[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1617889783263.jpg (43.57 KB, 428x600, images.jpeg-569.jpg)


Just finished watching this and I think it does a decent job at blaming global capital on the destruction of fish and marine populations

I personally think it's a really good red pill to give to liberals on the topic.


File: 1617890382626.jpg (21.51 KB, 300x300, The Unnatural History of t….jpg)

You should read this afterwards because it didn't begin with capitalism.


Watch this movie with a heard heart, i cried so much.. Q.Q


Pfft paywalled not gonna watch


>documentary about the seven seas
>not pirating it
shameful display, matey


It's the tragedy of the commons. There is no incentive to preserve the ocean because it is considered to be an open resource which nobody has the responsibility to maintain. And it is considered to be inexhaustible, because unlike a forest, you can't get obvious visual indications that it is being stripped bare. Only marine biologists and oceanographers and fishermen know the true scale of the collapse of fish stocks.


Sensitive faggot. You will not be helpful in the revolution


put this in the documentary general thread


File: 1617910511026.jpg (70.66 KB, 639x595, 1240393095655.jpg)



good beginner redpill for normies, but it has glaring flaws.

This Redditor put it best (https://www.reddit.com/r/sustainability/comments/mekuj5/seaspiracy_and_the_truth_lets_discuss/)

>I learned a lot from the documentary, even though i have a degree in environmental studies (there is always more to learn!). I feel like while i dont think the movie conveyed anything with malintent, there were several topics that could have used more clarity.

>The eco-labelling is one thing I know a thing or two about. I took a course on voluntary certifications (e.g. eco-labelling) and there are indeed some problematic ones. The Dolphin Safe one was used as an example of a questionable one - i took this course like 3 years ago so for me its kinda old news, but a good reminder that more people should be aware that not all eco-labelling is trustworthy. HOWEVER i do think that more discussion should have been done around how eco-labelling can be an effective mechanism for accountability. It all depends on the certification process and whether there is active follow-up and re-certification mechanisms. When in doubt, you can always check an eco-label's website and certification process and decide for yourself if it is trustworthy!

>My other tentative issue with the documentary was how they framed sustainability. They got a lot of different perspectives but then determined that there was "no sustainable large-scale fishing process," so therefore "eat less or no fish." This logic seemed surprising to me because they used an indigenous communities fishing practice as an example of how our industrious fishing processes are impacting communities. Absolutely - we need our processes to never impede on an indigenous community's right to fish in their own land. But the movie recognized that they had been fishing for years and implied they had a sustainable fishing practice. A lot of current literature suggests that adopting indigenous tradition ecological knowledge will enable us to sustainably harvest what we need. I definitely feel the obligation to eat less fish, but i dont think there was adequate appreciation for how we can learn more about sustainable practices and apply them to our own supply chains.


LARPer spotted


where's that?


File: 1617912001727.jpg (672.25 KB, 1920x2560, cdeb2a19ddbc217ecc75a11a97….jpg)

First of all, the tragedy of the commons has been totally disputed by Elenor Ostram.
Secondly, anon, it's not a tragedy of the commons it's a tragedy of the mechanisms of capital. It's private ownership doing this not common ownership.

Thirdly, this is for everyone, why do we think a communist mode of production would change this in anyway? You simply aren't going to be able to feed people in the modern world on a meat diet of any kind. Maybe on occasion, but, obviously, most of the world will need to move towards a plant-based diet. It's not just a mechanism of capital in this case. You could have a rational planned economy that does not see fishing to feed people as irrational. You are still going to have a level of demand that our ecosystem cannot sustain on even under a communist mode of production.


>Just finished watching this and I think it does a decent job at blaming global capital on the destruction of fish and marine populations
I thought it was really good and enjoyed it. I think it did make it really obvious that it was capitalism at fault, without saying it, and then pushing people to individual consumer choices like veganism. I don't agree that it did a decent job and I don't think I would come to the conclusion that capital is to blame if I didn't already think that.

heres a good article
>While remembering, at the same time, that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Meaning: the burden should not be entirely on the consumer. We will return to this, too.[…]

>[…]The film explains that if not for this slavery, most of these boats would not be economic. They have to “find a way to fish for cheap”… “to catch fewer fish”. We’ve talked about trauma porn, and the representation issue already. But the cherry on top is this: the film stops short of making the crucial link. That the reason why this is the case, to begin with… is capitalism. The cheap-ness of fish, and cheap-ness of labour. It’s a systemic issue, that needs structural fixes.


The part about labelling was good. I would have tied it to "organic" as a lifestyle brand licensing program and the petroleum industry. They could have done a lot more about government subsidies as well. Essentially the petroleum industry owns the pharmaceutical and chemistry industries and during WWII the states employed them to industrialize calorie production for the war effort. RJ Reynolds, DuPont, Phillip Morris, IG Farben, J&J, Pfizer, General Mills, Kellogs, Kraft. These brands have created an ecosystem of corn, sugar, and petroleum byproducts that would usually be trash infused with addictive substances and artificial flavors and passed off as food. Think Kraft government "cheese" and GI Tang orange juice, and of course coca cola. The whole reason the west has such poor nutrient deficient diets its because we are still running the economy on war subsidies. Its much easier to sustain a workforce when you feed them byproducts of already ongoing processes. Its much more expensive to provide healthy nutritional food. The meat/dairy/corn/fish industries run at a loss propped up by the same third world extracted profits as the rest of the empire. Its literally an industrial death machine and obviously not sustainable.


