[resfirestar]

If the answer is yes, I think the far more important question is how do we stop destroying it. That's where the little "nitpicking" details start to matter.

An even greater conspiracy at work here is one the filmmakers are complicit in: teaching Americans to express their moral outlook through consumer choices. You would have thought they would have learned by now that swearing off fish (or meat, or processed foods) was a meaningless gesture that lets people sleep at night without having to reckon with the fact that even in a "democracy" the average person has zero power to make their voice heard on these issues.

[DennisP]

The film also mentioned that governments are subsidizing the industrial fishing industry. That's an obvious angle of attack that goes beyond consumer choices.

[kiliantics]

I agree with you. There is some mention in the film about regulation and how there would need to be dramatic changes in policy and enforcement but this definitely seemed to be minimised compared with the "eat less fish" recommendation.

However, I think it's really difficult for them to send a message of what we should do for political change. What would they say? It's not like voting has ever caused the kind of substantial, rapid change that is now necessary. Pointing the finger at political parties would have probably hurt their ability to publish the film to get the message out. And they can't go and suggest sabotage of the fishing industry or rioting/revolution, even if those would be the most effective.