Seaspiracy: Don't panic.

Have you seen Seaspiracy? Due to my change into the marine field 2 years ago, I was asked by a few people for my opinion on the recent film. So here it is.

Don’t panic.

I tend to stay away from extremist documentaries because they seldom, if ever, cover the full story, focusing rather on what will get the best reaction. I understand the necessity to get the message out there, but with no positive media input to balance it out, it becomes a psychological burden, and is causing environmental depression in the youth (for real). I do not discourage watching the film, but please read this, or a similar post (just google “Seaspiracy fact check” or something similar) afterwards before forming an opinion.

Over fishing and bycatch are both massive problems. Fish stocks world wide have been over exploited. This is largely due to the problem of policing at sea which, as the film shows, is extremely difficult and relies on the honesty of captains. Fish farming and aquaculture are on the rise though, and fisheries management is improving. Live cameras are being put onboard to monitor ships with penalties if cameras are switched off. AI with image classification is being developed to monitor species caught in real time so that better indications of bycatch can be made. Purse-seine fishing is being banned in some regions because it is too effective. Improvements in bird-safe long-lining have been massively effective in reducing seabird mortalities. There are companies specifically dedicated to cleaning up our oceans (The Ocean Cleanup Company for example). The work I did with ropeless fishing not only reduces whale entanglements, but can reduce the loss of fishing gear and therefore reduce the amount of “ghost gear” floating around in the ocean. We are making developments towards sustainability. We just need time.

I am a eco-pragmatist, so I believe we need to be reasonable about fisheries management. Eliminating fishing is not an option. With the growing population, development is crucial and we are going to need a variety of food to support all of us. If we stopped eating fish, not only would millions lose jobs, but supposedly people would eat more land based meats and plants. I don’t think the whole population could be supported off a plant based diet. If we tried, we’d probably have to cut down huge amounts of forests to make space to farm it. Also, I find it unrealistic to expect everyone not to eat meat. It just won’t happen. (If we go further down this rabbit hole, we’ll find some environmentalist telling us we shouldn’t eat meat. Then another group tells us we shouldn’t eat plants that have been genetically modified, even though these modifications have saved millions from starvation by increasing yields. What I am trying to highlight is that it’s impossible to keep everyone happy. You have to decide what you’re happy eating after doing the necessary research.)

Fish farming is on the rise and although it has its negatives, as the film pointed out, there are also positives. Releasing the load on natural stocks is an obvious one. The fact that they need 1.2kg of feed to get 1kg of fish is not uncommon. In the wild it’s actually way higher because they’re expending more energy getting away from predators etc. Chicken and cows both consume more, chicken around 2kg feed per kg chicken, and beef around 7kg. As development increases in these sectors, we will get better at it. Trade-offs are an absolute necessity of development. They occur in engineering projects all the time.

The statement of there being no such thing as sustainable fishing is nonsense in my opinion. It is not only sustainable, but eating fish is encouraged in some communities because it’s more sustainable than other foods. If managed correctly, it’s like farming live stock that you never have to feed. Through the use of mathematical models, fisheries managers try to estimate the state of fish stocks based on catch data from the years before. Based on these models, they set catch limits to sustain or recover fish populations, while giving the fisherman enough to sustain the fishery. Obviously this hasn’t been done effectively with all the declining stocks, but it is possible and has been done with certain stocks before. It will improve with the developments in technology I mentioned before where fisherman will be able to be held accountable for bycatch etc. An important note is that fisheries managers aim to keep fish stocks at 50% of their natural maximum population, as this is where they will produce the maximum sustainable yield. This is because as the population grows, competition increases, so productivity decreases. As hard as it is to admit, this is why the Norwegians, Icelanders and Japanese continue whaling. If whales are seen as any other fish stock, as long as you kill less than the whales are producing every year, it will be sustainable. Global whale populations have been doing very well over the last 20 years and are recovering nicely.

On the dolphin etc. safe certifications, I do not know much. What I see it as is some fishermen making an effort to be dolphin etc. safe, and that’s a step in the right direction. I highly doubt it’s ineffective. It won’t be based off captain honesty alone but rather off the use of special equipment which has shown to reduce dolphin mortalities, for example.

This fishing problem can be seen as development problem. In a growing world, we need more food and more jobs, and as the population gets richer, we want to consume more meat. As we develop, we are capable of becoming more efficient and more humane in our practices. Killing of animals needs to be done in a humane manor, which is why I don’t agree with how the pilot whales we killed in the film. Big whaling vessels use harpoons which are designed to instantly kill the whales on impact, so that is preferable. As efficiencies increase, trade offs unfortunately have to be made on the quality of life of the animals, to lessen the impact on the environment. Cow lots and chicken coops take up far less land than free range farms and they produce more meat per kg of feed. This opens up more land for restoration and wild parks. It may be similar for fish farming. Land based fish farming may be able to eliminate the faecal build-up problem (and could possibly provide fertiliser), and they’ll be able to better manage fish infections etc. by managing water quality.

No documentary or article (including this one) will ever cover the full story; the scope is simply too large. Issues, particularly those related to climate, the environment and development (and their interconnectivity), are far more complex than any one source can cover. It is therefore crucial to delve deeper into a subject before forming an opinion worthy of sharing on social media, and even then, we need to recognise that we have not considered all avenues.

We need to do better, and I like to think we’re heading in the right direction. Our generation (post-boomer) is already far more environmentally conscious (thanks to films like this, I might add) than earlier generations and many young professionals actively work towards sustainability. According to a friend of mine working in investing, young investors and business owners almost exclusively invest in green companies when looking for new investment opportunities.

As my mother says, everything in moderation. This is particularly applicable in our consumption of meats and veggies, and it’s something I’ve come to live by.

Hopefully we’re in good hands.