Hello everybody - thanks so much for watching and engaging with this video. I know I said I would reply to comments but wow there are so many of them. I can't possibly reply to all of them so here's a statement to cover some of the common themes I've picked up on in the comments: - I don't go against the documentary but I do go against the misinformation in the documentary. As I said throughout my video, I think it's great to get people thinking and talking about these severe threats the oceans currently face. However, I am a scientist and I highly value accurate information. Misconstruing the truth to support a very one-sided viewpoint, which is what this documentary does in a lot of examples, is not something I agree with. So I will tackle misinformation where and when I can. People are smart and will understand the severity of the situation without having to lie or exaggerate about it. And maybe the controversy is what is getting this documentary viewed by millions of people, but I don't think that's the right way to tackle these important issues. - On sustainable fisheries and eating fish. Again, as I stated in my video, I do advocate for people reducing or eliminating their fish consumption where possible. But this is not always possible! Thousands of people who live in poverty around the world rely on fish as a source of food and income. Also, fish is an important calorific component of many people's diets. If all of a sudden we all stop eating fish, those calories would need to come from somewhere else. Namely land-based agriculture (food or plants). In which case, we'd need to destroy more land ecosystems and kill more land animals to create the farms to supply that food deficit. There is no simple solution. The seas cover most of our planet and we should be using them as a source of food to reduce pressure on land ecosystems. But that does not mean we shouldn't tackle the very big issues of overfishing, by-catch, illegal and unregulated fisheries, and slavery in fisheries. It's currently in your hands to do some research and make educated choices about the fish you're eating to see if you should be eating that fish. And no, we cannot regulate every single fishing boat, just like we cannot regulate every single farm, but that does not mean regulations aren't being followed in certain examples. Certain fisheries are really well regulated and managed and those fish stocks have remained stable or even recovered from overexploitation. A very quick example of this are certain shark species in the USA whose numbers have started recovering due to strict regulations put in place. Not all fisheries will follow regulations, but some do. I really encourage all of you to do some more reading around fisheries to get a broader understanding of all the issues. This documentary made a good start but there's a lot more to the picture. And please remember let's all be kind to each other. We all want the same thing at the end of the day, a healthier ocean. Peace out :)
From what I can see, regarding agriculture / on land - much of the food we produce goes toward the raising of "livestock" - this could be used to feed humans. We also need to look at human population levels & also location; where humans are choosing to breed vs. the local resources. Why are we so keen on creating more & more of us? The notion of a sustainable anything, will fly out the nearest window soon. I watched a documentary on Somalia last night, it is terrible, & yes, many people there rely on fish to live. However, they continue to create HUGE families, who must then attempt to thrive in (often) dire poverty. We have a serious problem - globally & need a foundational rethink of what we are doing. Maybe you could work with the documentary crew & create a presentation to air some of your concerns about parts of the film ?
Regarding sustainable sources of fish, as u claim exists.... can u name one? And document that it is in fact sustainable? The point in the documentary is that all those sustainable brands aren’t sustainable when u look closer at them...
I have two questions and would be super happy if you could answer :) You said that sustainable fishing is possible, but the documentary said that fish feed also comes from fish (if I understood correctly). Does this mean that we put more resources into fish farming than we actually get back? Secondly about the plastic pollution in our oceans, you said that only 10% of the plastic pollution consists of fishing nets. Did you mean that 10% of plastic pollution found in the ocean is fishing nets or 10% of plastic pollution around the planet consists of fishing nets? And the documentary's estimate of 46% of fishing nets is only valid for the Great Pacific garbage patch? I hope I could formulate my questions clear enough, english is obviously not my first language. Thank for your response if you find the time :)
I encourage you as a fellow biologist to read and respond to my discussion. It's not a scathing indictment. However I have strong concerns with some misinformation on your part as well as addressing some contradictions in the statements you made. Having seen some of the statements attacking you for your criticisms I get your reluctance to respond. However, my address of your inaccuracies and misinformation and those concerns I have with your presentation come from a basis of logic. Not an emotional knee-jerk reaction. Scientist to scientist, would you care to elaborate? If so it would be very much appreciated. If not, for my part it confirms certain suspicions that I have as to the veracity of your professional or personal opinions and observations. Thank you.
I'm a marine biologist, shark conservation specialist, and the Founder of Sharks For Life! With all due respect you made some gross errors and have misleading statements and untruths in your attempted debunking of Seaspiracy. I just watched the documentary. Much of it addressed issues I published in my first book years ago. The blanket statement about there being no fish by 2048 (2050 is also touted with the same generalized timeline) was not to say that oceans would be devoid of marine species. It was a statement specific to marine harvest of major fish stocks. So the statement stands. Fisheries are fishing down the food chain as larger species are depleted. Because fisheries are indeed widely unregulated in spite of what is on paper. Commercial fisheries are depleting stocks and producing an exorbitant volume of bycatch in the process. Elasmobranchs are in severe decline. Tuna and billfish populations are devastated. Cod, Salmon, Mackerel, Grouper, all in terrible shape. And fish that were considered trash fish 50 years ago such as monkfish, are now target species. Stating that 2048 is the end of all fish in the ocean is not accurate. But it is also not the primary original message from the IUCN and others monitoring the decline. So addressing a misquoted statistic out of context minimizes the severity of the damage. Sustainability in fisheries? Again, you would need to show me (because in my research over the last decade or more I haven't seen reality matching statistics or claimed regulation anywhere) where this actually transpires? There is very little in the way of law enforcement for the few areas in which fish are supposed to be protected. More so most governments and regulatory agencies do very little to actually monitor and curtail over harvesting of marine species or to monitor bycatch. As far as Cetaceans, I agree with you. I found that observation a bit short sighted by the film maker. But where sharks are concerned you are downplaying the significance of their demise and the complex impact of this diminishment. Trophic cascade in apex predation was over simplified for the general public. Nevertheless it is impactful and I had to physically laugh when you misquoted and downplayed a very real occurrence. You got your story a bit skewed with regards to the cownosed rays. To clarify, the problem stemmed not from shark fisheries at all. It originated with recreational trophy fisheries in the Carolinas. Specifically the tarpon fishing industry. These fishermen got tired of losing worn out tarpon to opportunistic greater hammerheads. They applied pressure to local officials and a 5 year campaign was waged to target this species with strong results. The greater hammerhead population along that region dropped. And with it the cownosed ray population exploded. The ray population collapsed 4 shellfish industries. Scallops, oysters, mussels, and clams. I have personally witnessed the population increase as these animals began to show a marked presence along the Atlantic coastline and in the Gulf of Mexico. So your statement, is inaccurate. As for the fishing industry, the document maker never claimed that they were the sole reason that our oceans are suffering. However stating that these industries are not as bad or not as heavily responsible for destruction in our marine ecosystems is grossly irresponsible. I expect better of my colleagues. Your contradictory statements regarding plastic percentages are quite astounding. You admit that while skeptical about discarded fishing gear and ghost netting comprising around 50% of the garbage in the Great Pacific Garbage patch, you readily concede that you do not know the exact numbers and have not checked. But then you go on to assure your viewers that the global garbage gyres comprise only 10% of fishing gear. Excuse me? I'm sorry but as we address the various major garbage patches in the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian oceans, etc. I just have to ask as a scientist using the basic logical approach to uniformity, what makes you think that you have accurate numbers or that there is strangely only 10% of discarded fishing gear in the other 4 major ocean garbage patches, but accepting that the percentage might be 50% in the northern Pacific patch? I would expect (and this is just basic logic) that if the number were 10% in every other major accumulation you would also state that it was definitively 10% in the case cited in the documentary. But you admit that you do not have those statistics to verify the percentage. Objectivity prevents you from contradicting without knowing. I personally believe the percentage to be roughly 38% - 42% based on what information I have come across which is limited. I have spoken to people better versed in this than I am and I would not be surprised if it turns out to be 50%. But if it is, I would expect it to be roughly 40% - 50% globally. As a comparative model. The documentary did not blame fisheries for the threatened to endangered status of sea turtles. It pointed out that 6 of the 7 species (excluding the flatbacked sea turtle) were in a position whereby commercial bycatch harvesting by fisheries was a threat. TEDs (Turtle Extruder Devices) are often added to nets of shrimp trawlers and other fishing boats while in shore. But once they leave the watchful eyes of authorities many remove the TEDs claiming that they lose too much of their catch when the TED is in place. Even though studies show that TEDs seldom account for more than 3% loss. The EIA (Environmental Investigation Agency) has investigated several violations, as have others. Past exploitation of turtles certainly factored into their decline, but having worked with STOP and other organizations I can confidently say that pollution, habitat loss, confused lighting on turtle hatching beaches, and commercial fishing (especially longline fishing) plays a huge role in the decline of turtle populations globally. I'm a bit confused. Perhaps you saw a different Seaspiracy than I did, but please elaborate, where did you see the film maker citing fisheries for coral bleaching? You correctly mention climate change as the primary cause as coral polyps eject the algae needed to sustain themselves. However I don't recall this being in the film. Perhaps I missed it? If so my apologies. I saw the film maker state that removal of fish populations from a reef system diminish some of the nutrients that keep the reef thriving. Did I miss some of the film? I will have to look again. I think you have not so much "debunked" the film as pointing out areas of contention or in some cases you've made erroneous statements that cast doubt on sound findings. I've been fighting for marine ecosystems for decades. I think that the documentary begins to open people's eyes to what is largely an out of sight, out of mind issue. As you mentioned, and I concur, the situation with complex ecosystems is never simply X+Y=Z. There are always a variety of factors that contribute to problems. But I firmly believe that you are grossly unaware of the severity of the impact of fisheries. As a biologist you understand that there are a lot of problems with creating sustainable harvest, but the fact that you were not aware of forced labor (slavery) or many of the other shady/criminal aspects of the fishing industry casts doubt in my mind as to whether or not you see the big picture. Fisheries are a lot more insidious than you give them credit for. And the link between the decline of apex marine predators ties in with a decrease in the annual bloom of phytoplankton. Which impacts carbon sequestering, oxygen production, and climate models. So even if most major fish stocks have not all but vanished by 2050, the global climate model will eventually be enough to revert the vast tracts of liquid methane hydrate under all of the world's polar shelves to gas. On the day that happens it will be game over for most terrestrial organisms. That volume of methane will destroy our ozone layer instantly. Full UV radiation from our sun will take care of the rest.
@Erik Brush Holy [expletive deleted]. I knew the situation was dire, I just wasn't quite aware of how dire it actually was. Always better to know though. Even more glad I went Vegan. Thanks Erik. ❤️
@@PercivalBlakeney the scale of industrial abuse and criminal activity that takes place in these ecosystems is often not fully understood. Observers are often bribed or intimidated (or worse) to cover up the scale. The amount of information shared is marginal at best. As you might imagine there are a lot of areas not covered in these discussions. I think the only cases of sustainability in fishing are with small scale artisanal fisheries. But these are regional. The grand scale picture is quite disturbing.
Thanks Sir @erik blush for a detailed comment on this video. I learned a lot. Im just wondering if you could also possibly create a video supporting the Seaspiracy. This documentary really has a big potential to spark something.
@@izzythomas3448 which ones ? The ones screaming about the danger or the ones that are being "optimistics" ? But yeah, i'm sure that if we keep smiling, the situation will get better ! 👍
Exactly! Her point is basically, "Sustainable fisheries are totally possible... theoretically" completely ignoring the illegal fishing and corruption of "sustainable" labels shown in the movie. This is like saying, "Averting climate catastrophe is totally possible... theoretically... we just need to give the fossil fuel companies that lied to us for decades a little less money and we're there!"
I know!!! She said coral bleaching issue is not main caused by fisheries but mainly caused by climate changing and temperature change..... but fisheries OVER FISHING does contributes to climate change and temperature change ..... what is she trying?? 🤡🤯 ok marine biologist
The documentary: "The fishing industry is SOLELY responsible for the collapse of our oceans" This video: "The fishing industry isn't as bad as the documentary claims, and there are other problems that are leading to the decline of our oceans" My takeaway is that the documentary slightly exaggerated the effect the fishing industry has on our oceans, but overfishing still remains THE biggest threat to the marine ecosystem.
I don’t think the documentary is claiming that various fish species reproduction is not sustainable. It’s saying that the way the fishing industry is presently operating is not sustainable for marine life. The strain on sustainability is coming from the fishers not the fish. The volume of “bycatch” and fishing related pollution in the water is totally unacceptable SMH
the turtle exclusion bycatch net she mentioned..... she didn’t even state how many fisheries are actually using it globally? What percentage? And what happens to the old nets?
Plot twist it looks at a few boats and translate that into every boat in the commercial fishing industry. Please tell me you're not foolish enough to believe this
I'm honestly trying to figure out why would someone try to totally discredit the documentary if they love the ocean for real. We've been raised where "normal" is destroying our planet and taking the lives of innocent beings, all for a paycheck. I think once we get passed that we can truly see that we shouldn't be doing anything that is of the detriment to our planet especially if it's not a necessity for the survival of humanity.
I think it's probably for views, but I also think being able to clarify and point out any weak arguments in the documentary can help strengthen its points. We're all working towards the same goal, just gotta point out inaccuracies and keep everyone on the same, updated page. :)
@@tao072002"pointing out weak arguments in the documentary to help strengthen its points" could have been a way better title than "debunking" it. a lot of people resisting change might embrace the debunk part no matter what she says
The African penguin has declined due to a decline in fish stocks around the South African coastline. Parents are abandoning chicks because they are forced to spend more time at sea & are often eat by preditors or barely find enough food for themselves. All factors which are impacting their population.
Hey guys please remember to share the petition as much as you can. I have been going around just sharing info saying there's an awesome new petition out the tree.. it looks lime it's slowing down with people signing so we need to drum up so noise... love to see so many people who agree and see through the questionable truth..
@@censoredcourgette9153 I disagree. Marine fish targeted by watermen are migratory, just like birds. Now you take away a seasonal food source, a breeding ground (remember most marine fish either live in rivers and spawn in the ocean or live in the ocean and spawn in rivers) or a place where they rest/feel safe and they will go elsewhere or die. Things like climate change (which we all contribute to) melts ice caps, injects freshwater into the gulf stream and slows it down, thereby influencing migration patterns. The slower gulf stream no longer cools the Atlantic coast of the US like it used to and we see fish leave because of temperature. Now that doesn't even touch on coastal development and how breeding grounds are mostly gone so people can fill in marshes and build bulkheads that place their houses mere feet from the water. Or we could point to the more than 280 million cars spewing exhaust particulates, shedding rubber from their tires and leaking toxic fluids. All that ends up on the roads and is washed into the environment when it rains. Or we could point out America's consumerism addiction and how we create more waste/trash than any other country on earth. And even after all that you have to realize that there are stock assessments, quotas, limits, gear restrictions, time of day or day of the week restrictions, biologists constantly assessing stock levels, federal and multi-state organizations that watch and govern commercial fishing in the US. You have to realize a lot of these guys are 3rd or 4th generation watermen. They want that resource around for their grandkids.
@@scottiebarnes7417 not really. Read the replies to her first comment where marine biologists and other scientists or just better informed people who actually watched the movie attentively call her out on her take.
I’m not an expert but when I watch seaspiracy I know that they kinda over exaggerating but I’m not mad. It works to make lots of people actually reduce/stop eating fish after watching it (me included) if they’re not exaggerating and said what Telly said. We will just see it as an entertainment, won’t really put an actual effort to help the oceans.
Over exaggeration takes the trust of people whenever they realize that they were telling half truths. Makes more harm than good. You can be objective and still make an impact. If you are not able to so that, then maybe you are no the right company/people to communicate the message that you want to.
And that’s a thing, you don’t need to be an expert to logically and objectively look at the facts. You’re right to consider your own role and how that’s detrimentally impacting our planet, especially the hidden marine world. It really starts with our knives and forks tbh. Scientists can be blinded by the amount of data and information they have to work through, by which time more damage is done and simple solutions ignored. I believe in the scientific method but I’m also a realist and realise that our oceans are dying, fast!
she litterally agrees with the overall view and cries about exagerated numbers like tf this makes me mad how people clickbait when those things like slavery, unregulation, and stuff like that are happening
@@ic.xc. Yes, but the comment is not making any ridiculous claims. Her logical fallacy is called "burden of proof." She fails. It is not for us commenters to prove her failed prove. She is the one who made the claim and failed to defend it.
@@hypedtarzan She provided some sort of "top of the page screen grabs" - if she is really a scientist she would know how to cite and reference properly
Hahaha. This so-called marine scientist is a total joke. If she actually has a degree, it's because someone paid the tuition, she went to class, and they handed her a degree. She obviously doesn't understand much about scientific reasoning, evidence, or the movie Seaspiracy.
What is her qualitative statement? The movie said that there is no transparency in sustainable labeling. It showed evidence from multiple sources. She admits that there is no evidence to prove a fishing operation is sustainable, and says it is up to consumers to demand transparency (5:00). She then claims that sustainable fisheries "can and do exist" and those are the ones we should buy fish from. "Think for yourself." It is total illogical, anti-scientific hogwash.
@@MarcCastellsBallesta for the love of being moral, stop going in ocean and leave them alone. Humans don't need fishes to survive. It's a business and exploitation of animals unecessarily.
There is a german word called "Haarspalterei" which literally means "hairplitting". It describes the situation, when people dont get the main point and start discussing simple details.