>It's private ownership doing this not common ownership.
See >>158925 and don't be naive. The Anthropocene extinction event didn't begin with capitalism and it likely won't end with it.


to be honest I don't think anyone's ever had a system of shared collective ownership and common care for the oceans, most of the time people rather seemed to assume the ocean was limitless and depthless, whereas they had a much better understanding of how limited their land space was.


the oceans have more or less been the property of a few nations and corporations because the cost of seaworthy ships, registration, the price of courses to get certifications, ect ect are all too high for most people to pay. its theoretically free for anyone but in practice there is so much prerequisite shit you need to get into it that it is inaccessible to most people.


I mean in pre-capitalist days too. Most people didn't really seem to ask much about how much resources the ocean could provide until relatively recently, whereas land use has always been tight with an understanding of exhaustibility


well tbh the relative scale of the ocean meant that most all ocean creatures wouldn't face extinction under sustained hunting until the population boom that came with industrial capitalism


File: 1617943741032.png (4.06 MB, 1866x1861, ClipboardImage.png)

>Less fish
<More shrimp
I'll take the Po' Boy, the Jumbo fried shrimp with spicy Cajun remoulade and some red beans and rice on the side, please.


File: 1617949617684.jpg (150.01 KB, 487x500, 842866d317f14affbc71eabadd….jpg)

Yes it did. Up until the industrial revolution the human population was under 1 billion people. It was after the industrial revolution and the mechanisms of capital constantly churning for profits that you see the global revolutionary nature of capitalism drive the human population (and the amount of fish among other animals we consume) up and up and up until we are at a critical mass with no brakes like today. Just going "nu uh read da book" is not actually a solid or valid argument. It's just a cheap appeal to authority.


pirates are environmentalists par excellence.


> It's just a cheap appeal to authority.
versus your enlightened appeal to *checks notes*
a netflix documentary


File: 1617951417522.png (158.95 KB, 299x322, 1584680057890.png)

I'm not appealing to the documentary you fucking retard. I am appealing to basic history. Crack open a *checks notes* text book, or, go back to twitter you lame ass faggot, kill yourself.


Ok reddit.


>Secondly, anon, it's not a tragedy of the commons it's a tragedy of the mechanisms of capital. It's private ownership doing this not common ownership.

You misunderstand the point of 'the tragedy of the commons', it's an argument against private ownership of common resources not against collective ownership. If the seas were collectively owned by mankind or by a socialist government there would be mechanisms in place to prevent overexploitation.


>Ok X


The tragedy of the commons was crafted as an argument by Austrian Economists in order to justify market fundamentalism. This is revisionist. Stop bending over backwards to try and appear right (on an anonymous imageboard of all places lol) and just accept being wrong. It makes life much easier.


>>Ok X
Ok "go back to twitter"fag.


File: 1617951917930.jpg (259.94 KB, 475x462, 1584685610096.jpg)

>He called me a mean name when he made a point so now I am gonna tweet about it ):< leftypol is CANCELED.

I can call you names while making valid point and my argument can still be logically consistent. You cannot, however, just call me a name and have validity to your argument. You are either a total fucking moron, or, a troll.

Can you stupidpol retards at least lurk a little bit before you start babbling like retards?


>Like Lloyd and Thomas Malthus before him, Hardin was primarily interested in the problem of human population growth. But in his essay, he also focused on the use of larger (though finite) resources such as the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, as well as pointing out the "negative commons" of pollution (i.e., instead of dealing with the deliberate privatization of a positive resource, a "negative commons" deals with the deliberate commonization of a negative cost, pollution).

>As a metaphor, the tragedy of the commons should not be taken too literally. The "tragedy" is not in the word's conventional or theatric sense, nor a condemnation of the processes that lead to it. Similarly, Hardin's use of "commons" has frequently been misunderstood, leading him to later remark that he should have titled his work "The Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons"


Reading this thread i think we should really make a /REDpill/ movie list targeting apolitical/lib people, starting small and then going deeper and deeper.


Sure, but, A: That is neither here nore there and B: That is not how it is used today. This is just a semantical argument, though, I do ceed that the original writer did not, apparently, intend it to be used as an argument against collectivism, but, commonly that is how it is made and has been spun specifically by austirans. At any rate, it is an issue of privatization.


>don't read the book about the history of the sea, read… a history book!


That's a lot of text over getting called a redditor lmao


File: 1617953486921.jpg (206.15 KB, 750x720, 1617721417400.jpg)

That's a little bit of text for such a massive faggot.


Fuck yes. Get some prolekult in there


>It's private ownership doing this not common ownership
It's not about common ownership, it's about no ownership.

In a socialist system, the ocean's resources would be intelligently managed. Fish populations would be monitored and allowed to replenish after periods of heavy harvesting.

The tragedy of the commons is not about collective ownership, it's about nobody feeling as though the resource in question needs to be managed at all.


>I'm sure people will not start calling anything environmental related ecofascist like some Bloomberg scrubs


File: 1618319425795.png (419.8 KB, 517x469, Screenshot_1.png)

only /leftypol/ could derail a thread about aquatic life this hard

Unique IPs: 25

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]