Pirate Fishing
The precious marine resources of some of the world's poorest people are being targeted by industrial-scale pirate fishing operations, to feed the seafood hungry markets of Europe and Asia.
In a special two-part investigation, People and Power sets out to identify and expose some of those involved in the multi-million dollar trade and to look in particular at its consequences for the impoverished West African nation of Sierra Leone.
In part one, reporter Juliana Ruhfus and producer Orlando von Einsiedel take to the seas off Sierra Leone with an NGO, the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), which has been trying to raise awareness about the issue.
In part two of Pirate Fishing, the identity of one of the trawlers is revealed and in a nail biting climax, the captain and crew are confronted with the evidence of their crimes.
Technology recording every boat in the sea would be a start.
To be blunt this planet deserves better and we so called greatest creations are merely over endulged lack of compassion,power hungry,money hungry idiots.The Dinosaurs survived longer than us and it wasn't overpopulation that caused their dying off but a rock slamming into this rock called Earth.It is time we can do something about it but it takes one courageous woman from Aljazera not the BBC as some stated.This is no conspiracy theory but facts absolute facts.Notice it is China who are responsible for the mess on the other side of their world.They don't care about us.Exotic animals are being wiped out while the leaders do nothing accept lie lie somemore and come back after their bowl of shark fin soup otr their piece of whale meat and lets not forget their medicines taken from tigers and for what you may ask? Their penis of course.
This is a crime on all levels if a troller has boxed fish that says from China yet it is caught in the illegal zone.That is fraud and I have no doubt none.The games will continue until someone really gets fed up wiyh the bastards and commit murder.I don't blame any of the people who only want to live with some hope that they can catch fish not exploit it like these sad sacks of **** who destroy their own waters and pay off corrupt officials who only make it worse.When the oceans become unliveable or depleted I will never have any sympathy for those who do this and starve to death I only hope this to happen to all who are greedy scumbags who care nothing,nothing about the world's oceans.It is repulsive to see the fat pig who was one of the agents who is obviously corrupt with his fat pig face while every one else is nothing but starving boneracks.He certainly did not get fat from poverty but greed and repulsive sick crimes against all people of the planet not just this area.Very angry people deserve justice.China is now hated bye me and all who are criminals.
Complete liberal wishy washy nonsense, her tone throughout this documentary is reminiscent of modern british BBC (or the KGBBC as it is now known) liberal leftist brainwashing, does she honestly think these 'locals' are going to manage and farm the fishing in a productive way... its a joke, dont spin this 'older wiser people' notion as people are more aware now and know the score.
Joke who are u kidding?These people have been fishing here for centuries and your remark as KGBBC is idiotic to the point you know nothing accept bs.This is illegal and they are only trying to document the issue.I don't see any gun boats or Coast Guard vessels.Where do u live?How would you feel if this was happening to your people.Don't point the finger and make such stupid remarks because your intelligence borders on ignorance and low class level of the laws
Mostl these pirates are from China and Taiwan, China doesn't only want to steal your fishing rightx but your wealth in land and sea. China is the bully of the Asia
I also wonder whether the "evil" captain and his crew were also victims in this story. Al Jazeera as always likes to paint the world black and white - its programming seems addressed to a rather simple audience. It would be really interesting to learn about the aftermath of this investigation and about the backgrounds of all the involved people. But instead we get this smug "corruption fighting" lady who will of course have her ass out of harm's way as soon as the filming is finished.
Nosferat is clearly in love with his straw man that some dark powers want to forcibly exterminate people and benefit from reducing the population. In reality the opposite is true: it aids the establishment when the poor and dumb multiply without bounds and bicker with each other. Which happens pretty much automatically among the poor and dumb when you leave them alone. External oppression exacerbates things, but is not strictly required for this to happen. Witness what happens when you put too many animals in the same cage.
Whatever utopian theories about technological paradise, pro-social upbringing and lowering everyone's expectations towards a common goal are spun, the reality is that allowing the population to grow is like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline. There was a time in the history of humanity when additional people were needed just to maintain a level of prosperity in the current population. But this is no longer the case, exactly due to the technological advances you praise so much. Today when you create further people, the main result is that you have more to share the pie with, not that the pie grows bigger because of their contributions. Hence unemployment, corruption, social unrest, you name it.