If you‘re doing a documentary you dedicate yourself to objectivity. But if you miss this goal, it‘s fair to criticise it harshly! If you‘re not going to show true facts, you‘re not doing a documentary, but a movie. It‘s not Haarspalterei it‘s berechtigte Kritik;)
@@adreus4759 Well talking about "There will be fish After 2040 eventhough we fish" is like saying "well there still will be some Humans after global war" because honestly...we are at war with the Ocean
First, I would like to say that this doesn’t really debunk the documentary, and I think you would agree that that is misleading as well; people could simply think that the whole documentary is flat out a lie and dismiss it. I would change the title of this video. Second, to your first point of no fish by 2048, it gives the impression of you going further for some reason, probably you are an optimist and want to spread optimism. That’s fine but it sounds like a “technically” there will be fish. It’s like saying that there is Tasmanian tigers because there is one or two, that’s why I say that simply stating there will be fish without saying under what conditions or how many or at what cost (for instance, only farmed and sick ones) it’s misleading and gives kinda false hopes to those out there trying to find some last stand for their consumption of fish without any consideration of reducing it. Also, the strategy you’re talking about is designed by nature not taking into account the fact of human intervention at these scales. You can easily find online that most prehistoric animals were hunted to extinction because of you could say some sort of gluttony given the abundance. So, even if those animals produce offspring instinctively knowing most are not gonna survive, you’re probably forgetting that human activity to satisfy our never ending appetite is out of control, just as you can attest when referring to climate change. The second point of yours it’s again too optimistic. There is simply no way to enforce the labelling, really, we cannot just demand and expect the whole chain of production to respect that, given there is even slavery, assassination and bribery of observers aboard. Also, I fee like quoting the bloke from the UN making a rather unfortunate money metaphor (when we all know that markets don’t really regulate themselves nor care about the consequences, and sometimes even actively engage in ripping off people and communities like the Great Depression and the 2008 crisis), is another simplistic and too optimistic view. Yes, there is a technical definition, but it’s simply not followed nor enforced and never will to the levels needed. We need to understand that this is a business not a charitable organisation and the odds of those people caring in a systemic way about the whole problem is almost zero. Again, the example about the ingenious device for turtles to get away is not really examined in an acceptable way. To what extent it is working... does it work for all kinds of turtles? And what about the rest? Bull sharks? Sea pups? Also, if the are “sustainable” fisheries, and even you say that they “try”, to what extent? What do you mean the “try”? Probably that’s not good enough anymore. Additionally, if there a bunch, a handful or even a hundred, are those gonna fulfill the increasing demand? Something tells me they’re not. That’s another technicality which gives little or no hope at all in the bigger picture but a lot of hope to a lot of people that are looking for an excuse. The phytoplankton point, I recognise the science when you mention the multiple other factors, but if you see those under water bulldozers, you have to admit that there little hope for it too. Also, the same misleading argument could be made for this video, because it gives the feeling that people could get the idea that whales could go to a certain tipping point and the plankton would be fine. The importance of sharks, that was disheartening: you give the idea that since there is a debate, we can just put it on hold for a while a see what happens, the beauty of science is that is polishes itself when more data is available, we don’t know for sure so we wait and see... probably when it is too late. The nets and plastic point is simply irresponsible and, as you said, simply not true: the author didn’t say, at any point, that the only cause for this deterioration is just nets and fishing gear. He clearly uses that point to denounce all of those “corporations” and trends about plastic that won’t say a thing about a cause that lays at a considerable percentage of the problem which is fishing. He didn’t downplay this, he started with that, saying it is the leading cause in people’s imaginary. The documentary is directed at a cause that nobody talks about. It would have to be a ten part series to talk about everything in depth. The coral bleaching, I’ll give you that, although you do mention that fisheries do have an impact, so again, I would suggest, respectfully, change the description of the video and please refrain yourself from saying that this is one-sided: it is clearly aimed to a fact obscured by an actual criminal conspiracy that is transnational and extends to unsuspected levels. You are probably too considerate and kind with the situation, and, as you can feel and see, no one says the difficult stuff that is: stop eating fish at least for a couple of years, because, as exemplified by those unscrupulous groups exposed in the documentary, it’s not a good consumer message. I know your heart is in the good place but it seems that you want to go to the books and show technicalities like in a classroom. In years to come, you’ll see that all those grey-haired people were right.
2048... Seaspiracy simply says that it's a model some scientists projected for if overfishing follows a certain trend. The so-called "Debunk" falls flat on it's face. It was never portayed as some kind of "fact." It was just what she said it was -- some prediction. ,... Sustainable fisheries ... do you hear how stupid she sounds? "The numbers don't actually mean anything." Direct quote. Not to mention a total failure to explain how any company is accountable for their label. ... Fishing nets ... she says they might make up 50% of the trash in the Pacific. Then she says fishing waste makes up 10% of ocean trash globally. Then she says 80% of ocean trash comes from on land. She cites zero sources in this. Is this a high school student? Is she really a "scientist." She sounds like a moron to me. She says she didn't know about the whole "slavery fishing thing, that's coocoo-kachoo!" Are you kidding me? Does she claim to be a marine biologist and yet she doesn't know that fishing is the worst human rights violator of any industry? I am all for debunking, but these days it is just one idiot after another getting people's attention. WTF.
Please look at the documentary. The things "addressed/debunked" in this video are not even the key issued addressed in the documentary. They don't even constitute 5% of what the documentary addresses and highlights. It actually disappointing that THIS is what a 'marine biologist' would choose to address. Why not speak about the issues raised about farm fishing? And ps he said he isn't sure how sustainable fishing can be implemented successfully with so much illegal fishing taking place. He didn't say it wasn't possible. Makes me wonder if you even listened to the documentary.
@@maiweili3523 do u have a phd in marine biolog? because u seem to have some very strong opinions. She is correcting the spread of misinformation made by the documentary therefor 'debunking' the facts, and she is showing proof of her sources. it doesn't matter if its "only 5% of the documentary" because its still apart of the documentary.
I have strong opinions about the pathological spread of misinformation. This video has now duped another fool, you, into believing that some information was "debunked." What information has she "debunked"? And what sources does she show as proof? She offers vague evidence that does not debunk anything, and in fact often ends up agreeing with the information she begins trying to correct.
I understand the point you are making about sustainability, but due to the organisations that are doing the research and holding these farms and fisheries to account, and the conflict of interest they have around allowing the continuation of fishing regardless of what it looks like, it's difficult to trust any information that we are given, especially in the way of a badge or label on fish products. We saw that people who worked for these organisations said there was corruption going on and how difficult it was to control. So how can we trust a little blue label saying that the fish is being farmed sustainably. The more straight forward answer is to stop eating fish to drive down demand and supply shoul adjust accordingly, driving down over fishing.
What about people who DEPEND on fish as their primary sustenance? Force them to become vegans to "save the oceans"? What about the Native peoples of Canada?
Hi, we appreciate the intention of clarifying on some points but at the same time this video will make a lot of people (that probably won’t even watch it and just use the title) not even interested in watching Seaspiracy since they will take it as a biased documentary. We need people to watch it, even if the details are not 100% correct, we need people to realize how bad is what we have been doing for so long and to take action!
The likelihood of people searching up this video before watching the documentary is very small. I for one just watched the documentary and only now I’m researching deeper into this and listening to alternative opinionsz
No, no, and no. I am amazed by how Ali has captivated an entire generation of viewers with his self absorbed and narcissistic documentary. The film is shockingly stupid, and would have been genius if presented as a parody. His "research" included reading headlines of articles on the front page of Google, teaming up with sea shepherd, and going on vacations across the world. His work is one of the most disengenous that I have ever seen. Go back and watch the seen where he calls a random fish and chips place and have them "hang up on him" or the racist undertones seen across the Japan segment where he has an allegedly unmarked police car follow him with clearly edited sirens, then cutting to a real police stop simply doing a routine stop. Insinuating that it was the unmarked car that stopped him. He's doing more harm than good, and I would wager money that most people who have had their "eyes opened" will go vegan for two weeks, then forget about it untill the next sensationalist "documentary"
@@ricardoronaldo837 I understand you being put off by the films style asit bothers me as well. That being said, I invite you to go past that and focus on the data that the documentary presents and the serious issue it addresses. I do not think that viewers are being captivated with Alis"self absorbed and narcissistic documentary" as you say, and if even if they are, that's just a question of taste. I think they, as I am, are rather captivated by the data that it presents. Even if only half of the numbers presented by Seaspiracy were true you would be doing yourself and everyone a diservice by ignoring the issue because you can't stand the filmmaker. Peace
@@TheScarum i agree with you on the importance of protecting the ocean, but what I'm saying is that there are better sources to get this information from, better documentaries, pieces of writing etc. Saying it doesnt matter that he lied isn't true at all, spreading misinformation, and oversimplifying a very complex issue risks polarising people further and impeding progress. I believe one of the largest reasons that people who could go vegan don't is because it's presented by overly metrosexual hipsters with superiority complexes. People like saving animals, but they like to enjoy their food more, in order to convince them otherwise you have to do so the correct way. Having a liar and narcissist ask people to do this won't change anything. I also don't believe that it's just a question of taste, that's the equivalent of giving someone a dirt sandwich and saying atleast there's bread in it. Go to seaspiracies Instagram right now. Look at the following count between his personal one and the conservationist one. Look at the first and last words said in English in the doc. It's all about Ali, and what he thinks everyone should do based off of surface level research. I would rather watch the marine biologists that Ali loved so badly as a kid rather than himself, because as we've seen he's done them a disservice.
@@ricardoronaldo837 I doubt he is an out & out narcissist - perhaps you are? Do you even know what a narcissist actually is, clinically speaking? Anyway... regardless, expecting most people to "act" and change their ingrained habits is arduous & naive. Films like this one, which are chiefly correct, at least shed light on the topic. If you scroll down the comments here you'll find "marine biologists" who support the film.
I don't think there's any reason for justifying the spread of misinformation. There is power in spreading the correct message, but sadly shock factor trumps basic facts in most of these documentaries. What we've done to our oceans is absolutely inexcusable. I don't believe at any point Chantel lost the big picture of that.
That's not... entirely true. If we stop fishing and keep destroying the oceans then maybe they will collapse as it is likely our practices will destroy the foundations of the aquatic ecosystem but remember the oceans are huge and there is far more life on earth in the oceans than on land. 99% of the livable space on this planet is below the water's surface so there's a LOT more ocean than there are people who fish in it. While we can do some damage to the fish in the area if we stop fishing, this will cause fish levels to return, but will then allow predatory species to increase in size as long as their growth isn't inhibited by human activities.
14:27 She said coral bleaching issue is not mainly caused by fisheries but mainly caused by climate changing and temperature change..... but fisheries overfishing does contributes to climate change and temperature change ..... what is she trying?? 🤡🤯 ok marine biologist
Ali actually addresses your criticism of the sustainable fishery problem. Yes the EU member explains the definition but it's a conceptual definition and not a working/practical one was his point
Hey guys please remember to share the petition as much as you can. I have been going around just sharing info saying there's an awesome new petition out there. It's slowing down with people signing so we need to drum up so noise...😃 love to see so many people who agree and can see through the questionable truth..
Thats her job she knows what she is talking about and just because some facts ware incorrect we cant change them we cant fabricate facts to support our cause
*$100,000 have been transfered to your account* Thank you so very much! Thank you so so much for confirming that everything said in the documentary is true. The fact that you made this video proves that the fishing industry got angry. How do you "deboonk" the fact that there's no one in the sea with the fishers to check if they actually do "sustainable fishing". That was one of the points of the documentary. Dozens of inspectors have been killed in the sea by the fishing industry. And the industry just pays to have the sustainable logo in their products without proving anything at all. Conviniently you didn't talk about that fact, huh? It's always the same with this people " trust me, guys! i'm a scientist! Scientific data? what? no! let me just quote this internet article written by a non-scientist, you totally have to trust me! i'm a scientist, i swear!"
Okee... just doesn't make any sense and shows that you haven't got any point out of the video. You have not been able to accept that the world is not as simple as having only veery simple views on a topic.
@@oibaf1420 What are you talking about? How do you know if the Angel got anything from the video or not? And since you don't agree, why don't you tell us how do we actually prove whether our fish came from sustainable fishing methods.
"Debunked" is a big word, you didn't do that at all. If anything, it seems like you're trying to downplay the importance of the message for some reason. Money?
I thought fish produce a lot of eggs because most won't survive *to adulthood*, meaning that taking more adult fish than can be produced is still unsustainable no matter if it's from a sustainable fishery or not.
Shaking my head with this video. If you claim Seaspiracy had invalid facts, you should question what you’re preaching because obviously your facts are outdated and biased. Be a real marine biologist and have genuine love and respect to sea life. Stop promoting “sustainable” fishing. AND WAKE UP, there is no such thing as sustainable fishing.
Well,If i may point out The director said that Sustainability from his perspective is "Something can continue on and on forever,ragardless the suffering".
Yeah, I actually laughed out loud at this AHA moment. Like, obviously sustainable fishing involves fishing, what were you thinking... sustainable means it can be sustained. At current trend it cant be, therefore we have to reduce it, for our benefit in the first place - because otherwise it wont happen - and then environmental
Hey guys please remember to share the petition as much as you can. I have been going around just sharing info saying there's an awesome new petition out there. It's slowing down with people signing so we need to drum up so noise...😃 love to see so many people who agree and can see through the questionable truth..
@@Spekulantoss really it can't be continued at the current trend? Golly gee you're going to have to explain to me how my aquaculture oyster business has just been continuing and continuing and doesn't seem to want to stop.
@@aureliusva Oysters aren't fish. Crustaceans are also not fish. But unfortunately our human propensity(inability?) to look past our own little windows is what's killing the world our grandchildren will have. Well your grandchildren. Unfortunately for me I don't think I have the heart to bring children into this world, this century sees the end of our way of life because we just can't stop ourselves from eating everything. We're one more animal at the end of the day, just far more powerful than any animal has any right to be.
While this world is certainly going to hell, all I can do is appreaciate the magnificient irony of a marine biologist doing her share in defending an industry that destroys so much marine lives just because people want to eat fish. Good job!!!
On the point of sustainable fisheries, in the documentary he talks about how there is no way to monitor the activities of the boat and that even if they are limiting the amount of a certain target fish, the amount of bycatch that ends up caught causes the entire operation to still be unsustainable because of how dependent each species is on one another. I think one example was killing 12 dolphins as bycatch to get 4 tuna “sustainably”.
Yah I agreed basically the guy from the film is saying there not enough oversight and liability, and #sustainability is more of a marketing scheme , cause how do you police boats in the middle of the ocean .
I keyed in "sustainable fish", "horticulture", "dolphin safe" to my local online super market and found nothing.. If sustainable fishing is available, it's not available to me. Not that I would ever believe the "dolphin safe" label now.
Bingo. Max Sustainable Yield is in theory a good concept and a good model but very hard to put into practice. It's almost impossible to determine what the MSY is for the fishing industry because bycatch and other shady practices will make the fisheries overcatch the fish thus over maximizing the yield curve. If MSY/sustainable fisheries is real, there wouldn't be a decline of the shark population as they are currently an endangered specie.
This is exactly what I was thinking, she's saying to do research on 'which fisheries are definitely sustainable' but it's impossible to ever know because virtually non of the information will be accurate or truthful so how are you ever meant to consume fish responsibly? The only way to know is if you caught it yourself surely
I don't think whales and dolphins are reproducing fast enough to be slaughtered the way they did in the movie . They literally slaughtered a full herd of whale and dolphins.
Environmental Graduate here. Just wanted to touch on a few points you made and the documentary overall. 1) In terms of sustainable fisheries, Max Sustainable Yield is absolutely the correct model and in theory, it is a great concept. But it is incredibly difficult to determine what the MSY is for fishing numbers and harder to enforce for all countries all over the world. Hence, although I agree MSY is a good concept, the documentary sheds light on illegal and overfishing that is happening across the world which would essentially ignore the MSY theory and I 'believe' that was more so what the directors where trying to get at in the documentary. 2) I wish you and the documentary would have mentioned that sharks are an endangered species as it is due entirely from the practice of shark finning (I stopped eating it six years ago after doing some research during my undergrad) because sharks aren't able to reproduce as fast as other fish in the ecosystem or as fast as we are catching and killing them hence essentially ignoring the MSY concept proven through the decline of the shark population in recent years. I wish they would have shed a little more light on sharks and the cruel practices of cutting the fins off and throwing them back into the ocean to die at the bottom (only their fins hold value in our society, shark meat isn't valued which is why they throw them back into the ocean) but they are without a debate very important to the ocean ecosystem as they are the apex predator. Even if there aren't definitive studies and debunking studies of Trophic Cascade, extinction of an entire shark population will undoubtedly affect the entire marine ecosystem most likely for the worst regardless of how complex the marine food chain is. I would rather not find out because any disruption at the top of the food chain will create ripple effects down the ecosystem regardless how big or small or for better or worse. To me, this is a simple but complicated solution: Ban Shark Finning practices around the world but obviously money talks and there will always be shady things happening with levels of gov't and fisheries to keep it going. 3) Lastly, I agree that there was misinformation from the documentary that you were able to spot out and explain so viewers of the doc and this video can further examine many details of the fishing industry themselves and come up with their own independent opinion. So kudos on that, but I think myself, you, viewers, and the directors are essentially on the same page in the sense that there are shady practices happening in the fishing industry. Stopping or limiting consumption of fish may bring down the demand which would create an oversupply of fish to the market. It would be feasible if we stopped eating or purchasing fish so the industry would hopefully re-regulate how much they need to catch and lowering their supply output to markets. Industrial fishing needs to be more regulated and reexamined in order for countries or communities that rely on fish as a main food source to be able to get theirs. Us limiting our fish consumption can hopefully be a silent protest to the malpractice of industrial fishing which can give countries such as the African country shown in the doc (can't think of the country name at the moment) better opportunities to locally catch fish for their communities. Would love to hear back from you. We're all at the same team in my opinion at the end of day so bouncing ideas and debates is a great starter for solving problems in the fishing industry.
@Trash Can That wasn’t the point of the documentary, or did the word “commercial / industrial” fishing fly through your ears a dozen times. The point of the documentary was to point out the blatant overfishing and even abuse of the people of Liberia. If anything they were doing it sustainably, the point is that industrial and illegal fishing vessels would fish in their waters and starve out the people. So no, we do not expect them to lay off their fishing diet. We want to expect industrial fishing trades to go down so they can actually eat. And what does bringing up food waste have to do with anything. Last I checked you can’t eat bones or apple seeds.
Hey! I admire deeply the time and length it has taken you to express this opinion in the comments. I found it to be exceptionally educational! I was hoping it would be okay for me to use this as an example of peoples reactions of the documentary and other reactionary videos, in a video I am making myself.
@Trash Can I never said counties like Liberia should stop eating fish. I actually stated that first world countries like mine (Canada) reducing our fish consumption and re-regulating industrial fishing will help impoverished nations like Liberia be able to catch fish because they aren't doing it at a mass or industrial level rather than at a community level where the max sustainable yield concept can actually make sense.
Well it's the same as watching seaspiracy you need to take what you've heard and do your own research. Seaspiracy is definitely a click bait title aswell 😂
Other marine biologist don’t agree with her take, there are a lot of videos that say much was correct tho.. but yes you’re right one needs to do his own research and not just on one persons take but multiple
I think this video gave me brain damage. Like my vision actually started shaking for a minute. I appreciate the outdated statistic being pointed out. However then downplaying the the issues facing the ocean has me worried. This sort of attitude that we do not need to drastically alter our way of existence in the scientific community is concerning to say the least.
