I think it would be safe to say that since the day it was released, the ground-breaking documentary (which missed out on the name ‘Conspira-sea’ and hence disappointed me in that regard before I even started) has had an impact on everyone who watched it. It fuelled a chain reaction of recommendations, from one viewer to the next, spreading like a wildfire, until six different people have mentioned it to me in the space of two days. It was at that point I sat down to experience it for myself.
The ninety minutes that unfolded in front of me told the story of corruption, piracy, modern slavery, activism and brainwashing. It uncovered the lies we are fed with our food, and gave escapees and activists a voice on a mainstream platform. It escalated, and escalated fast; it demonstrated that exposing the big fish of such a major industry can be, and is, life-threatening.
Having watched something as powerful, that was not only a colossal risk for Andersen (the producer) to create, but was also a mentally and physically challenging journey, I remember feeling outrage, followed by despair. At that moment, just after the credits rolled, I thought about how far we still must go in order to achieve a sustainable (I’m not even mentioning ethical) food industry, and whether that is possible during our lifetime, and, frankly, whether it is even possible at all. Of course, I remain optimistic, but it takes just one documentary like this to show me, and thousands of people who’ve also experienced it, to demonstrate that the world is not at all a moral or humane place, at least not yet. To animals or to other humans.
I will also admit to crying during the whaling scene; it stood out to me the most cinematically, as it was that final straw in terms of pathos, and in terms of interacting with our innate compassion. It tugged on the string of our conscience with its silence—the sound often associated with remembrance and respect—and with its sinister grotesqueness. And, maybe even the sublime beauty of the whale in contrast with the rawness and disrespect of its killing.
An indigo whale bleeding out in clear waters tainted red is a visual vivid enough to speak to anyone. It was this scene that prompted me to rewatch a speech by Ed Winters (Earthling Ed on Youtube) that made me rethink animal products three years ago, and to remind myself of the typical arguments against a non-carnivorous diet. I would like to recycle a question he asked his audience: Are our taste buds more important in the fleeting moment of a meal than the entire life of an animal?
Now, of course, as with any animal ethics related production, ‘Seaspiracy’ had its fair share of criticism (surfacing recently on social media). Marine biologists “debunking” the statistics used in the film, the NGOs whose interviews were seemingly “taken out of context” and the people who didn’t want to watch it in fear of it “putting them off their food”.
Firstly, to me, as soon as you start picking apart the statistics used in any major movement, you’re already missing the point. It happened with the infamous ‘97% of women’ UN percentage, and it is happening with this documentary. Instead of focusing on the issue of sustainability labels being corrupt, or on illegal fishing, or on the destruction of the world’s ecosystems, and thinking about how we must pressure the supplier and the consumer into at least acknowledging how and where their food comes from, we are invalidating the research because “eighty percent of plastic actually ends up on land, and only twenty in the sea”. Sure, but, boy, does that twenty percent have an impact on the ecosystem.
However, even with its undoubted popularity, the documentary cannot have its full effect on two groups of people: People who do not watch it. And those people often hide behind the excuse that “watching it will discourage them from eating such an easy source of protein and omega-3”. Which really boils my blood.
Fish is not a necessity in the human diet. In fact, more and more research is proving that due to that plastic the critics so kindly mentioned (specifically microplastics), and other toxic chemicals (like mercury), being so abundant in our seas, bioaccumulation can actually render certain fish less safe to eat, long term. Hence the health argument is pretty weak. So, if you’re otherwise incapable of witnessing and comprehending just how your salmon or prawn or cod got on your plate… Can you really justify eating it?
Overall, I believe ‘Seaspiracy’ managed to compile an admirable mixture of footage-supported arguments for a variety of issues surrounding the fishing industry of the world. Not only does it speak to animal-rights activists, human-rights activists and equality activists, it speaks to us as humans. It speaks to us as minds capable of benevolence and compassion, and it speaks to our intelligence to use what we see not so much as a doctrine, that is to be taken word for word, but as an outcry for help on the behalf of the oceans, that we so love, but fail to respect.