Also, Nosferat, who are you exactly to prescribe for people of developing countries or future generations in general how high their desire to eat fish or drive cars should be? What exactly is your plan for achieving that? Do you think they will give up quality of life after watching Adam Curtis' movies? "Of course, the Earth can support 20 billion people, but you have to eat grass and no travel for you, must be nice to your 100 neighbors, and don't forget to use your genius mind to develop new ways of eating sand (all the while limiting your energy consumption, of course)!" This is some beautiful world you have in your mind...
Last comment.
While I showed few facts, I showed the one's relative to our argument. I only needed a few to prove my point.
I didn't quote unrelated facts and research to make myself sound smart or confuse the argument.
I simply made my point.
Good day to you aswell
Crestryder well said
P.S.
Please choose to refute any of the facts I presented (hint:I labeled them as fact) and please be specific about which ones you refute. Use quotes even.
Please feel free to use an "actual scientific fact" of your own that doesn't come from a fringe nutter or a stone tablet to refute anything I've said. Again please be specific. Use quotes.
And saying i said something I didnt, and then refuting that doesnt count by the way. Let's not confuse the argument again. (It actually has to be something I said about the specific argument.) Again Use quotes.
You presented no facts at all while I did, I showed research, you labeled that a conspiracy theory. I showed more research you labeled that "pseudo fact". I show some more research, even concerning adam curtis, you call me incoherent:) Thanks for that.
In the meantime you presented what? Oh I remember absolutely no proof whatsoever to your arguments, you keep coming with the bullshit of a 12 year old as if I would actually be impressed by it.
Good luck with that , when you present some facts and not some bs that you made up, maybe others will care to read what you write, otherwise I'm out, I have better things to do with my time.
At least you just showed everyone that beside a small personal flame wars and failed trolling attempts, you have nothing to back your words.
Have a nice day.
grrr wish we could edit these things. Disregard the first paragraph from my post below as it was incomplete
DonDon1
the option to edit should be in the lower right hand corner of your post (beside reply). also also try to stay on topic as this doc is not about overpopulation. might i suggest you or one of the others involved in this discussion find a doc concerning overpopulation and move this conversation there. i am not singling you out you were just the last to post.
I dont have that option. Once i've posted my comment I only have like and reply in the lower right. Not sure why. I used to have it available. Ahh well.
I do think overpopulation is related to this doc. However, I will be spinning my wheels commenting further here.
To nosferat.
You are incoherent. Your connections are tenuous and or nonsensical. Just because you can't see the facts that we have presented to you doesnt mean they dont exist. We only presented the definition of "overpopulation and tried to demonstrate to youMany of your so called facts are unproven comments you've quoted from conspiracy theory documentaries or some rock carvings(monuments) as is your research. It's really a waste of my time
To nosferat.
Some of your comments are incoherent. Some of Your connections are tenuous and or nonsensical.
Most of your facts and research seem to come from unproven comments you've quoted from conspiracy theory documentaries or some rock carvings(monuments) . It's really a waste of my time to argue with you because you cant stay on topic.
We only attempted to argue your assertion that overpopulation (by defintion) isnt't a problem today and only this.
This was and where we remain in disagreement with you.
We presented the actual definition of "overpopulation" (fact out of dictionary not off a stone tablet) and how some or all of these things within the defintion are cleary manifest in virtually every region of the globe today. We tried to show you with actual math that exponential population growth(which is occuring now)(fact) cannot be sustained given finite resources no matter how efficient the use and management of those finite resources. (fact) .
Then we also presented some suggestions to resolve this problem and others(again contrary to what you just said). We didn't suggest that these are all the problems facing humanity and its human nature. Only that overpopulation is in fact one of them.
Just because you can't or refuse to see the facts that the rest of us have presented to you doesnt mean they dont exist.
And your argument where you say "Adam Curtis explains that the overpopulation thesis is mainly based on a flawed ideology."
We aren't talking about an "overpopulation thesis" man!!!!! We are talking about actual overpopulation by its defintion and that by its defintion it does exist and is a problem today.
Good to see there are still some investigations that come to a fruitful end !!!