@@mushyomens6885 there were many inaccuracies but the issues still exist. If we say everything is wrong then people will think none of the issues discussed in the film are worth thinking about or even real and that's a dangerous path to go down.
14:16 the turtle exclusion bycatch net you mentioned..... how many fisheries are actually using it globally? What percentage? And what happens to the old nets then?
I appreciate the clarifications made in this video however it disappoints me that you felt it was the right thing to do to put out a video just days after the documentary was released with a title such as the one you chose. This title will make people not watch the film, not take it seriously, and that's the LAST thing we want.
Yesss the clickbaity title was so offputting to me - but I wanted to see what kind of critique there was out there of the information presented in the documentary just to try and obtain a well-rounded view shaped by different POV:s, and so ended up reluctantly clicking anyway. A very cheap way to try and get them views, especially considering that there actually were some valid critiques in this video.
Hey guys please remember to share the petition as much as you can. I have been going around just sharing info saying there's an awesome new petition out there. It's slowing down with people signing so we need to drum up so noise...😃 love to see so many people who agree and can see through the questionable truth..
Despite all the scientific explanations, which are never absolute truth as you say and can be contradictory, the fact that there's predatory fishing that takes the food from people who actually practice a more traditional and sustainable fishing, that there's overfishing, that there's bycatch and fish nets can kill many different creatures that are thrown overboard because they don't have market value, that there's people being exploited, abused and killed by criminal gangs linked to the industry, that there's a big corruption behind all of this, that there's constant lies and that there's animal abuse, it's not enough? Or is it only the scientific explanations that matter? The guy is a filmmaker and an activist, he doesn't have the studies you have, so normally he collects data from here and there that may be incorrect, but the basic issue is that we think we are way above all other living beings, that they are there to be used and abused by human beings, that we have an anthropocentric worldview and that this is leading us to a path of destruction of the home we all share, and this whole paradigm must change. We need this planet to survive and all the living creatures in it, but they don't need us.
You saved me from having to write this.. thank you. And on a side not the naivety of this very clever lady to think sustainable fishing exists - while european countries argue over how much of this stock that country can have illegal fishing is mopping up the rest. I say we are going to get what is coming to us.. the unfortunate thing is our generation will probably skip onto the after life before it arrives.
Yep, I think she says the documentary did a great job at shedding light. From a science perspective, there are a few inaccuracies and as a scientist myself, one of the best things that we can do to strengthen our positions for protecting the oceans is to make sure that our facts and arguments are strong and airtight, even if it means contradicting what is said in the documentary or pointing out what's wrong. It's a lot of work crafting up a strong position, which is why we need to be able to fact check each other. I definitely felt strong feelings to protect the earth and stop the fishing industry after watching Seaspiracy and I thought it was very well made to make me feel like that. It's definitely helpful to have videos like this to educate and clarify more if people have more questions.
Hey guys please remember to share the petition as much as you can. I have been going around just sharing info saying there's an awesome new petition out there. It's slowing down with people signing so we need to drum up so noise...😃 love to see so many people who agree and can see through the questionable truth..
Hello telly. I think you should rename the title until you provide accurate evidence. If not we will just assume that you are a "paid" marine bio never had her legs wet. So please help yourself. Thank you.
More or less just someone who's using the title marine biologist and is trying to piggy back off the attention for the documentary for views with a click bait title. She more or less just states her opinions with no facts or debunks. All for that ad in the middle of the video which you guessed it earns her money. The video title should read "marine biologist profiteers off Seaspiricy popularity to gain ad revenue with click bait title and no debunks in sight" as soon as money is involved everyone is corrupted. Shame to see from a marine biologist 😔
That is correct. No facts; she doesn't even really address the information from Seaspiracy the way it is presented; she is using misinformation and pseudoscience for a little attention on her youtube channel.
Thank you for claryfying some of the misinfotmation in this document... But also I feel that you are being to harsh on its author. 1st in this criticism I find some cherry picking as well - you tackle the overstatment of the hipothesis that fisheries do cause corals to die... but critisizm is based only on one of few argunenys that are stated in the documentary. If you take the over all impact of fishery: on phitoplancton numbers, by that on fish, on circulation of wather, on trauling and its various impacts... then isin't fishery directly and indirectly responsible? 2nd sustainability. The author of Seaspiracy does not state that sustainable fishery is not posible. He states that it is not existing and can not exist in practice to which he shows pretty convincing evidence in form of statements of people who are active in the field. If the certificats actually do not guarantee anythibg, if thare is no way to ensure and standards while the boat is on the sea... than it is not posdible in fact. For me this is clear that this is the masage in the film. 3rd. No one in the documentary said that plastics and trash in the ocean is not important as major poluters are fisheries. They simply stated that while everyone focuses on eliminating plastics straws, nothing happens with gargantuic problem of fishing nets which cause far more damage. It does not nagate other polution problems... but you did not challange data which they mention in the document.. Also I feel that documentary has to be true... but it not nececerly has to be objective - especialy when challenging some dominating narrative. It is obvious it doesnt nececerly repeat what people are hearing allvthe time. Your video is an example of that aproach itself - you challange the documenary so you do not list all facts which are acurate - you focuse on criticism. Its ok. Everybody understands the genere. Thay did the same thing as you.
So the documentary raises issues by provoking and exaggerating things, that are basically true but could be "honed to perfection", right? So what are you actually DEBUNKING here? That the stats weren't completely right but basically true? So the documentary is trying to handle and fix these issues with a sledge hammer during those 90 minutes where you have a microscope and calculator. But you both still work the same issues and problems. That's not debunking. Debunking would be you proving the documentary and the issues it raises completely false and/or wrong. What you are doing is simply elaborate and clarify what the documentary said.
It is a critique rather than a debunking. Thematically for a UA-cam video, it works very well for the algorithm and the topic of the documentary is based on the word conspiracy.
@@longforgotten4823 great for the algorithm and her success but at the cost of swaying people to go against reducing fish consumption. The title seems so self interested
I agree! It bothers me so much when people disregard killing life and use "morals" as an excuse. I wish more people could see the truth and put aside their own human egos.
@@rachel7480 it is a food chain and we, as animals, are in it. do zebra's eaten by lions want to die? mice eaten by owls? etc? have you asked? 'end of any discussion' sounds at best not very open minded, at worst stalinist :-))
@@markvanloon4529 But we, as animals, created an artificial food chain that unbalances natural food chains and put's in jeopardy the environment and our own future. And we, as animals, have the possibility to select what we eat, something that a lion and a owl don't have, I suppose.
@@markvanloon4529 humans are meant to be herbivores. The shape of our teeth and the way our organs digest food shows that we are not built to eat meat.
And you call yourself a marine biologist? If your mission here is to "debunk" essentially a promotion of awareness and education of the essential decimation of our oceans, then at least offer some hard facts and data to back up your "debunking" theories. If you can't/won't then I'd suggest you remove this potentially damaging video. Thank you
I mean it's not really weird. Documentary makers are professional film makers. They aren't marine biologists or agricultural experts. Their job is to find narrative around a subject and present it in an engaging enough way that you sit through it. Along the way, they aren't going to get every single thing right. Now, that doesn't invalidate the point of the documentary, but inevitably, people who are more educated on the many topics discussed in the film are going to talk about it. Again, that doesn't mean that the take away message need be any different, but if we're going to discuss things, let's discuss them as they are, not as our feelings tell us we should, otherwise we get nowhere.
@@ic.xc. What’s your point? That there are no answers and that truth is subjective? Wow, original... You believe this meta perspective is somehow a closer reality then someone else’s? That everyone should stop questioning each-other and find one truth as to not inconvenience you? You argument here is somehow a sad depiction of where society is at today. And if you’re referring to that people should only voice their original thoughts and not relay others, then we should all stumble in mute silence.
Totally agree!! The figure could be miscalculated by 200 years and it actually wouldn't matter and would still be frightening, the point is surely the end result.
@@scottiebarnes7417 only, she didn't. Who says she has all the answers? Who says she willing to speak out against the very people that sponsor a lot of the research that is recognized?
When you state that you are 100 % sure that there will be fish in the sea - could you Please come and tell the sea bass here in Costa Rica because they are so low in population we can't find enough to commercially fish any more.
80 percent of plastic in the ocean is estimated to come from land-based sources, with the remaining 20 percent coming from boats and other marine sources. These percentages vary by region, however. A 2018 study found that synthetic fishing nets made up nearly half the mass of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, due largely to ocean current dynamics and increased fishing activity in the Pacific Ocean. www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
@@hhancp this is just blame shifting by those countries. We don't just ship our garbage away, they literally buy the waste to make profit off of it and when some of the plastic is not usable they dump it straight into the sea. In law the one who puts the gun to a person's head and fires is responsible and not the manufacturer of the gun.
@@byrondance8762 it's clear to me where is the shift blaming. If it's news to you, there are many countries who have good recycling infrastructures and are fully capable of taking care of their own waste by reducing, composting and recycling. Every country should work in that direction. It's a global issue.
@@hhancp would you like to address the point I just made? These countries are literally importing, buying and asking for the trash... They then dump half of it in the sea. How could that not be their fault?
But a better choice for the ocean would be to quit eating factory farmed meat because factory farming food is the biggest destroyer of ocean environments and ocean species
@@aureliusva if we stopped factory farming we would have to reduce consumption of animal products. Factory farming only exists as the most “sustainable” method to meet demand. If you want factory farming gone then global consumption of meat would have to reduce by as much as 90%. Grazing animals require more land than factory farming and land use is a huge environmental issue. The evidence is clear we need to move away from animal exploitation. We have an outdated food system built upon industry deceit and toxic cultural preferences.
@@justroberto5052 I agree. But you kind of missed the point that if we are not destroying our oceans with factory farming, then they are very sustainable and environmentally friendly resource.
ok where is the video that debunks THIS video? I mean... ok so the first point is about the year 2048 - she (rightly) points out this is based on (published) scientific research which was then refuted and eventually retracted and she does make a good point that this is (misre)presented here as a FACT when it really shouldn't be... but also, it's kind of a "blink and you'll miss" number that flashes across your screen and disappears after maybe 2 seconds... and THIS is really all she's got... she goes on to say "oh actually THERE IS a proper definition of Sustainable Fishing" and it is...? what? she ACTUALLY then says "the numbers don't actually matter" HELLO? she makes a vague point about fish lay eggs and produce more offspring than are expected to survive (presumably to make their own offspring) but 2 points: (1) you still need A NUMBER that represents how many of THOSE fish can be "sustainably" fished (again, before they lay their own eggs) - to use the bank account analogy, WHAT IS THE INTEREST RATE? (2) are we to assume that number is THE SAME FOR ALL the different varieties of marine wildlife? how many different species even ARE there - and they ALL have that same "interest rate" apparently? I reckon his point remains completely valid - you can talk all you like about "oh there really is sustainable fishing - I promise you!" but until you can actually tell us HOW have you defined this, exactly, then you are full of shit there is also this "debunking" of the idea that whales (and dolphins) are linked to phytoplankton via "whale poo" being a vital nutrient for them - she kind of dismisses this is if it's NOT TRUE - in fact there is PLENTY of scientific evidence to back this up - it is known (well known) as the "whale pump" - here's some literature on it, including published journals and even the IMF: au.whales.org/green-whale/ journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013255 www.esa.org/esablog/2014/07/03/poo-pump-whales-as-ecosystem-engineers/ reasonstobecheerful.world/whale-poop-climate-change/ www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/whales-carbon-capture-climate-change/ www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/12/natures-solution-to-climate-change-chami.htm now the point about sharks and apex predators, again, she "debunks" - basically by saying "there is insufficient scientific evidence" for this "hotly debated" idea IN THE OCEANS - while it is being absolutely undisputed on land... interestingly, NOW she says "oh but there are SO MANY different varieties of ocean wildlife" - contradicting her earlier point about "sustainable fishing" finally, she now - again contradicting what she said earlier - says he is trying to "blame (over)fishing for everything" - like the thing about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) - I think maybe she should watch it again, more carefully this time - because he's not saying that at all! he's saying industrialised fishing IS GETTING AWAY WITH not actually getting ANY blame for any of it - including the plastics in the ocean now she does (rightly) point out that the number globally is quite different to the number just for the GPGP - this is true - tho while she says marine-based (eg fishing nets) ONLY accounts for around 10% of GLOBAL plastic pollution in the oceans, this - once again - is hotly debated and that number may well be as high as 30% ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution#how-much-of-ocean-plastics-come-from-land-and-marine-sources but... again... he's not trying to say land-based plastics are NOTHING - he's just trying to address the COMPLETE LACK of ANY attention being drawn to the not-insignificant amount of marine-based plastics - so in effect, she is ADDING to the already HUGE chorus of voices who are ALREADY talking about land-based plastics - and basically trying to SILENCE this ... basically LONE voice trying to say "hang on what about all those fishing nets" ALSO, like the thing about 2048, has ZEROED IN on the PERCENTAGE of plastics being land or marine based, while completely ignoring his broader point that a single straw in the nose of a turtle is getting all the attention while those discarded ropes and fishing nets, REGARDLESS WHAT THE MASS OF THEM IS, is doing far, far greater damage to marine life - and getting NOTHING in terms of awareness all in all this is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE video that needs another video to debunk all the "facts" it is apparently debunking, here!
Thanks for that comment! Nice to see that i wasn't the only one with a question mark above my head when she "debunked" some aspects of the documentary!
I don't think that the paper was actually retracted. science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5800/787 (paywall). They just have a technical comment response where they agree predictions are difficult and may be inaacurate with a longer timeframe of 2114. They also go to some lengths to show that their findings are not random. science.sciencemag.org/content/316/5829/1285.4 So it is possible, her first alternative thought is also not true? Retracted articles usually tell you, especially in a journal such as science. Here is one of the most cited retracted papers from science with the notice . science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/426.long
Sorry, no disrespect here but, I find it very curious when you mentioned the Scientific's, it truly sounds like you don't belong. 1- You never introduced yourself as Dr. Chantel Last-name, Marine Biologist. 2- You are pushing sustainable fishing, why? (I don't trust it). 3- You highly recommended to watch your friend's video, no link to click on and no clear name. Anyway, I'm a simple scuba diver that loves the ocean and when I dive in my favorite spots, I can see the huge decline of marine life...
Googled and found this "Tuna Class Actions Lodged Over Fishy ‘Dolphin Safe’ Labeling". "UPDATE 2: On Feb. 3, 2020, in a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit, StarKist says that consumers do not expect their “dolphin safe” canned tuna labels to mean that the marine mammals are completely safe from fishing practices used to harvest the popular seafood. "
Years ago (and while it was under emphasized, surprisingly it was mentioned in Seaspiracy) I shared in my book The Sixth Extinction, that Mitsubishi has 2 massive freezer warehouses in which they are stockpiling bluefin tuna. But not for sale. The tuna are block frozen to keep them fresh for decades. Mitsubishi is actually purchasing the tuna from every available resource. Legal or illegal to encourage extinction of the species. This may sound strange but it is true. They want to wipe out bluefin tuna as a species so that they will be the sole source for this high dollar fish. Essentially a monopoly on a species that they can then charge unheard of sums to the elite. It's a profit motivated sick ecological attack on bluefin as a species, and what I call "calculated eco-terrorism."
@Trash Can I am serious and it was mentioned in the movie. Mitsubishi refused his interview. This is better covered in the 2009 documentary "End of the line." About the commercial fishing industry. It's a very big deal. But there is a lot of money behind this. But to address your question the tuna is cut up and block frozen in water. This keeps air out of the picture. It prevents what most people reference as freezer burn from occurring to the meat. In a similar manner to intact mammoth carcasses being recovered undamaged and unspoiled from permafrost and glacial ice. These are cryogenically maintained warehouses. The public cannot address or be outraged by what it doesn't know or is unfamiliar with. Much of the material in documentaries like these are whitewashed down or downplayed by offending industries. This why I am suspicious of biologists attempting to decry documentaries with sound and supported evidence by credible sources. I have been actively involved in a huge variety of conservation initiatives since the early 2000's. I know many of the interviewed people personally and I trust them. But more so I trust my own eyes and experiences.
@Trash Can this is covered much more extensively in "End of the line." And it's not Mitsubishi making other species go extinct. They are SPECIFICALLY targeting Blue Fin tuna with the end game of extinction. It's all a money game. These corporations only see dollar signs when they look at our oceans. And that particular act is as insidious as it gets.
@@erikbrush That is very terrifying to think about but on the other hand we have driven multiple species to extinction such as Dodo birds which were discovered at around 1507 and went extinct at 1681 completely as far as we possibly know.Given the state of the current world it wouldn’t do anything bad to us,We may revolt agains this practices and hopefully someday will come or it may not ever come.
The above reviewer is carping (pun intended) about scientific details and may be correct on certain points, but scientists know little about political and economic context, and she grossly underplays Seaspiracy's virtues. It is of little import whether the year 2048 is a viable prediction of the moment when the oceans reach a point of apocalyptic finality - it is rather only crucial to determine whether or not fishing at present levels makes it inevitable that commercial practices are unsustainable. Since the above reviewer affirms that eating less fish is advisable, it is clear that she accepts the documentary's essential premise. Her advising people to pay attention to their own plastic straw use is what journalist, George Monbiot calls, "Micro Consumeristic Bollocks," (MCB) - the neoliberal propagandistic practice of blaming environmental catastrophes on individual behavior rather than on the true culprit - the corporate powers who pursue profits with no other values, or intent beyond their own predatory ends.
Thank you very much for your clarification, it made me feel more relieved. However, I will continue not to eat fish even if industrial fishing is not the main problem, because it still has an impact on the marine ecosystem.
@@TellysMarineTales The way you downplay the role of fisheries on corals is really damaging, the overfishing of fish hinders the oceans ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change and bi catch increase carbon potential released further increasing temp.These are already causing major issues and especially in the long term will cause mass coral death.
Does the maximum sustainable yield take into account by-catch/accidental take? If there are 100 fishes and the fishermen catch 99 fishes, keep 1 fish, and dump 98 dead fishes back to the ocean, does this still consider sustainable?
Yes of course it raises quite some questions and suspicions when there is no sources linked anywhere and there is quite bold claims thrown. The burden of proof lays on the shoulders of the person who makes the claim. Why would anybody go to the internet and tell lies?
@Hardi Hansson Maybe her bank balance would reveal who is paying her to post a video denying the atrocities that were featured in the Seaspiracy. I sort got a feeling that maybe she believes the earth is flat too.
