Not To Die
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnHYHjchn6w - Foods for Protecting the Body & Mind: Dr. Neal Barnard
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/whatthehealth - What the Health! (2017)
Impacts on biodiversity / climate change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/30/us-food-production-climate-crisis-meat-monopoly-farming
https://www.salon.com/2022/11/11/the-meat-industry-is-borrowing-tactics-from-big-oil-to-obfuscate-the-truth-about-climate-change/
OK, I'll react to few of your points.
> "never personally eat meat strikes me as a bit of a neurotic, narcissistic response"
So avoiding killing is a neurotic, narcissistic response? Like, really?
> "to avoid ice cream to spare dairy cows who are clearly, if you meet them, quite happy with their jobs"
Are you sure? I've met a lot of them, when i was a child. You know that cows giving milk are mothers, forcefully impregnated/raped every year, with their calf taken from them on the day it's born? They loudly grieve for days/weeks, sometimes hiding the calf from the farmer only to be taken away from them days later? Do you know that producing milk on industrial scale shortens lifespan of cows to cca 1/3 (5-6 years instead of 20+), only to leave the cow exhausted/crippled and killed (changed into burgers) in the end?
Why we drink cow milk? Why not rat milk, giraffe milk, dog milk, human milk ... why it has to be cow milk? Why are cca 50-70% of people milk intolerant? Do you know about pus in the milk? About linked diseases like parkinsons and other autoimmune diseases linked to milk? That cow eating grass near industrial factory will eat more pollutants in a day than somebody living near breathing air for 14 years? About bioaccumulation of toxins in the milk/meat? About all proteins/b12 coming from plants/bacteria, not from the animals?
> And your next point - war.
You're clearly an american. Your country is the only country in the world being involved in wars constantly for 250+ years, achieving so little for so high a price. Your viewpoints mirror the indocrination you've received. It does not reflect reality either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States
I could go on and on, have to go, leaving you to it, sorry.
Ad tuna ... it's worse than you think. I have to quote to a very good article:
"The Mitsubishi conglomerate controls a forty per cent share of the world market in bluefin tuna; they are freezing and hoarding huge stocks of the fish every year. While they claim this is to smooth supply on a year-to-year basis, conservationists believe they are acting in the expectation that in the event of the fish’s extinction in the wild, prices will skyrocket. Frozen in great stacks at –60oC by the same company who made my childhood cassette player, the bodies would be sold for astronomical prices.
It has a name, this uniquely vile game: it is called extinction speculation. It’s practised by those who collect Norwegian shark fin, rare bear bladders and rhino horn; men and women with hearts that sing along only to the song of money. There are collectors known to be building up huge piles of tiger pelts and vats of tiger bone wine. (The wine is made by soaking portions of a tiger’s skeleton in rice wine; it takes eight years to ferment, and can then be stored indefinitely.) If tigers go extinct in the wild, which is wholly possible by 2050, the value of these assets will soar."[0]
The tuna is not on brink of collapse because it competes with sperm whales for food. They were here together, perfectly fine, for ... i don't know ... millions of years? It's near die off because we eat them and work tirelessly towards their extinction.
Also ... if you want to know more what happens to the ecosystem when some key species die off (it collapses), I highly recommend the movie Seaspiracy [1]
[0] https://granta.com/tuna/ [1] https://www.seaspiracy.org/
The big concern around fishing gear is that it is specifically designed to catch marine life, so when it is lost or deliberately discarded in the ocean, it continues to kill for years for no reason at all.
The movie Seaspiracy makes this point in a very graphic way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q5CXN7soQg
This fact-check runs through all the points of the video in 15 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7QRLZp63Eo
If you want to help the planet (for your children/grandchildren), start reading about stuff. Meat/dairy industry, agriculture, forests, dying sea, poisons everywhere and in everything, plastics, flora/fauna extinction, ...
Become vegan and limit your consumption & air travel to the minimum.
See movie Cowspiracy, Seaspiracy, Racing Extinction (2015), Dominion (2018) ...
See how good guardians / governors / stewards we really are.
Then weep because (almost) nobody cares. People don't even care to learn more about the problems we're facing. Everybody is just parroting the (billionaries' owned) TV lies.
Seaspiracy made a great argument that, at the moment, all large scale commercial fishing is bad and not sustainable. I highly recommend to watch it.
I am an avid meat-lover but it does play on my conscience that I am in fact eating a former sentient being and potentially contributing to environmental devastation.
