Seaspiracy
- Thread starter Silt Life
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Some good information, and thought provoking material, but I didn't really care for the overly dramatized conspiracy angle. 2.5 out of 4 but everyone should watch it. Along with "Chasing Coral" I think it was called, another netflix documentary on the ocean's plight.
covediver
Contributor
Generally pretty well done, but like "Blackfish" it has some limits due to journalistic entertainment. Some repeat from The Cove which makes it knind of redundant with past documentaries. Not sure Paul Watson at Sea Shepherd still enjoys celebrity status, but he is quite prominent in this documentary. Just quit eating fish.
David Novo
Contributor
Chasing Coral is much better than Seaspiracy. Seaspiracy shows that everything in the fishing industry is wrong, corrupt and fraudulent. Some things in the fishing industrie are wrong, there are corruption and fraud as in any industrie, but not all. As in every industrie there are things to correct, to improve and stop doing, but not all. Not all the fishing industrie is a monster.
In some way this "documentary" produces the contrary effect of what they want to show. They are showing, in a too much evident way, that they are vegans and eating animals is a sin and those involved in the related industries are sinners.
If a documentary wants to show something, it should show the truth, not a side view with what interest the producers. This detracts credibility.
In some way this "documentary" produces the contrary effect of what they want to show. They are showing, in a too much evident way, that they are vegans and eating animals is a sin and those involved in the related industries are sinners.
If a documentary wants to show something, it should show the truth, not a side view with what interest the producers. This detracts credibility.
David Novo
Contributor
DBPacific
Contributor
I have not talked to a single wildlife or marine scientist who's seen Seaspiracy and not been completely ticked off by the sheer massive amount of misleading, misrepresented, or outright ignored facts.
It's great if you can get a conservation motivation from it, but it is nowhere near the accurate picture or even accurate for the pieces it represents.
I personally would not recommend it to anyone because misleading facts that much to push a singular oversimplified agenda bothers me
It's great if you can get a conservation motivation from it, but it is nowhere near the accurate picture or even accurate for the pieces it represents.
I personally would not recommend it to anyone because misleading facts that much to push a singular oversimplified agenda bothers me
HalcyonDaze
Contributor
Haven't seen it, but I agree with your assessment - every marine biologist I know who did see it was pretty hacked off afterwards. From personal experience I can testify that kind of simplistic "all fishing is bad" attitude can really backfire in a conservation campaign - not just because you're attacking someone's livelihood; it blinds you to all the other problems in the mix.
Right now there's a fairly concerted push by recreational and commercial fishing interests in the US east coast (particularly FL) to get limits on shark fishing and the ban on goliath grouper lifted due to perceived depredation issues. I keep having to remind people not to just fall on the "there's too few fish for fishermen and predators" argument because a) I have yet to see any widespread evidence of that, or at least that it's gotten drastically worse in the past ~10 years, and b) that plays right into the argument - too few fish, get rid of predators to "balance" the ecosystem. The "problem" is that we decimated those predators up until into the 1990s; thanks to improved regulations instituted 25-30 years ago there are now more of them and fishermen who were used to having zero competition have to contend with more predators.
DBPacific
Contributor
The same argument is being had with wolves and seals too. When predators who are critical to a healthy, long-lasting environment have been killed to near extinction in areas, the people there lose the memory of what it was like. In most cases, what people now view as normal coast conditions and normal for fishing is a very unhealthy system because the predators and larger animals are gone.
I was just reading a book, From the Mountains to the Sea by Peter Taylor that discusses the journey of effort and projects that went into restoring parts of the Penobscot in Maine. It does a really good job of showing the amount of collaborations and work that scientists, stakeholders, community leaders, and governments do for conservation and restoration projects. The shifting baseline of forgetting what things used to be like is something he mentions as a hurdle they had to overcome to get local support. It's a very good, easy to read book.
Similar threads