Whether sharks are vital or not to the food chain, I don't want my future grandchildren to be shown just old pictures and videos of sharks that were hunted to extinction just for their fins.
It's really disappointing how extreme people's views have become as a result of this documentary and I suspect that's largely the reason for the polarised 50:50 split of likes and dislikes on this video. It's a shame, because the documentary was clearly over-sensationalised to create an emotive response, at the cost of being factually precise. The fact that you put a video out clarifying some points, while not diminishing the need to preserve our marine wildlife, and yet still get criticism for it is extremely disturbing and shows a terrible inability in the general public to critically analyse resources and make logical decisions. I sincerely hope that we can effect significant change towards a more sustainable society, but arguing and berating those who don't share your beliefs, even when critical information is presented right in front of you, is not the way to get there.
But does she clarify any points? She seems to misinterpret the points from the film. 1) the 2048 thing was a minor detail from the film... which simply said some scientists predicted that if overfishing followed a trend. IT was one of many dates listed, and none were suggested to be a bottom line. 2) sustainable fishing ... she completely misses the point. there is no accountability. almost every ship that's inspected fails to meet the standards. Totally unsustainable fisheries are labeled sustainable. all she says is that sustainable fishing is theoretically possible, and offers no evidence of accountability in sustainable labeling. Her "evidence" is that the UN says almost 2/3 of the fisheries are "sustainable." Okay. And then, "the numbers doen't really matter." Wow. Way to clarify that. 3) Phytoplankton.. she totally gets it wrong. Seaspiracy does not say that they phytoplankton depend on whale poop. It does make a point of how the sea creatures help increase phytoplankton. Her argument is against nothing. 4) fishing nets... obviously the number one piece of trash in the ocean... she rambles about it.. says it might be true... 50%...10% 20%... who knows. And no evidence to support any of her numbers. She pretends to argue against the claim that fishing nets are the number one sea trash, but she says it might be true. So... what's the point? The whole video is her lame attempt to try to understand the documentary that is apparently way over her head.
Can you talk about how seafood is actually becoming more toxic for people as the oceans become more polluted? I can’t think of a better way to get people to reduce their seafood consumption than to tell them you’re basically eating a cigarette with gills.
To add to your clarifications, which as an ecologist I truly appreciate, I would like to address the slavery issue portrayed in the film. When the issue was publicly exposed in 2014, and Thai fishery was given a yellow flag, a lot has been done since to tackle and monitor the problem with joint efforts from the government, international NGOs, and local NGOs. (Please note that as a Thai citizen fighting for democracy, I do not lightly give credit to the junta effort.) It is a horrendous practice, and as a Thai conservationist I abhor it too. However, any Thai-speaking persons watching the film would be able to tell you that the scene in this film is a total set up and scripted to cater to western consumers. My colleagues who research on slavery in fishery can voucher that the workers in fishing vessels are mostly Burmese and Cambodians. They do not speak immaculate central Thai without a hint of other accents as they do in the film. The logic of supply chain to global consumers also sounds more like a speech written by an educated NGO. With that kind of ability to articulate modern issues, it is unlikely that the person needed to take up terrible jobs on an abusive fishing vessel. The aerial drone image of "South Thailand" in the film is also not from Thailand. If you check the Google Earth, you would find that it is from the Philippines. This film maker obviously does not care about Thai audience, so much that he didn't even bother to try to craft a good haux. He just wants to make a simplistic sensational film with old information and half-truths. I care very much for nature and conservation, and I fear that such disinformation from the 'conservation camp' would be a disservice to the cause.
Omg thank you for debunking the misrepresentation of the reality here. I was so aghast at the unchecked prevalence of fishing slavery as portrayed by the video, but your comment makes me feel relieved. Also, its truly a disgrace if the drone shot was not really Thailand
@@tannle I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the notion of slavery. Labour abuses are ubiquitous. Many people working in the food chain are exploited and regarded as slave labour.
@Trash Can That is not what I said or meant. Please don’t twist. I’m just pointing out that the film set up the scene. It is an unfortunate situation that full citizens, though poor, have more choices than illegal immigrants from Burma and Cambodia. However, many NGOs have been helping them
@@oykanjanavanit it is a massive reach to go from "this film inaccurately represented the demographics of slaves in the fishing industry" to "this scenario is a total set up" which implies that it is fake and the slave being burmese or cambodian makes the issue less pressing. and obviously some NGOs will try to help them, but it is still a massive problem. the film didn't lie about the slavery, they may simply have been confused as to the actual ethnicity of the slaves, which is not a set up. jesus. i get why this documentary intimidates some people but at least give a shit about the human lives involved.
@@IS-ux6yq I am not saying the issue is less pressing due to ethnicity. I’m saying it looks like a total set up if you know local dialects. The interview scene in the film is not convincing. This is very different from the Channel 4 report that exposed the problem 6-7 years ago, which we totally embraced. I also didn’t brush it off that some NGO will look into the problem. They have done so and are still doing. My point is there are people who genuinely care and helping to elevate the problem. I don’t think it helps the problem to fake a scene for a film. Faking it undermines the cause
I like how she "debunks" the fishing nets. She says that they might make up 50% of the garbage patch. Then she says they make up 10% of ocean trash worldwide. Where did she get that number? Then she says trash from on land makes up 80% of ocean trash. What does that mean, exactly? Where does she get that number? Nevermind... who needs evidence to support their arguments?
As a Marine Biologist I would have expected you to be considerably more desirious of stopping the useless and wanton slaughter for marine wildlife. I too watched this documentary...twice actually. The inaccuracies you mention are pointless. I guess it's your way of getting some attention on your youtube channel, but your futile efforts to protect an industry that is devastating the very existence of life on this planet makes me wonder who's paying you, exactly?
What I got from the film is that sustainability in fisheries does not exist because there is no trustworthy way to monitor the interest accrued from the deposit.
@@aistyle6688 are you? Well her own video is misleading and other in her own profession don’t agree with her take. I’m sure some do tho.. shit got me crazy not know what to believe 😝
i just finished watching seaspiracy. i do definitely agree with their main point to eat less fish. but i was also disappointed how one sided and "emotionally manipulative" it was, which i guess some would argue is how to get people to actually contemplate change. anyways, thanks for this video! i think there definitely needs to be more discussions about it!
I think that people will not understand if they would have make it so hmm not heart braking and dramatic. Yes some is maybe a bit over the line but in the end the brought the topic up as one of few who are able to talk openly about that matter. So I think that seaspiracy is a very good made Film. Just eat less fish will make not much in a difference, btw. We all have to move our asses to do something against it and not just talk about it.
Das what I’m saying.. lol the other side like what the polluters and fishing industry?? Or the shark fin hunters perspective?? 😂 i don’t see how the defense could argue back like wait a minute we hunt these fish for food for humans?? lol
I have a question about studies, or deeper, the data of studies. There are possibilities that the giant fishing industry, with its enormous pocket, influence the data used in studies. How confident can we be when using those datasets? Is the fact that when we go to areas which once to have abundance of fish, now don't have anything left and fishermen have to go to deeper water, speaking for the truth or is there something else missing in the picture? Just hope I could bring in another angle when looking into this issue.
You, woman, fit the description of the people the documentary warned about. You may be an expert but nothing can convince the world of your integrity and authenticity. The world is tired of being lied to.
Sustainable fishing?? How about the Chinese, a few moths ago their was a fleet of more than 200 industrial fishing boats outside of the ocean limits of theGalapagos Islands who controls them? They’ve depleted their oceans and have to fish further and further.
You are saying don't feel bad about killing and eating sentient living beings who feel pain and don't want to end up being food just as much as humans do. You need to watch Dominion documentary as well and stop promoting animal cruelty
People are allowed to have different ethical principles. Following an Animal Rights principle of ethics is a perfectly valid and reasonable way of living your life, and I feel it's a very noble way of life, but not everyone chooses to live that way. Nobody has the final say when it comes to whether killing/eating animals is objectively wrong. Global human society has developed over millennia and a majority of people willingly choose to eat animal products. To me, this is fine (in principle) however, I am a staunch advocate of Animal Welfare, which is different from Animal Rights. I love animals, and I choose to support high welfare, sustainably farmed, local produce. In your eyes, I am complicit in animal cruelty no matter what high welfare standards I support. If we are to make a difference to the planet, people absolutely do need to make radical switches to a more plant-based diet, especially regarding beef farming and fishing - but telling the world it needs to change because it needs to stop killing animals unfortunately will not work. All the while we live in an anthrocentric, human/speciesist society where we commit violations against our own human rights on a daily basis, animal rights will always come second. I’m not saying any of this is ok, it’s just how the world operates under extremely flawed foundations.
I would just like to mention a couple of things. 1) the fact that there isn't a research on something doesn't mean it's untrue. (Cascade with sharks) 2) Study analysis is corrupted due to a lack of information after seeing how the real side of the industry looks. Thanks for the information
Hi, thanks for the video. Few points: 1- The title is somewhat misleading 2- If not by 2048, then what is the best estimate of ocean depletion? (if this will happen) 3- Regarding «Sustainable fishing» - Is there an effective way to know that products bought are legally procured, and sustainable in terms of bycatch, plastic pollution, habitat destruction, etc.? Thanks
Thank you for clarifying some of the inaacuracies of the ocumentaary. Do you see any keystone species in the oceans, or would that be too wide an area, and we need to narrow the scope to different parts of the oceans?
Can you answer this for me with sustainable fishing? If we, for example, only fish the excess from the population going forward, then we are just taking enough fish for the ecosystem to maintain. But if the fish populations are already a deficit, then this is only stopping things from getting worse right? Maybe that was what they were emphasizing, and I suppose that sustainable fishing is better than nothing.
Fisheries concider sustainable fishing to be fishing a species to almost collapse and then skimming the top off. Thats why here in NZ we have one of the best fisheries management systems in the world yet almost all our commercially caught fish are close to collapse. They fish until they see a dramatic fall in catch numbers then when forced they take a little less of their quota. Or they ignore the signs and the stocks collapse which has happened to numerous species here in NZ.
ok first off, you do realise that if every one ate sustainable seafood, their would be none left, its like how meat eaters say to eat grass fed organic, sure its more ethical and sustainable but if everyone did it we wouldn't have enough space, and in the case of the ocean, we would obviously overfish. the guy who was narrating didn't downplay single use plastic, he still picks up plastic from the beaches, but are you seriously, I mean seriously going to tell people to limit their plastic straws, but not care about fishing as long as its "sustainable" you do realise they make up 0.025% of plastic in the ocean, the documentary rounded it up for you as well. plastic in the ocean of fishing nets makes up 10%, but since they are so large they make up percentage wise of weight 46%, like how can you call yourself a marine biologist, a simple google search can explain this. Is it just that you don't want to have to give up fish or something, or are you just ignorant, you make me wonder what the point of credentials are since you are supposed to be an "expert" and everyone is eating up your bs.
Coral bleaching was mentioned in the documentary and water temperature was described as the cause, but another mechanism along with climate change was suggested as a contributor for the temperature change. The documentary was also highlighting the health of coral reefs relies on fish as much as the other way round and that reef fish numbers and sharks is dwindling.
I think... We will still have fish in the ocean by 2048.... But Not Enough to sustain us all..i guess...if we still continue those montrous ways discussed on the documentary...just saying...
It's a simple and clear message you can't really argue with. STOP OVERFISHING (infact just stop eating fish) why even argue with it. Don't you have empathy.
When you mention the number of 'sustainable fisheries' as a percentage. What is the basis? Is this by area? Volume of Sea? Or by Yeild in tonnes of fish/y?
If you ever wonder why so many digital spaces are male dominated look in a mirror. Your behavior is terrible. Don’t let social media turn you into such a tribal belligerent person. This kind of scientific debate is totally valid and valuable.
Hi Telly, can you please change the title of your video? We get that you want more viewers, but the word debunked is totally not at its place here. There were parts in your video tho that were very handy to know about. For you and the other readers, please read the comment of @Erik Brush in this comment section, he makes great points.
Good video, only thing I'd say is maybe change the title to a more 'neutral' one? Many people will just read the title and be like "ah I knew it was a load of rubbish, I don't need to stop eating/reducing my fish intake"
That's the typical human response whenever their horrid behavior is endangering another life form. Not so much when it's their life at stake though...funny thing that.
The earth, nature and all that lives on this planet, are our only treasures and the only living things worth fighting for. Not money, not gold, not canned fish. It has to stop now.
Hello everybody - thanks so much for watching and engaging with this video. I know I said I would reply to comments but wow there are so many of them. I can't possibly reply to all of them so here's a statement to cover some of the common themes I've picked up on in the comments:
- I don't go against the documentary but I do go against the misinformation in the documentary. As I said throughout my video, I think it's great to get people thinking and talking about these severe threats the oceans currently face. However, I am a scientist and I highly value accurate information. Misconstruing the truth to support a very one-sided viewpoint, which is what this documentary does in a lot of examples, is not something I agree with. So I will tackle misinformation where and when I can. People are smart and will understand the severity of the situation without having to lie or exaggerate about it. And maybe the controversy is what is getting this documentary viewed by millions of people, but I don't think that's the right way to tackle these important issues.
- On sustainable fisheries and eating fish. Again, as I stated in my video, I do advocate for people reducing or eliminating their fish consumption where possible. But this is not always possible! Thousands of people who live in poverty around the world rely on fish as a source of food and income. Also, fish is an important calorific component of many people's diets. If all of a sudden we all stop eating fish, those calories would need to come from somewhere else. Namely land-based agriculture (food or plants). In which case, we'd need to destroy more land ecosystems and kill more land animals to create the farms to supply that food deficit. There is no simple solution. The seas cover most of our planet and we should be using them as a source of food to reduce pressure on land ecosystems. But that does not mean we shouldn't tackle the very big issues of overfishing, by-catch, illegal and unregulated fisheries, and slavery in fisheries. It's currently in your hands to do some research and make educated choices about the fish you're eating to see if you should be eating that fish. And no, we cannot regulate every single fishing boat, just like we cannot regulate every single farm, but that does not mean regulations aren't being followed in certain examples. Certain fisheries are really well regulated and managed and those fish stocks have remained stable or even recovered from overexploitation. A very quick example of this are certain shark species in the USA whose numbers have started recovering due to strict regulations put in place. Not all fisheries will follow regulations, but some do.
I really encourage all of you to do some more reading around fisheries to get a broader understanding of all the issues. This documentary made a good start but there's a lot more to the picture.
And please remember let's all be kind to each other. We all want the same thing at the end of the day, a healthier ocean. Peace out :)
From what I can see, regarding agriculture / on land - much of the food we produce goes toward the raising of "livestock" - this could be used to feed humans.
We also need to look at human population levels & also location; where humans are choosing to breed vs. the local resources.
Why are we so keen on creating more & more of us?
The notion of a sustainable anything, will fly out the nearest window soon.
I watched a documentary on Somalia last night, it is terrible, & yes, many people there rely on fish to live.
However, they continue to create HUGE families, who must then attempt to thrive in (often) dire poverty.
We have a serious problem - globally & need a foundational rethink of what we are doing.
Maybe you could work with the documentary crew & create a presentation to air some of your concerns about parts of the film ?
Regarding sustainable sources of fish, as u claim exists.... can u name one? And document that it is in fact sustainable? The point in the documentary is that all those sustainable brands aren’t sustainable when u look closer at them...
I have two questions and would be super happy if you could answer :) You said that sustainable fishing is possible, but the documentary said that fish feed also comes from fish (if I understood correctly). Does this mean that we put more resources into fish farming than we actually get back?
Secondly about the plastic pollution in our oceans, you said that only 10% of the plastic pollution consists of fishing nets. Did you mean that 10% of plastic pollution found in the ocean is fishing nets or 10% of plastic pollution around the planet consists of fishing nets? And the documentary's estimate of 46% of fishing nets is only valid for the Great Pacific garbage patch?
I hope I could formulate my questions clear enough, english is obviously not my first language.
Thank for your response if you find the time :)
I encourage you as a fellow biologist to read and respond to my discussion. It's not a scathing indictment. However I have strong concerns with some misinformation on your part as well as addressing some contradictions in the statements you made.
Having seen some of the statements attacking you for your criticisms I get your reluctance to respond. However, my address of your inaccuracies and misinformation and those concerns I have with your presentation come from a basis of logic. Not an emotional knee-jerk reaction. Scientist to scientist, would you care to elaborate?
If so it would be very much appreciated. If not, for my part it confirms certain suspicions that I have as to the veracity of your professional or personal opinions and observations.
Thank you.
I G N O R A N T
I'm a marine biologist, shark conservation specialist, and the Founder of Sharks For Life!
With all due respect you made some gross errors and have misleading statements and untruths in your attempted debunking of Seaspiracy.
I just watched the documentary. Much of it addressed issues I published in my first book years ago.
The blanket statement about there being no fish by 2048 (2050 is also touted with the same generalized timeline) was not to say that oceans would be devoid of marine species. It was a statement specific to marine harvest of major fish stocks. So the statement stands. Fisheries are fishing down the food chain as larger species are depleted.
Because fisheries are indeed widely unregulated in spite of what is on paper. Commercial fisheries are depleting stocks and producing an exorbitant volume of bycatch in the process.
Elasmobranchs are in severe decline. Tuna and billfish populations are devastated. Cod, Salmon, Mackerel, Grouper, all in terrible shape. And fish that were considered trash fish 50 years ago such as monkfish, are now target species.
Stating that 2048 is the end of all fish in the ocean is not accurate. But it is also not the primary original message from the IUCN and others monitoring the decline. So addressing a misquoted statistic out of context minimizes the severity of the damage.
Sustainability in fisheries? Again, you would need to show me (because in my research over the last decade or more I haven't seen reality matching statistics or claimed regulation anywhere) where this actually transpires? There is very little in the way of law enforcement for the few areas in which fish are supposed to be protected.
More so most governments and regulatory agencies do very little to actually monitor and curtail over harvesting of marine species or to monitor bycatch.
As far as Cetaceans, I agree with you. I found that observation a bit short sighted by the film maker.
But where sharks are concerned you are downplaying the significance of their demise and the complex impact of this diminishment.
Trophic cascade in apex predation was over simplified for the general public. Nevertheless it is impactful and I had to physically laugh when you misquoted and downplayed a very real occurrence. You got your story a bit skewed with regards to the cownosed rays.
To clarify, the problem stemmed not from shark fisheries at all. It originated with recreational trophy fisheries in the Carolinas. Specifically the tarpon fishing industry.
These fishermen got tired of losing worn out tarpon to opportunistic greater hammerheads. They applied pressure to local officials and a 5 year campaign was waged to target this species with strong results.
