Comment by hermitcrab

Comment by hermitcrab a day ago

86 replies

I watched David Attenborough's recent film 'Ocean' on a big screen. The footage of bottom trawling was really shocking. I don't understand how that has been allowed to continue in UK coastal waters, let alone to be subsidised in marine protected areas. Madness. It's like napalming a forest to get a few deer. Thankfully things may be changing:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-proposes-to-ex...

Don't know how much of that was due to the film.

toomuchtodo a day ago

Greenpeace used to drop boulders into the ocean to prevent bottom trawling circa 2021-2022. Unsure if they still do. Fairly straightforward to solve for if you’re willing to drop chunks of rock (granite, non reactive) or concrete in the ocean at the right spots.

Bans are nice, destructive force against adversaries works better though. Hard to take the selfish out of the human, so you have to engineer systems accordingly.

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/live-greenpeace-boulders-...

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-marin...

  • pyrale 18 hours ago

    > Bans are nice, destructive force against adversaries works better though.

    The ocean is large, and the effort required to cover significant areas in boulders is ridiculously high.

    • hermitcrab 15 hours ago

      Just the possibility of boulders that might destroy your very expensive dredge might be enough.

      • chatmasta 15 hours ago

        Won’t they be visible on sonar?

  • noisy_boy a day ago

    I think it would be a great PR idea for a billionaire to buy a few old ships and use them to drop rocks over the most popular/vulnerable fishing grounds. What happened to rich people who were all not evil?

    • borski 7 hours ago

      They still exist. You just don’t hear about them in the news, because good news doesn’t sell ads.

    • TeMPOraL 18 hours ago

      > What happened to rich people who were all not evil?

      Public opinion drove them crazy and turned them evil anyways.

    • closewith 18 hours ago

      The truth is that only the evil remain ultra-rich as the rest use their money in ways that depletes there fortunes.

    • Grimblewald a day ago

      How do you think billionaires became billionaires? How can you extract a billion dollars of wealth in your life time, or even several generations? Certainly not by creating value. Almost certainly by destroying something else, privatising the profits and socialising the losses. E.g. mining, commercial fishing. Etc.

      We will never see billionairs act as a force for good because the current system only allows for evil to create such a level of private capital. I would go as far as to argue such wealth disparity is not natural and is only possible through severe perversion of the natural order.

      • ds_ 19 hours ago

        Not sure why you're being downvoted, because you're absolutely right.

      • koonsolo 18 hours ago

        I would say billionaires create value just like any other entrepreneur, but billionaires take their profitability to the extreme. So in that sense, I agree they start to lean over to exploitation.

        It's up to political structures and laws to keep billionaires under control.

        Since wealth naturally accumulates to those who already have wealth and power, I would say it's a natural process. Look at history and how many elites had huge power and wealth. Just compare the richest man now, Musk, with Augustus Caesar, Genghis Khan, etc... . Musk is a nobody.

        It's not up to the billionaires to keep themselves under control, it's up to us to create political structures to keep it under control. Which we are already doing (some countries better than others), and we could still improve.

      • ninetyninenine a day ago

        It is natural. Unfairness is the basis of civilization.

        In order to mobilize a group of humans for the common good they must be artificially incentivized to do it as the tragedy of the commons usually prevents people from doing these things collectively. Look up the tragedy of the commons.

        But in order for a group of humans to be incentivized like that there must exist an authority with enough wealth to incentivize humans to work collectively like that. That means one authority needs to get unfairly rich. And additionally there must be incentive itself for such an authority to conduct that action in itself. So basically there must be some unfair distribution of wealth for any of this to happen AND there must exist strategies that can be exploited for someone to gain that wealth.

        I’m not making this shit up. Literally in anthropology one of the theories about why certain places developed into advanced civilizations or not literally relied on whether or not the currency of the habitat could be used to accumulate wealth. For example fruits in Hawaii didn’t last long enough for someone to become a billionaire but grain in Europe does.

    • ljsprague 8 hours ago

      Bill Gates promotes vaccination which is in some ways the opposite of "protecting nature".

    • GuinansEyebrows 8 hours ago

      > What happened to rich people who were all not evil?

      probably the same thing that happened to dragons and unicorns :) can anything happen to something that has never existed?

    • easyThrowaway 18 hours ago

      In a terminally capitalistic age (or whatever we should call the last 30 years, we are actually "capitalistic" the same way the URSS was "communist" in the '80s) being rich and being ethical are mutually exclusive.

Velorivox a day ago

The relevant excerpt. [0]

[0] https://youtu.be/IzG9AwlypaY?feature=shared

  • hermitcrab a day ago

    Watch it in a cinema, to get the full effect.

    There are some before and after scenes of the sea bed, which are pretty shocking as well.

    I'm not sure how that got that footage. Surely fisherman would not want that to be seen?

    • hermitcrab a day ago

      Found this:

      "Technically, probably the hardest thing was trying to film bottom trawling because it's never been filmed before and we didn't know if it was possible. You have to film the wonder but you also have to film the destruction. Capturing that was absolutely essential and it took a lot of research to find some scientists planning bottom trawling experiments who decided that adding cameras would help their research and also help to share it with the world."

      At:

      https://www.arksen.com/blogs/news/ocean-with-david-attenboro...

    • closewith 17 hours ago

      But watch it anyway. Trawling should be banned.

ropable a day ago

I watched this film last night, and it was stunning and horrifying all at once. It really brings home the impact of industrial-scale trawling on the marine environment. It's literally like bulldozing a garden to harvest the fruit.

