my mental health is in shambles, due to the combined effects of 1) end of term 2) being stuck with a research project i really hate this semester 3) over a year of zoom uni and 4) being at home with my (abusive) parents while I get vaccinated and away from my support system (aka my friends and bf).
I've had a lot of bad days lately where im not able to do much, so I'm going to start keeping regular logs on here of positive things from the day
Good stuff from today
My department committee won the award for best small dept on the faculty level !
I was able to video call my bf for an hour
Crocheted some more
I didn't have any classes today
4 notes · View notes
there is a lot of misinformation in the film, but i think its also important to note that commerical fisheries that produce for consumption by wealthy nations (the target of the film) also harm sustenance fishers. So yes, if you live in a wealthy country and can live quite easily without seafood, you should do so.
I find that the point that a lot of people rely on sustenance fisheries is often used as an excuse for upper middle class people in wealthy nations to keep buying fish at the grocery store that come from unsustainable fisheries when they have many more sustainable alternatives and that's.... not a good look. Poorer people aren't your ticket to do whatever the fuck you want and not be accountable for your actions
I would love to hear about why seaspiracy is a bad documentary. Could you explain?
Hey, thanks for asking. Here’s the thing: the movie - I want to be clear, this is not a documentary - brings up a lot of important issues, even if it uses incredibly misleading and sometimes false statistics
Bycatch, illegal shark fishing, illegal fishing, habitat degradation, plastic pollution, climate change, forced labor: these are are all very serious issues that threaten the stability of marine ecosystems.
But then. The film comes to the conclusion that the ONLY way to combat these issues is to stop eating fish. This is not implied; it is explicit and repeated. Now, if you want to and have the privilege to stop eating fish, by all means, stop eating fish.
But the world is not going to stop eating fish. Not because of a lack of activism, but because of a lack of other options. Globally, fish provide more than 3.3 billion people with 20 percent of their average per capita intake of animal proteins, reaching 50 percent or more in countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Gambia, Ghana, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and several small island developing States. Stopping the consumption of fish would cause a food security crisis.
By saying that the impossible task of eliminating global fish consumption is the only solution to the myriad threats to our ocean, Seaspiracy eliminates attention on the very real actions that must be taken to address the very real problems it presents.
It’s an activist film that completely misses the mark on what activism marine life, ocean ecosystems, and and victims of forced labor in in the seafood supply chain would actually benefit from.
So if you watch it, know this: I’m not asking you not to be freaked out about the state of our oceans, or to do less. It’s right that there are problems.
I’m asking you to do more.
You, personally, deciding to eat less seafood is fine, if that’s something you can do. But if you want to actually impact how commercial fisheries operate, if you want to mitigate climate change, governments must be held accountable for the actions of the vessels they allow to fish and the companies they allow to produce greenhouse gasses.
You are a constituent of the governments that manage these fisheries, that pass legislation on climate change. Go tell them what you want.
You can read more about specific statistics and claims that are wrong, and about how it endangers victims of forced labor in this post.
428 notes · View notes