The greater hammerhead population along that region dropped. And with it the cownosed ray population exploded.
The ray population collapsed 4 shellfish industries. Scallops, oysters, mussels, and clams.
I have personally witnessed the population increase as these animals began to show a marked presence along the Atlantic coastline and in the Gulf of Mexico.
So your statement, is inaccurate.
As for the fishing industry, the document maker never claimed that they were the sole reason that our oceans are suffering.
However stating that these industries are not as bad or not as heavily responsible for destruction in our marine ecosystems is grossly irresponsible. I expect better of my colleagues.
Your contradictory statements regarding plastic percentages are quite astounding. You admit that while skeptical about discarded fishing gear and ghost netting comprising around 50% of the garbage in the Great Pacific Garbage patch, you readily concede that you do not know the exact numbers and have not checked.
But then you go on to assure your viewers that the global garbage gyres comprise only 10% of fishing gear. Excuse me?
I'm sorry but as we address the various major garbage patches in the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian oceans, etc. I just have to ask as a scientist using the basic logical approach to uniformity, what makes you think that you have accurate numbers or that there is strangely only 10% of discarded fishing gear in the other 4 major ocean garbage patches, but accepting that the percentage might be 50% in the northern Pacific patch?
I would expect (and this is just basic logic) that if the number were 10% in every other major accumulation you would also state that it was definitively 10% in the case cited in the documentary.
But you admit that you do not have those statistics to verify the percentage. Objectivity prevents you from contradicting without knowing.
I personally believe the percentage to be roughly 38% - 42% based on what information I have come across which is limited.
I have spoken to people better versed in this than I am and I would not be surprised if it turns out to be 50%. But if it is, I would expect it to be roughly 40% - 50% globally. As a comparative model.
The documentary did not blame fisheries for the threatened to endangered status of sea turtles. It pointed out that 6 of the 7 species (excluding the flatbacked sea turtle) were in a position whereby commercial bycatch harvesting by fisheries was a threat. TEDs (Turtle Extruder Devices) are often added to nets of shrimp trawlers and other fishing boats while in shore. But once they leave the watchful eyes of authorities many remove the TEDs claiming that they lose too much of their catch when the TED is in place. Even though studies show that TEDs seldom account for more than 3% loss.
The EIA (Environmental Investigation Agency) has investigated several violations, as have others. Past exploitation of turtles certainly factored into their decline, but having worked with STOP and other organizations I can confidently say that pollution, habitat loss, confused lighting on turtle hatching beaches, and commercial fishing (especially longline fishing) plays a huge role in the decline of turtle populations globally.
I'm a bit confused. Perhaps you saw a different Seaspiracy than I did, but please elaborate, where did you see the film maker citing fisheries for coral bleaching?
You correctly mention climate change as the primary cause as coral polyps eject the algae needed to sustain themselves. However I don't recall this being in the film. Perhaps I missed it? If so my apologies.
I saw the film maker state that removal of fish populations from a reef system diminish some of the nutrients that keep the reef thriving. Did I miss some of the film? I will have to look again.
I think you have not so much "debunked" the film as pointing out areas of contention or in some cases you've made erroneous statements that cast doubt on sound findings.
I've been fighting for marine ecosystems for decades. I think that the documentary begins to open people's eyes to what is largely an out of sight, out of mind issue.
As you mentioned, and I concur, the situation with complex ecosystems is never simply X+Y=Z. There are always a variety of factors that contribute to problems.
But I firmly believe that you are grossly unaware of the severity of the impact of fisheries. As a biologist you understand that there are a lot of problems with creating sustainable harvest, but the fact that you were not aware of forced labor (slavery) or many of the other shady/criminal aspects of the fishing industry casts doubt in my mind as to whether or not you see the big picture.
Fisheries are a lot more insidious than you give them credit for. And the link between the decline of apex marine predators ties in with a decrease in the annual bloom of phytoplankton. Which impacts carbon sequestering, oxygen production, and climate models.
So even if most major fish stocks have not all but vanished by 2050, the global climate model will eventually be enough to revert the vast tracts of liquid methane hydrate under all of the world's polar shelves to gas.
On the day that happens it will be game over for most terrestrial organisms. That volume of methane will destroy our ozone layer instantly.
Full UV radiation from our sun will take care of the rest.
@Erik Brush
Holy [expletive deleted].
I knew the situation was dire, I just wasn't quite aware of how dire it actually was.
Always better to know though.
Even more glad I went Vegan.
Thanks Erik.
❤️
@@PercivalBlakeney the scale of industrial abuse and criminal activity that takes place in these ecosystems is often not fully understood. Observers are often bribed or intimidated (or worse) to cover up the scale.
The amount of information shared is marginal at best. As you might imagine there are a lot of areas not covered in these discussions.
I think the only cases of sustainability in fishing are with small scale artisanal fisheries. But these are regional. The grand scale picture is quite disturbing.
Thanks Sir @erik blush for a detailed comment on this video. I learned a lot. Im just wondering if you could also possibly create a video supporting the Seaspiracy. This documentary really has a big potential to spark something.
@@erikbrush
Cheers Erik.
"With great knowledge comes great sadness." Ecc 1 v18.
Always better to know though.
(Anyone for Minamata syndrome? ... pluperfectly UN-funny.)
VMTs again.
😔
@@jaypeecandelaria8044
Seconded... oh dear Lord seconded.
❤️
No matter how many books you are gonna buy and how many Experts will say their views , the ocean is already in a very deep trouble due to overfishing!
Totally agree with you
Aright ignore whatever the scientists say
@@izzythomas3448 which ones ? The ones screaming about the danger or the ones that are being "optimistics" ? But yeah, i'm sure that if we keep smiling, the situation will get better ! 👍
Word.
@Danilo Alves Really? I guess there are things that need no sources but knowledge of how many we are and how reckless we act
After watching the documentary, how can we trust the companies who say they are doing sustainable fishing ?
You cant lol unless you know the person who caught it
Considering the guy that actually tags them that says you cant, you dont.
In Norway we have a strict fish laws wich make fishing sustainable
Exactly! Her point is basically, "Sustainable fisheries are totally possible... theoretically" completely ignoring the illegal fishing and corruption of "sustainable" labels shown in the movie. This is like saying, "Averting climate catastrophe is totally possible... theoretically... we just need to give the fossil fuel companies that lied to us for decades a little less money and we're there!"
@@juliuswalsetveit329 according to the documentary sustainable fishing cannot be achieved anymore if we don’t make strict changes globally.
I live in Hawaii and I've seen the decline of reef fish and most deep water fish over the years. A lot of it has to do with over fishing.
I know!!! She said coral bleaching issue is not main caused by fisheries but mainly caused by climate changing and temperature change..... but fisheries OVER FISHING does contributes to climate change and temperature change ..... what is she trying?? 🤡🤯 ok marine biologist
@@rainniwkw You don't even speak functioning English.
@YoStefan Catching fish doesn't effect the temperature
@@australianpatriot I don’t need to write perfect English on UA-cam to get my point across. But not everyone has common sense I see.
@@rainniwkw hey how does overfishing contribute to climate change
The documentary:
"The fishing industry is SOLELY responsible for the collapse of our oceans"
This video:
"The fishing industry isn't as bad as the documentary claims, and there are other problems that are leading to the decline of our oceans"
My takeaway is that the documentary slightly exaggerated the effect the fishing industry has on our oceans, but overfishing still remains THE biggest threat to the marine ecosystem.
I am from the carribbean and over the years so many species have vanished or declined to dangerous levels.
@Censoring Free Speech -UA-cam how is he a troll? If anything, you look like the troll here.
Many might of vanished but many have also been discovered
@@bluum8827 your statement is factless claims. Provide evidence.
@@theknightofren go look it up you clown. Thousands of species have been discovered in the last 50 years
And how do you feel that a Marine Biologist is basically saying don’t worry! There will still be ‘some’ fish in 2048!
I don’t think the documentary is claiming that various fish species reproduction is not sustainable. It’s saying that the way the fishing industry is presently operating is not sustainable for marine life. The strain on sustainability is coming from the fishers not the fish. The volume of “bycatch” and fishing related pollution in the water is totally unacceptable SMH
the turtle exclusion bycatch net she mentioned..... she didn’t even state how many fisheries are actually using it globally? What percentage? And what happens to the old nets?
The documentary NEVER said fisheries are to blame for everything. Why is she making things up to mislead her viewers?
@@rainniwkw absolutely agree, this video is making a lot of misleading and vague commentaries itself.
Recent interviews have shown him to be a militant vegan, fishing is evil type.
Plot twist it looks at a few boats and translate that into every boat in the commercial fishing industry. Please tell me you're not foolish enough to believe this
I'm honestly trying to figure out why would someone try to totally discredit the documentary if they love the ocean for real. We've been raised where "normal" is destroying our planet and taking the lives of innocent beings, all for a paycheck. I think once we get passed that we can truly see that we shouldn't be doing anything that is of the detriment to our planet especially if it's not a necessity for the survival of humanity.
exactly my thought. if she wants to share her personal extra knowledge about details maybe she should call it that in the title, and not "debunked"
I think it's probably for views, but I also think being able to clarify and point out any weak arguments in the documentary can help strengthen its points. We're all working towards the same goal, just gotta point out inaccuracies and keep everyone on the same, updated page. :)
@@tao072002"pointing out weak arguments in the documentary to help strengthen its points" could have been a way better title than "debunking" it. a lot of people resisting change might embrace the debunk part no matter what she says
@@ThePerfectAnswer Yea I agree, prob shouldn't have said debunked, it's a bit sensationalist
Netflix keeps pushing their own agenda and sometimes even missinforms.
The African penguin has declined due to a decline in fish stocks around the South African coastline. Parents are abandoning chicks because they are forced to spend more time at sea & are often eat by preditors or barely find enough food for themselves. All factors which are impacting their population.
Hey guys please remember to share the petition as much as you can. I have been going around just sharing info saying there's an awesome new petition out the tree.. it looks lime it's slowing down with people signing so we need to drum up so noise... love to see so many people who agree and see through the questionable truth..
And the decline of fish stocks is not singularly caused by fishing
@@aureliusva but mainly it is
thank the Chinese war fish boats
@@censoredcourgette9153 I disagree. Marine fish targeted by watermen are migratory, just like birds. Now you take away a seasonal food source, a breeding ground (remember most marine fish either live in rivers and spawn in the ocean or live in the ocean and spawn in rivers) or a place where they rest/feel safe and they will go elsewhere or die. Things like climate change (which we all contribute to) melts ice caps, injects freshwater into the gulf stream and slows it down, thereby influencing migration patterns. The slower gulf stream no longer cools the Atlantic coast of the US like it used to and we see fish leave because of temperature. Now that doesn't even touch on coastal development and how breeding grounds are mostly gone so people can fill in marshes and build bulkheads that place their houses mere feet from the water. Or we could point to the more than 280 million cars spewing exhaust particulates, shedding rubber from their tires and leaking toxic fluids. All that ends up on the roads and is washed into the environment when it rains. Or we could point out America's consumerism addiction and how we create more waste/trash than any other country on earth.
And even after all that you have to realize that there are stock assessments, quotas, limits, gear restrictions, time of day or day of the week restrictions, biologists constantly assessing stock levels, federal and multi-state organizations that watch and govern commercial fishing in the US. You have to realize a lot of these guys are 3rd or 4th generation watermen. They want that resource around for their grandkids.
It’s really simple the ocean is being destroyed by humans
At the surface level, yeah... but this video just clarified some of the misinformation in the documentary
True, we are a plague on this Earth in general. Sucking up every resource the planet has to offer.
@@Swiftsean8907 💯 that's all humans do today consume more than they need and waste.
@@scottiebarnes7417 not really. Read the replies to her first comment where marine biologists and other scientists or just better informed people who actually watched the movie attentively call her out on her take.
Exactly, there is really only one side to it
I’m not an expert but when I watch seaspiracy I know that they kinda over exaggerating but I’m not mad. It works to make lots of people actually reduce/stop eating fish after watching it (me included) if they’re not exaggerating and said what Telly said. We will just see it as an entertainment, won’t really put an actual effort to help the oceans.
Thats a fair point.
Man you’re 100% correct, I didn’t really think about it like that
MOST of netflix is about melodrama to get views thus make money
MOST modern ''documentaries'' are about making money, not telling proven facts
Over exaggeration takes the trust of people whenever they realize that they were telling half truths. Makes more harm than good. You can be objective and still make an impact. If you are not able to so that, then maybe you are no the right company/people to communicate the message that you want to.
And that’s a thing, you don’t need to be an expert to logically and objectively look at the facts. You’re right to consider your own role and how that’s detrimentally impacting our planet, especially the hidden marine world. It really starts with our knives and forks tbh. Scientists can be blinded by the amount of data and information they have to work through, by which time more damage is done and simple solutions ignored. I believe in the scientific method but I’m also a realist and realise that our oceans are dying, fast!
The title is straight clickbait. Your minor perspectives didn’t “debunk” the documentary.
I totally agree with you
she litterally agrees with the overall view and cries about exagerated numbers like tf this makes me mad how people clickbait when those things like slavery, unregulation, and stuff like that are happening
WELCOME TO UA-cam 🤣😃😂😂
Neither does your comment.
@@ic.xc. Yes, but the comment is not making any ridiculous claims. Her logical fallacy is called "burden of proof." She fails. It is not for us commenters to prove her failed prove. She is the one who made the claim and failed to defend it.
Well, if nothing else, at least this documentary made people talk about this issue.
and they will forget about it in a year
@@MegamanTheSecond wich is the sad truth.
Shame she is deleting comments tho 😢😢😢
True but if people are going to talk about it, its better to make sure they talk about the right facts.
Paying lip service yeah great idea 🙄
Hi Telly! Since you're making a debunking video, I was wondering if you could provide the sources you researched for this. Thanks! :)
I agree, what are your resources!!!
Shes a marine biologist...
Yes! Sources!
@@salamander8301 ...and does that mean she does not have to provide sources?
@@hypedtarzan She provided some sort of "top of the page screen grabs" - if she is really a scientist she would know how to cite and reference properly
They didnt mention coral bleaching they mentioned the reduction of fish population effect on coral health. Get your facts right please
You lost me at “numbers don’t actually matter”...
Hahaha. This so-called marine scientist is a total joke. If she actually has a degree, it's because someone paid the tuition, she went to class, and they handed her a degree. She obviously doesn't understand much about scientific reasoning, evidence, or the movie Seaspiracy.
It sounds weird, but I guess she wanted to say a qualitative statement instead of being inaccurate with a quantitative statement.
What is her qualitative statement? The movie said that there is no transparency in sustainable labeling. It showed evidence from multiple sources. She admits that there is no evidence to prove a fishing operation is sustainable, and says it is up to consumers to demand transparency (5:00). She then claims that sustainable fisheries "can and do exist" and those are the ones we should buy fish from. "Think for yourself." It is total illogical, anti-scientific hogwash.
@@MarcCastellsBallesta for the love of being moral, stop going in ocean and leave them alone. Humans don't need fishes to survive. It's a business and exploitation of animals unecessarily.
@@gauravnegi4312 For millions of years of evolution we have needed to eat fish to survive
There is a german word called "Haarspalterei" which literally means "hairplitting". It describes the situation, when people dont get the main point and start discussing simple details.
they do get the main point. these are professionals paid to diffuse attention
from overfishing and pollution subject.
I think he’s talking about the UA-cam video
Is that not what Daniel is talking about?
If you‘re doing a documentary you dedicate yourself to objectivity. But if you miss this goal, it‘s fair to criticise it harshly! If you‘re not going to show true facts, you‘re not doing a documentary, but a movie. It‘s not Haarspalterei it‘s berechtigte Kritik;)
@@adreus4759 Well talking about "There will be fish After 2040 eventhough we fish" is like saying "well there still will be some Humans after global war" because honestly...we are at war with the Ocean
First, I would like to say that this doesn’t really debunk the documentary, and I think you would agree that that is misleading as well; people could simply think that the whole documentary is flat out a lie and dismiss it. I would change the title of this video.
Second, to your first point of no fish by 2048, it gives the impression of you going further for some reason, probably you are an optimist and want to spread optimism. That’s fine but it sounds like a “technically” there will be fish. It’s like saying that there is Tasmanian tigers because there is one or two, that’s why I say that simply stating there will be fish without saying under what conditions or how many or at what cost (for instance, only farmed and sick ones) it’s misleading and gives kinda false hopes to those out there trying to find some last stand for their consumption of fish without any consideration of reducing it. Also, the strategy you’re talking about is designed by nature not taking into account the fact of human intervention at these scales. You can easily find online that most prehistoric animals were hunted to extinction because of you could say some sort of gluttony given the abundance. So, even if those animals produce offspring instinctively knowing most are not gonna survive, you’re probably forgetting that human activity to satisfy our never ending appetite is out of control, just as you can attest when referring to climate change.
The second point of yours it’s again too optimistic. There is simply no way to enforce the labelling, really, we cannot just demand and expect the whole chain of production to respect that, given there is even slavery, assassination and bribery of observers aboard. Also, I fee like quoting the bloke from the UN making a rather unfortunate money metaphor (when we all know that markets don’t really regulate themselves nor care about the consequences, and sometimes even actively engage in ripping off people and communities like the Great Depression and the 2008 crisis), is another simplistic and too optimistic view. Yes, there is a technical definition, but it’s simply not followed nor enforced and never will to the levels needed. We need to understand that this is a business not a charitable organisation and the odds of those people caring in a systemic way about the whole problem is almost zero. Again, the example about the ingenious device for turtles to get away is not really examined in an acceptable way. To what extent it is working... does it work for all kinds of turtles? And what about the rest? Bull sharks? Sea pups? Also, if the are “sustainable” fisheries, and even you say that they “try”, to what extent? What do you mean the “try”? Probably that’s not good enough anymore. Additionally, if there a bunch, a handful or even a hundred, are those gonna fulfill the increasing demand? Something tells me they’re not. That’s another technicality which gives little or no hope at all in the bigger picture but a lot of hope to a lot of people that are looking for an excuse.
The phytoplankton point, I recognise the science when you mention the multiple other factors, but if you see those under water bulldozers, you have to admit that there little hope for it too. Also, the same misleading argument could be made for this video, because it gives the feeling that people could get the idea that whales could go to a certain tipping point and the plankton would be fine.
The importance of sharks, that was disheartening: you give the idea that since there is a debate, we can just put it on hold for a while a see what happens, the beauty of science is that is polishes itself when more data is available, we don’t know for sure so we wait and see... probably when it is too late.