I would appreciate answers to the following two, albeit simplistic questions that always plaque me when I consider stopping eating meat products:
1) Is it really unethical to eat animals when the natural trajectory of most animals lives was likely to be eaten by other animals or die some horrendous death in their natural environment? Isn't it better for an animal to live its best life on a free range farm being grass fed, then get quickly and humanely slaughtered?
2)If I made a personal decision to stop eating meat, would there be any significant impact at all on the overall environment realistically? For example, I recently watched the documentary Seaspiracy which showed the negative effects of commercial fishing. However, the reality is that me (not) eating a bowl of sashimi once a week makes no difference in the context of, say, countries like Japan slaughtering millions of fish daily (regardless of any change in behavior on my part or my small circle of influence)?
>> "oversimplifies a complex issue", so why don't try to explain it to us?
Note that this is the BBC's turn of phrase, not a quote from one of the interviewed experts.
As to the studies mentioned in the BBC article, most of those are the ones cited in Seaspiracy itself. The BBC seems to have asked the authors of the studies to comment on how their findings were represented by Seaspiracy.
In the case of Cowspiracy (the prequel, so to speak) there have been careful analyses of the claims in that documentary. From wikipedia:
>> Doug Boucher, reviewing the film for the Union of Concerned Scientists, disputed the film's assertion that 51% of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture. Boucher describes the 51% figure as being sourced from a 2009 Worldwatch Institute report by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang,[18] not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Boucher asserted methodological flaws in Goodland and Anhang's logic, and said that the scientific community formed a consensus that global warming is primarily caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels.[1] Boucher stated that the scientific consensus is that livestock contribute 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions - far lower than the 51% stated by the film.[1] Boucher's review concludes: "Movies like Cowspiracy aren’t believable, not only because of how they twist the science, but also because of what they ask us to believe: that the fossil fuel industry—the ExxonMobils of the world—aren’t the main cause of global warming... and that thousands of scientists have covered up the truth about the most important environmental issue of our time."[1]
>> (...)
>> A 2018 peer-reviewed meta-analysis estimates that the food supply chain is responsible for 26% of annual anthropogenic GHG emissions. Within the food supply chain, animal products (including fish farms) account for 56-58% of GHGs,[3] implying that animal products account for roughly 15% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions.[23][24] In a 2019 erratum to the meta-analysis, the avoided annual greenhouse gas emissions arising from a "no animal products" scenario are estimated at 28% of the total, which includes 8.1 Gt CO2 of removal by trees regrowing on land no longer required for livestock.[25]
>> A 2019 Forbes article quotes Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize winner and former U.S. Secretary of Energy, stating: “Let me say it again: agriculture and land-use generates more greenhouse gas emissions than power generation." The article references the 2009 Worldwatch Institute article that estimates livestock are responsible for at least 51% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy
No doubt, a similar careful analysis of Seaspiracy will follow at some point. The BBC is probably not that interested in a careful analysis anyway.
- Watched "cowspiracy" ~2 yrs ago and other documentaries (like "seaspiracy" ~ 1 week ago) to question my food consumption. 4h invest
- basically turned vegetarian (like 99,99%) in 2014
- joined avaaz.org to sign petitions. 30 mins per month invest
- I'm a minimalist and avoid buying new stuff, avoid buying furniture altogether
- Use the bike to get to work
- did a sticker campaign in 2014 to raise awareness about our lives and the planet (I firmly believe that awareness is a key factor to sustainability)
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.
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 about it because that's just.. like everything else in the world. Now, suddenly someone, likely an "outsider", wrote an article to describe the field/area in a certain one-sided way (good or bad). Of course you now suddenly have a strong opinion on it.
Note: above is about the common question I saw "why these experts only appear to refute others but never explain the thing themselves", not about Seaspiracy in particular.
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 really appreciate the effort they're doing to open the eyes of a lot of people.
"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 Pollution is Dilution" and there is no easy way to find how much industry is damaging ocean I bet its more than what Netflix Seaspiracy shows.
Imho Industry is more about earning $ rather than sustainable thing and most of the time the sustainable things are marketing PR strategy.
Remember Sugar Industry? Tobacco Industry? Looks like similar strategy this time too.
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/440156/fact-check-on-netflix-s-seaspiracy-film-about-fishing-damaging-oceans
I saw the Netflix seaspiracy documentary last night, and it made me think there's really no way to sustain such a huge human population. Every single method of food production seems unsustainable to me, it either uses too much water or land, or produces too much greenhouse gas.
Personally I'd much prefer us to lower the population through infertility rather than famine and war.
Related: there’s a new documentary on Netflix called Seaspiracy
It has some staggering numbers regarding the amount of by-catch caught every day