Presumably, many people who care about their own health have paid attention to plastic pollution and the way of fishery. Therefore, a lot of information in Seaspiracy, such as overfishing, sustainable certification of "greenwashing", unsuitable breeding environment and deceptive operations are no longer news. But the value of this film is that it not only covers some basic knowledge, but also talks about something that needs more attention than the environment and health: our conscience.
Every point mentioned in the film can actually make another documentary. For example, national sovereignty/geopolitical issues involved in overfishing-oceans are inherently political. The flow of sea water and fish knows no borders. As resources, they are the objects of control and plunder, and places where power is exercised. However, our division of marine areas stays in the breadth, and it is difficult to control the depth. Therefore, this makes the ocean more difficult to manage than land resources such as forests.
Why focus on Asian countries? I also feel that the director has not mentioned enough. The industry tycoon China didn't mention it much, and Taiwan was not criticized by name (there are more fishing boats in the Pacific than in the mainland). It should be mentioned more. Because 70% of the world's farmed fish are from China ( two out of every three farmed fish are from China ). We are also like Japan, not only fishing in our own waters-there is no fish to catch for a long time. We are still hurting countries that are poorer than us, such as North Korea, South America, West Africa , and the Caribbean coast, and the total number of catches often exceeds the sum of several developed countries (this is really not lost to Japan). Use Google to search china's fishing fleet and you can see a lot of information.
The predecessor of the Somali pirates was fishermen. They have the same difficulties as those who were displaced and had to participate in the violence of climate refugees and ecological refugees. It's not just that we don't care about animal life.
The hypocrisy of sustainable certification is also revealed by the film. This kind of green and blue bleaching behavior for international companies is not limited to MSC (Marine Stewardship Council), including things like FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), Rainforest Alliance Certification, RSPO (Palm Oil Sustainability Roundtable), and fair trade in Europe and the United States. The signs that can be seen everywhere in supermarkets continue to infringe on the interests of the people at the bottom and help the abusers. Just search for a keyword and you can see several documentaries dedicated to them. It's not that these certifications are not in place in all aspects, nor that no one is responsible for continuing to improve, but that the scale of our consumption of these natural resources is too large, and the chain of interests is too complicated. The so-called sustainable certification As a product of following the logic of capitalism, there is no way to subvert this exploitative logic. Reducing the exploitation of animals, improving the so-called "welfare" of animals, and advocating the so-called "humanized" killing is like a parent who decides not to educate children by whiplashing, but instead slaps the face.
Perhaps what people worry most is whether the food they eat will make them sick. The salmon dyeing (and the abuse of antibiotics) mentioned in the film has long been an open secret. In some Nordic countries, experts do not even recommend the use of fatty fish in reproductive stages, because dioxins and PCBs are soluble in fat, so the more "fat" fish, the more toxins. The more animals at the upper end of the food chain, the more bioaccumulation and toxins. When people's enthusiasm for consumption exceeds what is needed to maintain their own functions, high-density, large-scale breeding will definitely breed a series of inaccessible behaviors. What is healthy for the earth is healthy for us; our environment is our immune system. This is actually a very simple truth. This is not the difference between vegetarians and meat eaters, but the difference between need and greed.
I think this documentary shows the curve of a person's cognitive growth very concisely and clearly. Indeed, no one is born with an understanding of the consequences of his actions, and what he should do to reduce unnecessary harm. We are not afraid to reconstruct our own knowledge system. What we fear most is "out of sight out of mind". There is a meme that has been circulating in the Vegan circle in recent years: people are willing to boycott plastics to protect fish, but they are unwilling to avoid eating fish to protect fish. This kind of cognitive dissonance is even committed by nature documentary professional David Attenborough in "A Life On Earth". It is difficult for us to have sympathy for non-human animals, especially those that are considered to be not cute enough or spiritual enough. The way we treat these innocent creatures is more cruel than our most hated enemy. At this point, Seaspiracy explained it very clearly: as long as there is a nervous system, as long as you can feel the pain, it is enough to not be hurt. Regrettably, this viewpoint put forward by Rousseau and Bentham in the eighteenth century still needs to be repeated in films until the twenty-first century.
Among the known species in the world, no animal is more destructive than human beings. Many people equate this destructive ability that crosses races, species, and affects our children and grandchildren with the wild world. The behavior of wild animals for survival is compared with the behavior of human beings out of greed. It seems that people are not high-level animals, but we need to learn from the behavior of wild animals to explain whether our behavior is ethical. The existence of these people may tell us that human beings can be the most cognitively capable species, but they are also the most self-deceiving, short-sighted, and stupid species.
View more about Seaspiracy reviews