The nets and plastic point is simply irresponsible and, as you said, simply not true: the author didn’t say, at any point, that the only cause for this deterioration is just nets and fishing gear. He clearly uses that point to denounce all of those “corporations” and trends about plastic that won’t say a thing about a cause that lays at a considerable percentage of the problem which is fishing. He didn’t downplay this, he started with that, saying it is the leading cause in people’s imaginary. The documentary is directed at a cause that nobody talks about. It would have to be a ten part series to talk about everything in depth.
The coral bleaching, I’ll give you that, although you do mention that fisheries do have an impact, so again, I would suggest, respectfully, change the description of the video and please refrain yourself from saying that this is one-sided: it is clearly aimed to a fact obscured by an actual criminal conspiracy that is transnational and extends to unsuspected levels.
You are probably too considerate and kind with the situation, and, as you can feel and see, no one says the difficult stuff that is: stop eating fish at least for a couple of years, because, as exemplified by those unscrupulous groups exposed in the documentary, it’s not a good consumer message.
I know your heart is in the good place but it seems that you want to go to the books and show technicalities like in a classroom. In years to come, you’ll see that all those grey-haired people were right.
2048... Seaspiracy simply says that it's a model some scientists projected for if overfishing follows a certain trend. The so-called "Debunk" falls flat on it's face. It was never portayed as some kind of "fact." It was just what she said it was -- some prediction. ,... Sustainable fisheries ... do you hear how stupid she sounds? "The numbers don't actually mean anything." Direct quote. Not to mention a total failure to explain how any company is accountable for their label. ... Fishing nets ... she says they might make up 50% of the trash in the Pacific. Then she says fishing waste makes up 10% of ocean trash globally. Then she says 80% of ocean trash comes from on land. She cites zero sources in this. Is this a high school student? Is she really a "scientist." She sounds like a moron to me. She says she didn't know about the whole "slavery fishing thing, that's coocoo-kachoo!" Are you kidding me? Does she claim to be a marine biologist and yet she doesn't know that fishing is the worst human rights violator of any industry? I am all for debunking, but these days it is just one idiot after another getting people's attention. WTF.
@@maiweili3523 Maybe your points are valid but they fall flat when you start insulting someone.
@@Sana-jy9ne That's a valid point. All the phonies out there in misinformation-land make me so mad that it's hard to remain neutral.
Please look at the documentary. The things "addressed/debunked" in this video are not even the key issued addressed in the documentary. They don't even constitute 5% of what the documentary addresses and highlights. It actually disappointing that THIS is what a 'marine biologist' would choose to address. Why not speak about the issues raised about farm fishing? And ps he said he isn't sure how sustainable fishing can be implemented successfully with so much illegal fishing taking place. He didn't say it wasn't possible. Makes me wonder if you even listened to the documentary.
That's correct. This person does not even understand the movie she's attempting do debunk.
@@maiweili3523 do u have a phd in marine biolog? because u seem to have some very strong opinions. She is correcting the spread of misinformation made by the documentary therefor 'debunking' the facts, and she is showing proof of her sources. it doesn't matter if its "only 5% of the documentary" because its still apart of the documentary.
I have strong opinions about the pathological spread of misinformation. This video has now duped another fool, you, into believing that some information was "debunked." What information has she "debunked"? And what sources does she show as proof? She offers vague evidence that does not debunk anything, and in fact often ends up agreeing with the information she begins trying to correct.
I understand the point you are making about sustainability, but due to the organisations that are doing the research and holding these farms and fisheries to account, and the conflict of interest they have around allowing the continuation of fishing regardless of what it looks like, it's difficult to trust any information that we are given, especially in the way of a badge or label on fish products. We saw that people who worked for these organisations said there was corruption going on and how difficult it was to control. So how can we trust a little blue label saying that the fish is being farmed sustainably. The more straight forward answer is to stop eating fish to drive down demand and supply shoul adjust accordingly, driving down over fishing.
What about people who DEPEND on fish as their primary sustenance? Force them to become vegans to "save the oceans"? What about the Native peoples of Canada?
Hi, we appreciate the intention of clarifying on some points but at the same time this video will make a lot of people (that probably won’t even watch it and just use the title) not even interested in watching Seaspiracy since they will take it as a biased documentary.
We need people to watch it, even if the details are not 100% correct, we need people to realize how bad is what we have been doing for so long and to take action!
The likelihood of people searching up this video before watching the documentary is very small. I for one just watched the documentary and only now I’m researching deeper into this and listening to alternative opinionsz
No, no, and no. I am amazed by how Ali has captivated an entire generation of viewers with his self absorbed and narcissistic documentary. The film is shockingly stupid, and would have been genius if presented as a parody. His "research" included reading headlines of articles on the front page of Google, teaming up with sea shepherd, and going on vacations across the world. His work is one of the most disengenous that I have ever seen. Go back and watch the seen where he calls a random fish and chips place and have them "hang up on him" or the racist undertones seen across the Japan segment where he has an allegedly unmarked police car follow him with clearly edited sirens, then cutting to a real police stop simply doing a routine stop. Insinuating that it was the unmarked car that stopped him. He's doing more harm than good, and I would wager money that most people who have had their "eyes opened" will go vegan for two weeks, then forget about it untill the next sensationalist "documentary"
@@ricardoronaldo837 I understand you being put off by the films style asit bothers me as well. That being said, I invite you to go past that and focus on the data that the documentary presents and the serious issue it addresses. I do not think that viewers are being captivated with Alis"self absorbed and narcissistic documentary" as you say, and if even if they are, that's just a question of taste. I think they, as I am, are rather captivated by the data that it presents. Even if only half of the numbers presented by Seaspiracy were true you would be doing yourself and everyone a diservice by ignoring the issue because you can't stand the filmmaker.
Peace
@@TheScarum i agree with you on the importance of protecting the ocean, but what I'm saying is that there are better sources to get this information from, better documentaries, pieces of writing etc. Saying it doesnt matter that he lied isn't true at all, spreading misinformation, and oversimplifying a very complex issue risks polarising people further and impeding progress. I believe one of the largest reasons that people who could go vegan don't is because it's presented by overly metrosexual hipsters with superiority complexes. People like saving animals, but they like to enjoy their food more, in order to convince them otherwise you have to do so the correct way. Having a liar and narcissist ask people to do this won't change anything. I also don't believe that it's just a question of taste, that's the equivalent of giving someone a dirt sandwich and saying atleast there's bread in it. Go to seaspiracies Instagram right now. Look at the following count between his personal one and the conservationist one. Look at the first and last words said in English in the doc. It's all about Ali, and what he thinks everyone should do based off of surface level research. I would rather watch the marine biologists that Ali loved so badly as a kid rather than himself, because as we've seen he's done them a disservice.
@@ricardoronaldo837
I doubt he is an out & out narcissist - perhaps you are?
Do you even know what a narcissist actually is, clinically speaking?
Anyway... regardless, expecting most people to "act" and change their ingrained habits is arduous & naive.
Films like this one, which are chiefly correct, at least shed light on the topic.
If you scroll down the comments here you'll find "marine biologists" who support the film.
None of these misinformation in the documentry justify what we have done to our ocean. See the big picture.
I don't think there's any reason for justifying the spread of misinformation. There is power in spreading the correct message, but sadly shock factor trumps basic facts in most of these documentaries.
What we've done to our oceans is absolutely inexcusable. I don't believe at any point Chantel lost the big picture of that.
What we do to the oceans is the reason you are alive. This is the only way we are able to support such a high population.
If we do not stop overfishing, our oceans will collapse.
Absolutely true ..
That's not... entirely true. If we stop fishing and keep destroying the oceans then maybe they will collapse as it is likely our practices will destroy the foundations of the aquatic ecosystem but remember the oceans are huge and there is far more life on earth in the oceans than on land. 99% of the livable space on this planet is below the water's surface so there's a LOT more ocean than there are people who fish in it. While we can do some damage to the fish in the area if we stop fishing, this will cause fish levels to return, but will then allow predatory species to increase in size as long as their growth isn't inhibited by human activities.
@@timothywilliams8530 what in the heck😂😂
@@eliavita I have to use my bio classes where I can : (
14:27 She said coral bleaching issue is not mainly caused by fisheries but mainly caused by climate changing and temperature change..... but fisheries overfishing does contributes to climate change and temperature change ..... what is she trying?? 🤡🤯 ok marine biologist
Ali actually addresses your criticism of the sustainable fishery problem. Yes the EU member explains the definition but it's a conceptual definition and not a working/practical one was his point
They can’t even control or monitor the commercial fishing boats so wth is sustainable fishing if it can’t be controlled? This woman is stupid
@@liam-n8098 agreed. Has alot of knowledge, in marine biology, and thats probably it.
@@GuerillaBros the man literally goes around the world showing us the destruction we are causing in the ocean. And she’s downplaying it.
It’s a shame that as a biologist you didn’t understand at all the documentary... probably you should watch it twice
Hey guys please remember to share the petition as much as you can. I have been going around just sharing info saying there's an awesome new petition out there. It's slowing down with people signing so we need to drum up so noise...😃 love to see so many people who agree and can see through the questionable truth..
Thats her job she knows what she is talking about and just because some facts ware incorrect we cant change them we cant fabricate facts to support our cause
@greey spy, just double check with other experts... it’s so bad that some humans have lost their comprehensive skills
@@benroytravels9881 no, she is the expert 😕 why are you fully discrediting her just because she spilled facts 💀💀💀 the clown jumped out
@greey spy do you believe you can trust an expert if they say they are an expert?
5:35 ok please name ONE SUSTAINABLE FISHING OPERATION....you say they exist, surely you must know at least one by name??
*$100,000 have been transfered to your account*
Thank you so very much! Thank you so so much for confirming that everything said in the documentary is true. The fact that you made this video proves that the fishing industry got angry.
How do you "deboonk" the fact that there's no one in the sea with the fishers to check if they actually do "sustainable fishing". That was one of the points of the documentary. Dozens of inspectors have been killed in the sea by the fishing industry. And the industry just pays to have the sustainable logo in their products without proving anything at all. Conviniently you didn't talk about that fact, huh?
It's always the same with this people " trust me, guys! i'm a scientist! Scientific data? what? no! let me just quote this internet article written by a non-scientist, you totally have to trust me! i'm a scientist, i swear!"
Okee... just doesn't make any sense and shows that you haven't got any point out of the video. You have not been able to accept that the world is not as simple as having only veery simple views on a topic.
@@oibaf1420 What are you talking about? How do you know if the Angel got anything from the video or not? And since you don't agree, why don't you tell us how do we actually prove whether our fish came from sustainable fishing methods.
"Debunked" is a big word, you didn't do that at all. If anything, it seems like you're trying to downplay the importance of the message for some reason. Money?
Exactly! Looking for her five minutes of fame.
@@nesab2671 god....
I thought fish produce a lot of eggs because most won't survive *to adulthood*, meaning that taking more adult fish than can be produced is still unsustainable no matter if it's from a sustainable fishery or not.
Shaking my head with this video.
If you claim Seaspiracy had invalid facts, you should question what you’re preaching because obviously your facts are outdated and biased.
Be a real marine biologist and have genuine love and respect to sea life. Stop promoting “sustainable” fishing.
AND WAKE UP, there is no such thing as sustainable fishing.
Well,If i may point out
The director said that Sustainability from his perspective is "Something can continue on and on forever,ragardless the suffering".
Yeah, I actually laughed out loud at this AHA moment. Like, obviously sustainable fishing involves fishing, what were you thinking... sustainable means it can be sustained. At current trend it cant be, therefore we have to reduce it, for our benefit in the first place - because otherwise it wont happen - and then environmental
Hey guys please remember to share the petition as much as you can. I have been going around just sharing info saying there's an awesome new petition out there. It's slowing down with people signing so we need to drum up so noise...😃 love to see so many people who agree and can see through the questionable truth..
@@Spekulantoss really it can't be continued at the current trend? Golly gee you're going to have to explain to me how my aquaculture oyster business has just been continuing and continuing and doesn't seem to want to stop.
@@aureliusva Oysters aren't fish. Crustaceans are also not fish. But unfortunately our human propensity(inability?) to look past our own little windows is what's killing the world our grandchildren will have. Well your grandchildren. Unfortunately for me I don't think I have the heart to bring children into this world, this century sees the end of our way of life because we just can't stop ourselves from eating everything. We're one more animal at the end of the day, just far more powerful than any animal has any right to be.
While this world is certainly going to hell, all I can do is appreaciate the magnificient irony of a marine biologist doing her share in defending an industry that destroys so much marine lives just because people want to eat fish.
Good job!!!
On the point of sustainable fisheries, in the documentary he talks about how there is no way to monitor the activities of the boat and that even if they are limiting the amount of a certain target fish, the amount of bycatch that ends up caught causes the entire operation to still be unsustainable because of how dependent each species is on one another. I think one example was killing 12 dolphins as bycatch to get 4 tuna “sustainably”.
Very good point.
Yah I agreed basically the guy from the film is saying there not enough oversight and liability, and #sustainability is more of a marketing scheme , cause how do you police boats in the middle of the ocean .
I keyed in "sustainable fish", "horticulture", "dolphin safe" to my local online super market and found nothing.. If sustainable fishing is available, it's not available to me. Not that I would ever believe the "dolphin safe" label now.
Bingo. Max Sustainable Yield is in theory a good concept and a good model but very hard to put into practice. It's almost impossible to determine what the MSY is for the fishing industry because bycatch and other shady practices will make the fisheries overcatch the fish thus over maximizing the yield curve. If MSY/sustainable fisheries is real, there wouldn't be a decline of the shark population as they are currently an endangered specie.
This is exactly what I was thinking, she's saying to do research on 'which fisheries are definitely sustainable' but it's impossible to ever know because virtually non of the information will be accurate or truthful so how are you ever meant to consume fish responsibly? The only way to know is if you caught it yourself surely
How can you possibly know how a fish was caught? This sounds a bit like a smokescreen ... Anyone?
I don't think whales and dolphins are reproducing fast enough to be slaughtered the way they did in the movie . They literally slaughtered a full herd of whale and dolphins.
Environmental Graduate here. Just wanted to touch on a few points you made and the documentary overall.
1) In terms of sustainable fisheries, Max Sustainable Yield is absolutely the correct model and in theory, it is a great concept. But it is incredibly difficult to determine what the MSY is for fishing numbers and harder to enforce for all countries all over the world. Hence, although I agree MSY is a good concept, the documentary sheds light on illegal and overfishing that is happening across the world which would essentially ignore the MSY theory and I 'believe' that was more so what the directors where trying to get at in the documentary.
2) I wish you and the documentary would have mentioned that sharks are an endangered species as it is due entirely from the practice of shark finning (I stopped eating it six years ago after doing some research during my undergrad) because sharks aren't able to reproduce as fast as other fish in the ecosystem or as fast as we are catching and killing them hence essentially ignoring the MSY concept proven through the decline of the shark population in recent years. I wish they would have shed a little more light on sharks and the cruel practices of cutting the fins off and throwing them back into the ocean to die at the bottom (only their fins hold value in our society, shark meat isn't valued which is why they throw them back into the ocean) but they are without a debate very important to the ocean ecosystem as they are the apex predator. Even if there aren't definitive studies and debunking studies of Trophic Cascade, extinction of an entire shark population will undoubtedly affect the entire marine ecosystem most likely for the worst regardless of how complex the marine food chain is. I would rather not find out because any disruption at the top of the food chain will create ripple effects down the ecosystem regardless how big or small or for better or worse. To me, this is a simple but complicated solution: Ban Shark Finning practices around the world but obviously money talks and there will always be shady things happening with levels of gov't and fisheries to keep it going.
3) Lastly, I agree that there was misinformation from the documentary that you were able to spot out and explain so viewers of the doc and this video can further examine many details of the fishing industry themselves and come up with their own independent opinion. So kudos on that, but I think myself, you, viewers, and the directors are essentially on the same page in the sense that there are shady practices happening in the fishing industry. Stopping or limiting consumption of fish may bring down the demand which would create an oversupply of fish to the market. It would be feasible if we stopped eating or purchasing fish so the industry would hopefully re-regulate how much they need to catch and lowering their supply output to markets. Industrial fishing needs to be more regulated and reexamined in order for countries or communities that rely on fish as a main food source to be able to get theirs. Us limiting our fish consumption can hopefully be a silent protest to the malpractice of industrial fishing which can give countries such as the African country shown in the doc (can't think of the country name at the moment) better opportunities to locally catch fish for their communities.
Would love to hear back from you. We're all at the same team in my opinion at the end of day so bouncing ideas and debates is a great starter for solving problems in the fishing industry.
@Cedrick Martinez Reyes Yes they did.. I'm just saying that sharks endangerment should've been more of a focus rather than a 7 minute segment.
@Trash Can That wasn’t the point of the documentary, or did the word “commercial / industrial” fishing fly through your ears a dozen times. The point of the documentary was to point out the blatant overfishing and even abuse of the people of Liberia. If anything they were doing it sustainably, the point is that industrial and illegal fishing vessels would fish in their waters and starve out the people. So no, we do not expect them to lay off their fishing diet. We want to expect industrial fishing trades to go down so they can actually eat. And what does bringing up food waste have to do with anything. Last I checked you can’t eat bones or apple seeds.
Hey! I admire deeply the time and length it has taken you to express this opinion in the comments. I found it to be exceptionally educational! I was hoping it would be okay for me to use this as an example of peoples reactions of the documentary and other reactionary videos, in a video I am making myself.
@@Shaniamoonemalle no problem, do what ya gotta do! Just give me a shoutout haha
@Trash Can I never said counties like Liberia should stop eating fish. I actually stated that first world countries like mine (Canada) reducing our fish consumption and re-regulating industrial fishing will help impoverished nations like Liberia be able to catch fish because they aren't doing it at a mass or industrial level rather than at a community level where the max sustainable yield concept can actually make sense.
As a marine biologist, if you want to be credible you should provide stats & figs. Click baiting video title is not cool in any case.
Well it's the same as watching seaspiracy you need to take what you've heard and do your own research. Seaspiracy is definitely a click bait title aswell 😂
Other marine biologist don’t agree with her take, there are a lot of videos that say much was correct tho.. but yes you’re right one needs to do his own research and not just on one persons take but multiple
I think this video gave me brain damage. Like my vision actually started shaking for a minute. I appreciate the outdated statistic being pointed out. However then downplaying the the issues facing the ocean has me worried. This sort of attitude that we do not need to drastically alter our way of existence in the scientific community is concerning to say the least.