  • hermitcrab 15 hours ago

    It is like bulldozing a garden full of lots of different fruits and then only taking the apples above a certain size.

abrookewood 20 hours ago

That part of the film is horrifying. Like genuinely, sick-to-the-stomach horrifying. I can't believe that anyone would willingly cause that much destruction.

  • closewith 17 hours ago

    > I can't believe that anyone would willingly cause that much destruction.

    I interact with fishermen as part of a marine SAR role and there's a significant subset who treat the sea with contempt. Not usual to see them dump rubbish overboard in littoral areas, flicking cigarettes butts into the sea, etc.

    • abrookewood 2 hours ago

      Such weird behaviour considering it is the source of their livelihood.

    • [removed] 7 hours ago
      [deleted]
marcus_holmes 19 hours ago

Stop eating fish. The fishing industry is destroying the oceans.

  • oporquinho94 19 hours ago

    Individual actions won’t change the system, you need collective organised action

    • marcus_holmes 19 hours ago

      Be the change you want to see in the world.

      You can only control your actions.

      Also taking the action of starting to organise some collective action is a good thing. But don't continue eating fish until everyone else agrees not to, because that becomes self-defeating.

    • yesfitz 8 hours ago

      This is organizing.

      We're inviting you to join the collective of people who don't eat fish.

      Our main activity is finding and encouraging others to not eat fish. If you'd like to organize more collective action, we will probably be interested!

      But the baseline is actually inaction. First, do no harm.

    • Nasrudith 12 hours ago

      That is a complete paradox because you not only cannot have collective organized action without individual ones but the previous is entirely composed of the latter.

    • taskforcegemini 11 hours ago

      why not both, if the point for both is to reach the same goal?

    • ninetyninenine 12 hours ago

      Exactly. The tragedy of the commons makes it so that individual action of eating the fish is the most rational move.

      Mobilizing people to act irrationally is challenging unless they are forced to do it by law.

  • vonunov 19 hours ago

    Besides, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-04272-1#Sec3

    >For rainbow trout, an estimated 10 (1.9–21.7) minutes of moderate to extreme pain (Hurtful, Disabling and Excruciating pain combined) are endured by each trout due to air asphyxia (Fig. 1).

    • fcpk 14 hours ago

      and that's why things like ikejime are needed. It instantly kills the fish and destroys its nervous system in the same way we do for cattle. It's absolutely unbelievable that it is not a common practice. And it also extends the quality of the fish and the duration for conservation.

      I am a freshwater fisherman myself, and I do it on any fish I intend to keep, and release them very quickly otherwise.

  • t0bia_s 17 hours ago

    I like fishes. Fishes are healthy and main source of Omega-3 fatty acid for many.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid

    Be aware of pharma propaganda that for sure support any narrations that would make benefit for them, like making any kind of natural sources good for humans as threat, like sunshine or.. Fishes?

    • marcus_holmes 28 minutes ago

      Catching your own fish, and eating that, is fine. Even if everyone who could do that, caught the fish they intended to eat, the oceans would be fine.

      It's the massive industrial trawlers that scoop up entire ecosystems that we need to stop.

riffraff 18 hours ago

what, how is it allowed in marine protected areas? I mean, what are they protected from if not BT?

I think the EU planned to ban bottom trawling completely by 2030 and that got nowhere, but it still upholds a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas[0][1], in addition to national ruling (e.g. Italy bans it near the coast and in shallow waters).

[0] https://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/2025/05/22/eu-court-uph...

[1] https://www.bairdmaritime.com/fishing/regulation-enforcement...

madaxe_again 14 hours ago

People did indeed used to set fire to forests to get a few deer - you’d use the flames to drive them to a cliff edge, or to a river, where you would either let gravity do the work, or just pick off the panicked mass with spears or rocks.

Le plus ca change…

  • hermitcrab 14 hours ago

    I guess you could get away with it when humans were nomadic and population density was low.

dzhiurgis a day ago

> subsidised in marine protected areas

What do you mean?

  • hermitcrab 15 hours ago

    "Bottom trawling in seas globally emits as much carbon as aviation, and in Europe costs society up to €11 billion annually while governments subsidize it with €1·3 billion."

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

    "A wealth of studies also show that bottom trawling generates significant amounts of CO2 emissions and is fuelled by government subsidies."

    https://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/2025/05/07/thebottomlin...

  • aspenmayer a day ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_protected_area

    > A marine protected area (MPA) is a protected area of the world's seas, oceans, estuaries or in the US, the Great Lakes. These marine areas can come in many forms ranging from wildlife refuges to research facilities. MPAs restrict human activity for a conservation purpose, typically to protect natural or cultural resources. Such marine resources are protected by local, state, territorial, native, regional, national, or international authorities and differ substantially among and between nations. This variation includes different limitations on development, fishing practices, fishing seasons and catch limits, moorings and bans on removing or disrupting marine life. MPAs can provide economic benefits by supporting the fishing industry through the revival of fish stocks, as well as job creation and other market benefits via ecotourism. The value of MPA to mobile species is unknown.

rex_lupi 18 hours ago

Seaspiracy is another eye opening documentary.

  • riffraff 18 hours ago

    Seaspiracy (like Cowspiracy by the same author) is pretty full of factual errors on misrepresentations.

    While the core ideas may be right, it's basically a propaganda piece.

  • hermitcrab 14 hours ago

    'Seaspiracy' is a polemic with little attempt at balance or objectivity IMO. But I think it is still worth watching.