4 ms·

This is a great example of a non-profit using data to make an impact. Let's support them hn fam! https://act.oceana.org/page/73742/donate/ https://act.oceana.or

• switchstance 5y ago
  Agreed. Done!
• antouank 5y ago
  Maybe worth it to watch "Seaspiracy" as well https://www.netflix.com/no-en/title/81014008 https://www.netflix.com/no-en/title/81014008
  • gruez 5y ago
    It might be watching as entertainment, but it's not really worth watching if you're looking for objective analysis. ie. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26749401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26749401 (or the rest of the thread)
    • knuthsat 5y ago
      The comment you link just describes the plot through the eyes of someone who didn't like the film. There's no refutation of anything that film states.
      • gruez 5y ago
        Here's a well sourced refutation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5XUH4LuzCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5XUH4LuzCw summary: * The documentary distorts facts and in some cases even outright lies: 1. They claim that the oceans will be empty by 2048, but that claim is based off widely refuted (by even the original authors!) paper from 2006. A 2020 update says the global fish stocks are improving. 2. They claim that 40% of seafood caught is "bycatch", but they define bycatch as "anything that's not sustainably managed". No reputable scientific organization uses that definition for bycatch. 3. They claim 250k sea turtles are killed per year as a result of bycatch, but the source cited for this is some random blog post. Actual studies show the number is closer to 4600. 5. They claim that 46% of plastic in the ocean is from fishing nets, but that's based off a study that shows that in a specific area of the ocean (great pacific garbage patch), fishing nets make up 46% of the floating plastic. * The documentary allege corruption but their evidence amounts to "well they could be faking the numbers". A company could be cooking the books (it happens all the time, eg. wirecard), but that doesn't mean it's a widespread practice. Independent studies have verified that msc certification is a reliable and overall beneficial program. * The documentary's interviews are misleading because they ask simplified questions to complex problems, then play them back out of context in an attempt to create gotcha moments. The movie has received criticism from the people interviewed, even the ones that were portrayed positively. * The creator doesn't seem to be interested in sustainability at all. In one segment he visits a bunch of whale fisherman. He concludes that the practice is totally sustainable, but he still doesn't like it and goes on to say that sustainability is not how we should care for our oceans. The documentary doesn't end with ways on how to make fishing more sustainable, it instead lists reasons why you should go vegan.
        • mistrial9 5y ago
          one thousand nine hundred views, posted by account 'kook' ?!? That is your refutation ?
          • deleted 5y ago
            [deleted]
  • tedk-42 5y ago
    The best thing that 'documentary' highlighted was that fishing isn't necessarily just for human consumption, there's likely a large portion of fishing that's done for feedstock of fish farms. It's a global problem but there's one bad/reckless actor (China) that needs to better police the issue internally. To be honest, I don't know if a 'global' effort of physically policing the oceans is possible (given they cover 2/3rds of the Earth). I do think it in the short term it will eventually come down to fishing crew being arrested and boats confiscated and sunk, with the crew being given one way flights back to their home country.
• wolverine876 5y ago
  Who are they? What do they do? What will my money be used for? Being a 'non-profit' doesn't at all make them good actors. Someone's description of themselves isn't a reliable source.
  • presentation 5y ago
    Oceana is a well known, established institution, if you care about the cause at all you can certainly do research on them.