Exaggerating the issues is also bad like in the documentary
@@pluto8404better to exaggerate them honestly. The exaggeration of today is tomorrow's reality. We need to stop it
You should make a video where you talk about the things he got correct as well. I'd like to hear your perspective.
Wouldn't get as many views lol
@@cfparq6586 Probably not cause everyone loves the negative side of things, but it would still be welcomed!😁
lol what's the point tho -_- , if you point out the false things, there's no need.
@@mushyomens6885 Yeah true, but it would still be nice to see what she thought was explained well from her perspective.
@@mushyomens6885 there were many inaccuracies but the issues still exist. If we say everything is wrong then people will think none of the issues discussed in the film are worth thinking about or even real and that's a dangerous path to go down.
14:16 the turtle exclusion bycatch net you mentioned..... how many fisheries are actually using it globally? What percentage? And what happens to the old nets then?
I appreciate the clarifications made in this video however it disappoints me that you felt it was the right thing to do to put out a video just days after the documentary was released with a title such as the one you chose. This title will make people not watch the film, not take it seriously, and that's the LAST thing we want.
I agree... It’s also disappointing how she is deleting comments.
She is probably working with the fish industry wouldn't surprise me lol
Yesss the clickbaity title was so offputting to me - but I wanted to see what kind of critique there was out there of the information presented in the documentary just to try and obtain a well-rounded view shaped by different POV:s, and so ended up reluctantly clicking anyway. A very cheap way to try and get them views, especially considering that there actually were some valid critiques in this video.
Hey guys please remember to share the petition as much as you can. I have been going around just sharing info saying there's an awesome new petition out there. It's slowing down with people signing so we need to drum up so noise...😃 love to see so many people who agree and can see through the questionable truth..
She rather has clicks than people getting aware of a big problem I think that is telling us a lot
Despite all the scientific explanations, which are never absolute truth as you say and can be contradictory, the fact that there's predatory fishing that takes the food from people who actually practice a more traditional and sustainable fishing, that there's overfishing, that there's bycatch and fish nets can kill many different creatures that are thrown overboard because they don't have market value, that there's people being exploited, abused and killed by criminal gangs linked to the industry, that there's a big corruption behind all of this, that there's constant lies and that there's animal abuse, it's not enough? Or is it only the scientific explanations that matter? The guy is a filmmaker and an activist, he doesn't have the studies you have, so normally he collects data from here and there that may be incorrect, but the basic issue is that we think we are way above all other living beings, that they are there to be used and abused by human beings, that we have an anthropocentric worldview and that this is leading us to a path of destruction of the home we all share, and this whole paradigm must change. We need this planet to survive and all the living creatures in it, but they don't need us.
You saved me from having to write this.. thank you. And on a side not the naivety of this very clever lady to think sustainable fishing exists - while european countries argue over how much of this stock that country can have illegal fishing is mopping up the rest. I say we are going to get what is coming to us.. the unfortunate thing is our generation will probably skip onto the after life before it arrives.
Yep, I think she says the documentary did a great job at shedding light. From a science perspective, there are a few inaccuracies and as a scientist myself, one of the best things that we can do to strengthen our positions for protecting the oceans is to make sure that our facts and arguments are strong and airtight, even if it means contradicting what is said in the documentary or pointing out what's wrong. It's a lot of work crafting up a strong position, which is why we need to be able to fact check each other.
I definitely felt strong feelings to protect the earth and stop the fishing industry after watching Seaspiracy and I thought it was very well made to make me feel like that. It's definitely helpful to have videos like this to educate and clarify more if people have more questions.
Fuck yeah. You tell em. God knows i aint writing a comment this long.
👏👏
Hey guys please remember to share the petition as much as you can. I have been going around just sharing info saying there's an awesome new petition out there. It's slowing down with people signing so we need to drum up so noise...😃 love to see so many people who agree and can see through the questionable truth..
Hello telly. I think you should rename the title until you provide accurate evidence. If not we will just assume that you are a "paid" marine bio never had her legs wet. So please help yourself.
Thank you.
"The numbe's actually don't really matter at the end of the day." 4:45
More or less just someone who's using the title marine biologist and is trying to piggy back off the attention for the documentary for views with a click bait title. She more or less just states her opinions with no facts or debunks. All for that ad in the middle of the video which you guessed it earns her money.
The video title should read "marine biologist profiteers off Seaspiricy popularity to gain ad revenue with click bait title and no debunks in sight" as soon as money is involved everyone is corrupted. Shame to see from a marine biologist 😔
Nailed it!
That is correct. No facts; she doesn't even really address the information from Seaspiracy the way it is presented; she is using misinformation and pseudoscience for a little attention on her youtube channel.
From the biologist that brought you... "How scientifically correct is Finding Dory"
Thank you for claryfying some of the misinfotmation in this document...
But also I feel that you are being to harsh on its author.
1st in this criticism I find some cherry picking as well - you tackle the overstatment of the hipothesis that fisheries do cause corals to die... but critisizm is based only on one of few argunenys that are stated in the documentary. If you take the over all impact of fishery: on phitoplancton numbers, by that on fish, on circulation of wather, on trauling and its various impacts... then isin't fishery directly and indirectly responsible?
2nd sustainability. The author of Seaspiracy does not state that sustainable fishery is not posible. He states that it is not existing and can not exist in practice to which he shows pretty convincing evidence in form of statements of people who are active in the field. If the certificats actually do not guarantee anythibg, if thare is no way to ensure and standards while the boat is on the sea... than it is not posdible in fact. For me this is clear that this is the masage in the film.
3rd. No one in the documentary said that plastics and trash in the ocean is not important as major poluters are fisheries. They simply stated that while everyone focuses on eliminating plastics straws, nothing happens with gargantuic problem of fishing nets which cause far more damage. It does not nagate other polution problems... but you did not challange data which they mention in the document..
Also I feel that documentary has to be true... but it not nececerly has to be objective - especialy when challenging some dominating narrative. It is obvious it doesnt nececerly repeat what people are hearing allvthe time. Your video is an example of that aproach itself - you challange the documenary so you do not list all facts which are acurate - you focuse on criticism. Its ok. Everybody understands the genere. Thay did the same thing as you.
yes pity she did not mention about nets waste
This is a perfect reply to this video.
She clarified nothing. She simply wants to get likes at the cost of OUR oceans.
I agree on this one.
So the documentary raises issues by provoking and exaggerating things, that are basically true but could be "honed to perfection", right?
So what are you actually DEBUNKING here? That the stats weren't completely right but basically true? So the documentary is trying to handle and fix these issues with a sledge hammer during those 90 minutes where you have a microscope and calculator. But you both still work the same issues and problems. That's not debunking.
Debunking would be you proving the documentary and the issues it raises completely false and/or wrong. What you are doing is simply elaborate and clarify what the documentary said.
It is a critique rather than a debunking. Thematically for a UA-cam video, it works very well for the algorithm and the topic of the documentary is based on the word conspiracy.
@@longforgotten4823 great for the algorithm and her success but at the cost of swaying people to go against reducing fish consumption. The title seems so self interested
There is no ethical way to kill something that doesn't want to die.
End of every discussion.
I agree! It bothers me so much when people disregard killing life and use "morals" as an excuse. I wish more people could see the truth and put aside their own human egos.
@@rachel7480 it is a food chain and we, as animals, are in it. do zebra's eaten by lions want to die? mice eaten by owls? etc? have you asked? 'end of any discussion' sounds at best not very open minded, at worst stalinist :-))
@@markvanloon4529 Do you justify all of your moral decisions based on those of wild animals who must eat whatever they can to survive?
@@markvanloon4529 But we, as animals, created an artificial food chain that unbalances natural food chains and put's in jeopardy the environment and our own future. And we, as animals, have the possibility to select what we eat, something that a lion and a owl don't have, I suppose.
@@markvanloon4529 humans are meant to be herbivores. The shape of our teeth and the way our organs digest food shows that we are not built to eat meat.
And you call yourself a marine biologist? If your mission here is to "debunk" essentially a promotion of awareness and education of the essential decimation of our oceans, then at least offer some hard facts and data to back up your "debunking" theories. If you can't/won't then I'd suggest you remove this potentially damaging video. Thank you
These ”experts” are popping up everywhere to “debunk” different informative documentaries... wired huh.
I mean it's not really weird. Documentary makers are professional film makers. They aren't marine biologists or agricultural experts. Their job is to find narrative around a subject and present it in an engaging enough way that you sit through it. Along the way, they aren't going to get every single thing right. Now, that doesn't invalidate the point of the documentary, but inevitably, people who are more educated on the many topics discussed in the film are going to talk about it. Again, that doesn't mean that the take away message need be any different, but if we're going to discuss things, let's discuss them as they are, not as our feelings tell us we should, otherwise we get nowhere.
How is that weird in any way shape or form
And you're one of those "experts" telling someone that this "expert" is not an "expert" because you listened to another "expert".
@@ic.xc. What’s your point? That there are no answers and that truth is subjective? Wow, original... You believe this meta perspective is somehow a closer reality then someone else’s? That everyone should stop questioning each-other and find one truth as to not inconvenience you? You argument here is somehow a sad depiction of where society is at today. And if you’re referring to that people should only voice their original thoughts and not relay others, then we should all stumble in mute silence.
true
You're going to debunk whether there will be enough fish after 2048 or not? Is that even important if this disaster strikes sooner or later??
Right!
Totally agree!! The figure could be miscalculated by 200 years and it actually wouldn't matter and would still be frightening, the point is surely the end result.
Its unpredictable.
She literally said she agreed with the message, there is nothing wrong with showing misinformation
@@scottiebarnes7417 only, she didn't. Who says she has all the answers? Who says she willing to speak out against the very people that sponsor a lot of the research that is recognized?
When you state that you are 100 % sure that there will be fish in the sea - could you Please come and tell the sea bass here in Costa Rica because they are so low in population we can't find enough to commercially fish any more.
The fact that there will be 100% fish in the ocean doesn't mean that many of the current species won't go extinct or endangered though...
@@luniARTic exactly, we will have tons of jelly fish though.
Exactly, and it will be an avalanche effect as all the species start to die off just like that
Or the north Atlantic cod fishery.
@@luniARTic i think she referring those lice infested scottish salmon. There will still be lots of them.
80 percent of plastic in the ocean is estimated to come from land-based sources, with the remaining 20 percent coming from boats and other marine sources. These percentages vary by region, however. A 2018 study found that synthetic fishing nets made up nearly half the mass of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, due largely to ocean current dynamics and increased fishing activity in the Pacific Ocean.
www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
And 90% of that comes from Asia
@@byrondance8762 western countries like uk, canada shipped their trash to asia to be "recycled" . Watch "malaysia ask canada to take back trash"
@@hhancp this is just blame shifting by those countries. We don't just ship our garbage away, they literally buy the waste to make profit off of it and when some of the plastic is not usable they dump it straight into the sea. In law the one who puts the gun to a person's head and fires is responsible and not the manufacturer of the gun.
@@byrondance8762 it's clear to me where is the shift blaming. If it's news to you, there are many countries who have good recycling infrastructures and are fully capable of taking care of their own waste by reducing, composting and recycling. Every country should work in that direction. It's a global issue.
@@hhancp would you like to address the point I just made? These countries are literally importing, buying and asking for the trash... They then dump half of it in the sea. How could that not be their fault?
We can’t demand transparency from these fisheries that are guarded in their ways by the POLICE!!
“ ........ consider reducing your fish consumption because it’s probably a good choice for the ocean” :)
But a better choice for the ocean would be to quit eating factory farmed meat because factory farming food is the biggest destroyer of ocean environments and ocean species
Thats misspeaking but it means nothing she did say multiable times the ocean is in danger and we need to reduce fish eating
@@greeysp4747 we don't have to reduce anything if we stop factory farms from destroying the oceans.
@@aureliusva if we stopped factory farming we would have to reduce consumption of animal products. Factory farming only exists as the most “sustainable” method to meet demand. If you want factory farming gone then global consumption of meat would have to reduce by as much as 90%. Grazing animals require more land than factory farming and land use is a huge environmental issue. The evidence is clear we need to move away from animal exploitation. We have an outdated food system built upon industry deceit and toxic cultural preferences.
@@justroberto5052 I agree. But you kind of missed the point that if we are not destroying our oceans with factory farming, then they are very sustainable and environmentally friendly resource.
ok where is the video that debunks THIS video? I mean... ok so the first point is about the year 2048 - she (rightly) points out this is based on (published) scientific research which was then refuted and eventually retracted and she does make a good point that this is (misre)presented here as a FACT when it really shouldn't be... but also, it's kind of a "blink and you'll miss" number that flashes across your screen and disappears after maybe 2 seconds... and THIS is really all she's got...
she goes on to say "oh actually THERE IS a proper definition of Sustainable Fishing" and it is...? what? she ACTUALLY then says "the numbers don't actually matter"
HELLO?
she makes a vague point about fish lay eggs and produce more offspring than are expected to survive (presumably to make their own offspring) but 2 points:
(1) you still need A NUMBER that represents how many of THOSE fish can be "sustainably" fished (again, before they lay their own eggs) - to use the bank account analogy, WHAT IS THE INTEREST RATE?
(2) are we to assume that number is THE SAME FOR ALL the different varieties of marine wildlife? how many different species even ARE there - and they ALL have that same "interest rate" apparently?
I reckon his point remains completely valid - you can talk all you like about "oh there really is sustainable fishing - I promise you!" but until you can actually tell us HOW have you defined this, exactly, then you are full of shit
there is also this "debunking" of the idea that whales (and dolphins) are linked to phytoplankton via "whale poo" being a vital nutrient for them - she kind of dismisses this is if it's NOT TRUE - in fact there is PLENTY of scientific evidence to back this up - it is known (well known) as the "whale pump" - here's some literature on it, including published journals and even the IMF:
au.whales.org/green-whale/
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013255
www.esa.org/esablog/2014/07/03/poo-pump-whales-as-ecosystem-engineers/
reasonstobecheerful.world/whale-poop-climate-change/
www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/whales-carbon-capture-climate-change/
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/12/natures-solution-to-climate-change-chami.htm
now the point about sharks and apex predators, again, she "debunks" - basically by saying "there is insufficient scientific evidence" for this "hotly debated" idea IN THE OCEANS - while it is being absolutely undisputed on land... interestingly, NOW she says "oh but there are SO MANY different varieties of ocean wildlife" - contradicting her earlier point about "sustainable fishing"
finally, she now - again contradicting what she said earlier - says he is trying to "blame (over)fishing for everything" - like the thing about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) - I think maybe she should watch it again, more carefully this time - because he's not saying that at all!
he's saying industrialised fishing IS GETTING AWAY WITH not actually getting ANY blame for any of it - including the plastics in the ocean
now she does (rightly) point out that the number globally is quite different to the number just for the GPGP - this is true - tho while she says marine-based (eg fishing nets) ONLY accounts for around 10% of GLOBAL plastic pollution in the oceans, this - once again - is hotly debated and that number may well be as high as 30%
ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution#how-much-of-ocean-plastics-come-from-land-and-marine-sources
but... again... he's not trying to say land-based plastics are NOTHING - he's just trying to address the COMPLETE LACK of ANY attention being drawn to the not-insignificant amount of marine-based plastics - so in effect, she is ADDING to the already HUGE chorus of voices who are ALREADY talking about land-based plastics - and basically trying to SILENCE this ... basically LONE voice trying to say "hang on what about all those fishing nets"
ALSO, like the thing about 2048, has ZEROED IN on the PERCENTAGE of plastics being land or marine based, while completely ignoring his broader point that a single straw in the nose of a turtle is getting all the attention while those discarded ropes and fishing nets, REGARDLESS WHAT THE MASS OF THEM IS, is doing far, far greater damage to marine life - and getting NOTHING in terms of awareness
all in all this is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE video that needs another video to debunk all the "facts" it is apparently debunking, here!
Thanks for that comment! Nice to see that i wasn't the only one with a question mark above my head when she "debunked" some aspects of the documentary!
I don't think that the paper was actually retracted. science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5800/787 (paywall). They just have a technical comment response where they agree predictions are difficult and may be inaacurate with a longer timeframe of 2114. They also go to some lengths to show that their findings are not random. science.sciencemag.org/content/316/5829/1285.4
So it is possible, her first alternative thought is also not true?
Retracted articles usually tell you, especially in a journal such as science.
Here is one of the most cited retracted papers from science with the notice .
science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/426.long
Sorry, no disrespect here but, I find it very curious when you mentioned the Scientific's, it truly sounds like you don't belong. 1- You never introduced yourself as Dr. Chantel Last-name, Marine Biologist. 2- You are pushing sustainable fishing, why? (I don't trust it). 3- You highly recommended to watch your friend's video, no link to click on and no clear name. Anyway, I'm a simple scuba diver that loves the ocean and when I dive in my favorite spots, I can see the huge decline of marine life...
Googled and found this "Tuna Class Actions Lodged Over Fishy ‘Dolphin Safe’ Labeling".
"UPDATE 2: On Feb. 3, 2020, in a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit, StarKist says that consumers do not expect their “dolphin safe” canned tuna labels to mean that the marine mammals are completely safe from fishing practices used to harvest the popular seafood. "
Years ago (and while it was under emphasized, surprisingly it was mentioned in Seaspiracy) I shared in my book The Sixth Extinction, that Mitsubishi has 2 massive freezer warehouses in which they are stockpiling bluefin tuna. But not for sale. The tuna are block frozen to keep them fresh for decades.
Mitsubishi is actually purchasing the tuna from every available resource. Legal or illegal to encourage extinction of the species.
This may sound strange but it is true. They want to wipe out bluefin tuna as a species so that they will be the sole source for this high dollar fish.
Essentially a monopoly on a species that they can then charge unheard of sums to the elite. It's a profit motivated sick ecological attack on bluefin as a species, and what I call "calculated eco-terrorism."
The End of the Line: How Overfishing Is Changing the World and What We Eat
@Trash Can I am serious and it was mentioned in the movie. Mitsubishi refused his interview.
This is better covered in the 2009 documentary "End of the line." About the commercial fishing industry.
It's a very big deal. But there is a lot of money behind this. But to address your question the tuna is cut up and block frozen in water. This keeps air out of the picture. It prevents what most people reference as freezer burn from occurring to the meat.
In a similar manner to intact mammoth carcasses being recovered undamaged and unspoiled from permafrost and glacial ice.
These are cryogenically maintained warehouses.
The public cannot address or be outraged by what it doesn't know or is unfamiliar with. Much of the material in documentaries like these are whitewashed down or downplayed by offending industries. This why I am suspicious of biologists attempting to decry documentaries with sound and supported evidence by credible sources.
I have been actively involved in a huge variety of conservation initiatives since the early 2000's. I know many of the interviewed people personally and I trust them.
But more so I trust my own eyes and experiences.
@Trash Can this is covered much more extensively in "End of the line."
And it's not Mitsubishi making other species go extinct. They are SPECIFICALLY targeting Blue Fin tuna with the end game of extinction. It's all a money game.
These corporations only see dollar signs when they look at our oceans. And that particular act is as insidious as it gets.
@@erikbrush That is very terrifying to think about but on the other hand we have driven multiple species to extinction such as Dodo birds which were discovered at around 1507 and went extinct at 1681 completely as far as we possibly know.Given the state of the current world it wouldn’t do anything bad to us,We may revolt agains this practices and hopefully someday will come or it may not ever come.
Seaspiracy is a heroic piece of work!!!
The above reviewer is carping (pun intended) about scientific details and may be correct on certain points, but scientists know little about political and economic context, and she grossly underplays Seaspiracy's virtues. It is of little import whether the year 2048 is a viable prediction of the moment when the oceans reach a point of apocalyptic finality - it is rather only crucial to determine whether or not fishing at present levels makes it inevitable that commercial practices are unsustainable. Since the above reviewer affirms that eating less fish is advisable, it is clear that she accepts the documentary's essential premise. Her advising people to pay attention to their own plastic straw use is what journalist, George Monbiot calls, "Micro Consumeristic Bollocks," (MCB) - the neoliberal propagandistic practice of blaming environmental catastrophes on individual behavior rather than on the true culprit - the corporate powers who pursue profits with no other values, or intent beyond their own predatory ends.
To someone who wants it to be!
You spelled propaganda wrong
Leave the fishes alone. We don't NEED to kill them to live.
^^^
Then go and eat grass on your lawn.
@@ic.xc. done
@@ic.xc. I think I’ll just run over to the grocery store but okay
@@ic.xc. "plant lives matter" xd.
Now can we start debunking your hidden agenda...
If the information in the documentary is not true then why were the officials hasitating to answer the questions
Thank you very much for your clarification, it made me feel more relieved. However, I will continue not to eat fish even if industrial fishing is not the main problem, because it still has an impact on the marine ecosystem.
That is a good choice to make - industrial fishing is still a big problem!
@@TellysMarineTales The way you downplay the role of fisheries on corals is really damaging, the overfishing of fish hinders the oceans ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change and bi catch increase carbon potential released further increasing temp.These are already causing major issues and especially in the long term will cause mass coral death.
Does the maximum sustainable yield take into account by-catch/accidental take? If there are 100 fishes and the fishermen catch 99 fishes, keep 1 fish, and dump 98 dead fishes back to the ocean, does this still consider sustainable?
I wanted to read the comment section but it's 2am and everyone seems to have written war and peace length essays. Good vid though.
Don't you think the topic deserves something more than a slogan?
@@JB.zero.zero.1 Yes, of course.
Yes of course it raises quite some questions and suspicions when there is no sources linked anywhere and there is quite bold claims thrown. The burden of proof lays on the shoulders of the person who makes the claim.
Why would anybody go to the internet and tell lies?
@@piiakarkkainen6775 because they can almost guilt-free
03:44 here and I reading some of them. I think is very important to know the differents opinions and analyse them so we don't misinformed other people
As long as you feel better about paying for animals to be murdered needlessly that's all that matters
This woman actually agrued for killing sharks and whales, jesus christ. ....Ah we actuallly dont need sharks and whales ... what the actual fkkkkk
Yeah she’s not helping.
typical carnist
@Hardi Hansson Maybe her bank balance would reveal who is paying her to post a video denying the atrocities that were featured in the Seaspiracy. I sort got a feeling that maybe she believes the earth is flat too.
What are sharks and whales needed for?
Whether sharks are vital or not to the food chain, I don't want my future grandchildren to be shown just old pictures and videos of sharks that were hunted to extinction just for their fins.
It's really disappointing how extreme people's views have become as a result of this documentary and I suspect that's largely the reason for the polarised 50:50 split of likes and dislikes on this video. It's a shame, because the documentary was clearly over-sensationalised to create an emotive response, at the cost of being factually precise. The fact that you put a video out clarifying some points, while not diminishing the need to preserve our marine wildlife, and yet still get criticism for it is extremely disturbing and shows a terrible inability in the general public to critically analyse resources and make logical decisions. I sincerely hope that we can effect significant change towards a more sustainable society, but arguing and berating those who don't share your beliefs, even when critical information is presented right in front of you, is not the way to get there.
But does she clarify any points? She seems to misinterpret the points from the film. 1) the 2048 thing was a minor detail from the film... which simply said some scientists predicted that if overfishing followed a trend. IT was one of many dates listed, and none were suggested to be a bottom line. 2) sustainable fishing ... she completely misses the point. there is no accountability. almost every ship that's inspected fails to meet the standards. Totally unsustainable fisheries are labeled sustainable. all she says is that sustainable fishing is theoretically possible, and offers no evidence of accountability in sustainable labeling. Her "evidence" is that the UN says almost 2/3 of the fisheries are "sustainable." Okay. And then, "the numbers doen't really matter." Wow. Way to clarify that. 3) Phytoplankton.. she totally gets it wrong. Seaspiracy does not say that they phytoplankton depend on whale poop. It does make a point of how the sea creatures help increase phytoplankton. Her argument is against nothing. 4) fishing nets... obviously the number one piece of trash in the ocean... she rambles about it.. says it might be true... 50%...10% 20%... who knows. And no evidence to support any of her numbers. She pretends to argue against the claim that fishing nets are the number one sea trash, but she says it might be true. So... what's the point? The whole video is her lame attempt to try to understand the documentary that is apparently way over her head.
Can you talk about how seafood is actually becoming more toxic for people as the oceans become more polluted? I can’t think of a better way to get people to reduce their seafood consumption than to tell them you’re basically eating a cigarette with gills.
fuck it man seafood is good imma eat it anyway
@@Sleemopings its also still good for you, of course not all but a lot of fish are healthy to eat
To add to your clarifications, which as an ecologist I truly appreciate, I would like to address the slavery issue portrayed in the film. When the issue was publicly exposed in 2014, and Thai fishery was given a yellow flag, a lot has been done since to tackle and monitor the problem with joint efforts from the government, international NGOs, and local NGOs. (Please note that as a Thai citizen fighting for democracy, I do not lightly give credit to the junta effort.) It is a horrendous practice, and as a Thai conservationist I abhor it too. However, any Thai-speaking persons watching the film would be able to tell you that the scene in this film is a total set up and scripted to cater to western consumers. My colleagues who research on slavery in fishery can voucher that the workers in fishing vessels are mostly Burmese and Cambodians. They do not speak immaculate central Thai without a hint of other accents as they do in the film. The logic of supply chain to global consumers also sounds more like a speech written by an educated NGO. With that kind of ability to articulate modern issues, it is unlikely that the person needed to take up terrible jobs on an abusive fishing vessel. The aerial drone image of "South Thailand" in the film is also not from Thailand. If you check the Google Earth, you would find that it is from the Philippines. This film maker obviously does not care about Thai audience, so much that he didn't even bother to try to craft a good haux. He just wants to make a simplistic sensational film with old information and half-truths. I care very much for nature and conservation, and I fear that such disinformation from the 'conservation camp' would be a disservice to the cause.
Omg thank you for debunking the misrepresentation of the reality here. I was so aghast at the unchecked prevalence of fishing slavery as portrayed by the video, but your comment makes me feel relieved. Also, its truly a disgrace if the drone shot was not really Thailand
@@tannle
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the notion of slavery.
Labour abuses are ubiquitous.
Many people working in the food chain are exploited and regarded as slave labour.
@Trash Can That is not what I said or meant. Please don’t twist. I’m just pointing out that the film set up the scene. It is an unfortunate situation that full citizens, though poor, have more choices than illegal immigrants from Burma and Cambodia. However, many NGOs have been helping them
@@oykanjanavanit it is a massive reach to go from "this film inaccurately represented the demographics of slaves in the fishing industry" to "this scenario is a total set up" which implies that it is fake and the slave being burmese or cambodian makes the issue less pressing. and obviously some NGOs will try to help them, but it is still a massive problem. the film didn't lie about the slavery, they may simply have been confused as to the actual ethnicity of the slaves, which is not a set up. jesus. i get why this documentary intimidates some people but at least give a shit about the human lives involved.
@@IS-ux6yq I am not saying the issue is less pressing due to ethnicity. I’m saying it looks like a total set up if you know local dialects. The interview scene in the film is not convincing. This is very different from the Channel 4 report that exposed the problem 6-7 years ago, which we totally embraced.
I also didn’t brush it off that some NGO will look into the problem. They have done so and are still doing. My point is there are people who genuinely care and helping to elevate the problem. I don’t think it helps the problem to fake a scene for a film. Faking it undermines the cause
The great garbage patch is not some small local phenomena but that covers our largest ocean in the w o r l d
I like how she "debunks" the fishing nets. She says that they might make up 50% of the garbage patch. Then she says they make up 10% of ocean trash worldwide. Where did she get that number? Then she says trash from on land makes up 80% of ocean trash. What does that mean, exactly? Where does she get that number? Nevermind... who needs evidence to support their arguments?
As a Marine Biologist I would have expected you to be considerably more desirious of stopping the useless and wanton slaughter for marine wildlife. I too watched this documentary...twice actually. The inaccuracies you mention are pointless. I guess it's your way of getting some attention on your youtube channel, but your futile efforts to protect an industry that is devastating the very existence of life on this planet makes me wonder who's paying you, exactly?
Wow what a way to stroke your ego by that comment.
So you are a marine biologist judging from your comment?
What I got from the film is that sustainability in fisheries does not exist because there is no trustworthy way to monitor the interest accrued from the deposit.
did you receive funding from fishing industry?
@@JagasLT why are you against this? Are you also paid?
@@aistyle6688 are you? Well her own video is misleading and other in her own profession don’t agree with her take. I’m sure some do tho.. shit got me crazy not know what to believe 😝
Oh well, then I can rest assured that we haven't completely destroyed the ocean in 2048, but only a few years later
i just finished watching seaspiracy. i do definitely agree with their main point to eat less fish. but i was also disappointed how one sided and "emotionally manipulative" it was, which i guess some would argue is how to get people to actually contemplate change. anyways, thanks for this video! i think there definitely needs to be more discussions about it!
And what's the other side?
I think that people will not understand if they would have make it so hmm not heart braking and dramatic. Yes some is maybe a bit over the line but in the end the brought the topic up as one of few who are able to talk openly about that matter. So I think that seaspiracy is a very good made Film. Just eat less fish will make not much in a difference, btw. We all have to move our asses to do something against it and not just talk about it.
@@FarfettilLejl let this gonglomerat of fisheries Ngos and government destroy our planet in peace
Yes, the way to get people to change is to lie to them and manipulate them. /s
Das what I’m saying.. lol the other side like what the polluters and fishing industry?? Or the shark fin hunters perspective?? 😂 i don’t see how the defense could argue back like wait a minute we hunt these fish for food for humans?? lol
I have a question about studies, or deeper, the data of studies. There are possibilities that the giant fishing industry, with its enormous pocket, influence the data used in studies. How confident can we be when using those datasets? Is the fact that when we go to areas which once to have abundance of fish, now don't have anything left and fishermen have to go to deeper water, speaking for the truth or is there something else missing in the picture?
Just hope I could bring in another angle when looking into this issue.
You, woman, fit the description of the people the documentary warned about. You may be an expert but nothing can convince the world of your integrity and authenticity.
The world is tired of being lied to.
True.
Sustainable fishing?? How about the Chinese, a few moths ago their was a fleet of more than 200 industrial fishing boats outside of the ocean limits of theGalapagos Islands who controls them? They’ve depleted their oceans and have to fish further and further.
Exactly.
We have to face facts - these industries do not care, unless they are forced to care.
Consumers are to blame.
You are saying don't feel bad about killing and eating sentient living beings who feel pain and don't want to end up being food just as much as humans do. You need to watch Dominion documentary as well and stop promoting animal cruelty
omg youre soft fish is delicious 🤩
@@mitchellmorrisey5300 It sure is but I don't keep my taste buds on a higher scale than the life of a sentient being. 😊
Queen
People are allowed to have different ethical principles. Following an Animal Rights principle of ethics is a perfectly valid and reasonable way of living your life, and I feel it's a very noble way of life, but not everyone chooses to live that way. Nobody has the final say when it comes to whether killing/eating animals is objectively wrong. Global human society has developed over millennia and a majority of people willingly choose to eat animal products. To me, this is fine (in principle) however, I am a staunch advocate of Animal Welfare, which is different from Animal Rights. I love animals, and I choose to support high welfare, sustainably farmed, local produce. In your eyes, I am complicit in animal cruelty no matter what high welfare standards I support.
If we are to make a difference to the planet, people absolutely do need to make radical switches to a more plant-based diet, especially regarding beef farming and fishing - but telling the world it needs to change because it needs to stop killing animals unfortunately will not work. All the while we live in an anthrocentric, human/speciesist society where we commit violations against our own human rights on a daily basis, animal rights will always come second. I’m not saying any of this is ok, it’s just how the world operates under extremely flawed foundations.
@@EmmaAnimalWelfare No offense but this comment feels a little give uppy to me lol
I would just like to mention a couple of things.
1) the fact that there isn't a research on something doesn't mean it's untrue. (Cascade with sharks)
2) Study analysis is corrupted due to a lack of information after seeing how the real side of the industry looks.
Thanks for the information
Hi, thanks for the video. Few points:
1- The title is somewhat misleading
2- If not by 2048, then what is the best estimate of ocean depletion? (if this will happen)
3- Regarding «Sustainable fishing» - Is there an effective way to know that products bought are legally procured, and sustainable in terms of bycatch, plastic pollution, habitat destruction, etc.?
Thanks
Thank you for clarifying some of the inaacuracies of the ocumentaary. Do you see any keystone species in the oceans, or would that be too wide an area, and we need to narrow the scope to different parts of the oceans?
Can you answer this for me with sustainable fishing? If we, for example, only fish the excess from the population going forward, then we are just taking enough fish for the ecosystem to maintain. But if the fish populations are already a deficit, then this is only stopping things from getting worse right? Maybe that was what they were emphasizing, and I suppose that sustainable fishing is better than nothing.
Fisheries concider sustainable fishing to be fishing a species to almost collapse and then skimming the top off. Thats why here in NZ we have one of the best fisheries management systems in the world yet almost all our commercially caught fish are close to collapse. They fish until they see a dramatic fall in catch numbers then when forced they take a little less of their quota. Or they ignore the signs and the stocks collapse which has happened to numerous species here in NZ.
I don't trust this person, the industry must be paying her.
Yes I agree
ok first off, you do realise that if every one ate sustainable seafood, their would be none left, its like how meat eaters say to eat grass fed organic, sure its more ethical and sustainable but if everyone did it we wouldn't have enough space, and in the case of the ocean, we would obviously overfish.
the guy who was narrating didn't downplay single use plastic, he still picks up plastic from the beaches, but are you seriously, I mean seriously going to tell people to limit their plastic straws, but not care about fishing as long as its "sustainable" you do realise they make up 0.025% of plastic in the ocean, the documentary rounded it up for you as well. plastic in the ocean of fishing nets makes up 10%, but since they are so large they make up percentage wise of weight 46%, like how can you call yourself a marine biologist, a simple google search can explain this. Is it just that you don't want to have to give up fish or something, or are you just ignorant, you make me wonder what the point of credentials are since you are supposed to be an "expert" and everyone is eating up your bs.
In ventura county I worked for a company that dumped electropolisher 4000 and sulfuric acid in the ocean
EPA was paid off by trump
ua-cam.com/video/lKRJQGn6KHQ/v-deo.html
Coral bleaching was mentioned in the documentary and water temperature was described as the cause, but another mechanism along with climate change was suggested as a contributor for the temperature change. The documentary was also highlighting the health of coral reefs relies on fish as much as the other way round and that reef fish numbers and sharks is dwindling.
Some corals are thriving now that the weaker ones are dying.
Wtf, a marine biologist who doesn't give a shit if there no whales or dolphins but plankton will be ok OMG😩
She also deletes comments too.... how fishy 🥶
Huh ?? That's not **at all** the point she was making ?!?
Lmao
I think...
We will still have fish in the ocean by 2048....
But Not Enough to sustain us all..i guess...if we still continue those montrous ways discussed on the documentary...just saying...
If me and you are alife we will comment back in this section at 2048
Seaspiracy didn't one sided documentary, he invited and talked to a lot of experts and showing facts right from the ground.
It's a simple and clear message you can't really argue with. STOP OVERFISHING (infact just stop eating fish) why even argue with it.
Don't you have empathy.
When you mention the number of 'sustainable fisheries' as a percentage. What is the basis? Is this by area? Volume of Sea? Or by Yeild in tonnes of fish/y?
The like and dislike bar gives me hope.
😂😂😂😂😂
🤣🤣 She can delete comments but she she can’t delete dislikes lol
If you ever wonder why so many digital spaces are male dominated look in a mirror. Your behavior is terrible. Don’t let social media turn you into such a tribal belligerent person. This kind of scientific debate is totally valid and valuable.
@@jasong7373 Are you okay?
@@petjerpeterson6399 what a gaslighting poorly-informed nothing. What’s your PhD in Pete?
Hi Telly, can you please change the title of your video? We get that you want more viewers, but the word debunked is totally not at its place here. There were parts in your video tho that were very handy to know about.
For you and the other readers, please read the comment of @Erik Brush in this comment section, he makes great points.
Yes, yes it is, the documentary is bullshit lmao
Yes and her video other marine biologist don’t agree with.. so you’re a scientist and know a lot? 😂
Good video, only thing I'd say is maybe change the title to a more 'neutral' one? Many people will just read the title and be like "ah I knew it was a load of rubbish, I don't need to stop eating/reducing my fish intake"
That's the typical human response whenever their horrid behavior is endangering another life form. Not so much when it's their life at stake though...funny thing that.
Aren't they saying that fish population will collapse sometime due to acidification, destruction of reefs, and everything else that's going on?
The earth, nature and all that lives on this planet, are our only treasures and the only living things worth fighting for. Not money, not gold, not canned fish. It has to stop now.