Most enjoyable film - Cheers Vlatko. Whether it changes things in the long-term remains to be seen, but the ordinary folk who rely on fishing for their food and livelihoods need support and protection of the governments and navy. The reporter and official were very brave and without the film crew were unlikely to return alive from the trawler's refrigerated hold.
If the earth was used in a proper way as to not be wasted by feeding few animals for slaughter with many acres of grazing land that could be used for feeding people instead of cattle the earth could grow and feed approx. a consertive 12 times the current world population. The invalid excuse of we need Meat for protien unfortunately blocks the truth of man is frugivorous by nature.
I know I said I wasn't going to comment further, However, I feel compelled to respond once more to Nosferat. Only because some people here may be trying to learn something and they may actually believe some of your argument here. This doesn't sit well with me.
Nosferat you keep saying "You do know that....." followed by (90% of the time) an unproven conspiracy theory or some kind of psuedo-fact.
I mean seriously. When you said "You do know that the main argument of "overpopulation" is that the earth can't sustain realistically more than 500 million people," I swallowed half a popsicle whole and got serious brain freeze when I read this. Where dude did you get this important information resource?
Here are the facts sir:
Definition for overpopulation: Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, environmental deterioration, and the prevalence of famine and disease.
Overpopulation and its inevitable effects are facts based on rudimentary logic/maths and supported observations in nature.
To David Ewar. Thanks David. Contraception and or family planning are very good places to start.
Unfortunately some governments and other groups resist this because they want to maintain or increase their power base, not reduce it.
Simultaneously reducing our populations by having less children, finding and implementing truely green energy alternatives, and better managing our natural resources will reduce the immediate threats to our survival.
If this isn't about fishing for pirates I'm going to be very disappointed! ;)
Its nice to be able to look at corruption up close for a change. And you can bet your ass the navy is in on it.
I'll use you're words here "It sounds so ridiculous and childish that I have to imply a face like "for real man? Are you for real? so you are not kidding, for real now, this is no joke right?"
While I'm going to try not to be as disrespectfull and condescending. Without population management (which is a form of resource management) then all the the other resource management in the world will not be able to sustain an uchecked population growth.
Resources we use:
fresh water, minerals,oil, food, wood etc.
These are finite NATURAL resources. The greater the population, the more that is consumed. Yes we already said we need to implement better management. But management of our population aswell.
If you don't think we need you manage our populations aswell sir, then I don't know what to say to you. But It will inevitibly lead to dwindling resources and conflict for them as well pollution and destruction of our environments( so we can say overpopulation is the cause). In my opinion your argument is incomplete. Being rude and condescending won't change it sir.
This is my last post regarding this doc and its related arguments.
P.S. I still admire your passion and Will to move towards solving the issues.
Good day
Don
I am at a loss, my words get written down, but they do not really get understood, I guess?
No matter how many twists and turns you put on the term, how many variables you add to it, "overpopulation" is "the final solution to the jewish question" only here we are declaring war on the human species. It will always end up in death, may it be by war or famine or other types.
Resource management means that even with these finite resources we can easily extend our deadline at least 200 to possibly even 300 years without any kind of problems even if the population rises to 25-30 Billion people.
In 300 years time, we shall have the technology we need to solve the problem, by that time brighter minds that ourselves will have figured it already out. Our role is not to constantly fix things, our role is to survive till someone comes up with a better solution than killing other human beings in the name of population control.
We do not need to manage the population, only those on the top, most of the population lives in conditions that make Russian gulags look like heaven when compared to them. Yet still we are willing to torture them more, I mean why manage the food we eat,the resources we consume, heck, let us manage the people in countries that barely have enough to live from 1 day to the next.
Much brighter minds than any of us here have already given solutions from the 20'th century onwards, they have figured out that there is no proper solution for now, ergo we as a species need to survive long enough till technology actually catches up. Till we will manage to build houses that levitate or are deep in the ground, till we can create food literally out of nothing and manage to harness the energy and resources that space has to offer.
Unfortunately the elite rather then helping us survive and manage everything with the best possible use, they constantly pounds this overused idea of "overpopulation" something that can easily justify anything from rape, death, torture, you name it. I mean why believe that the problem is with you and your over consumption of food, your type of living that is anything but good for the environment around you, when you can blame it all on some poor bastard 5000 miles away, bomb the shit out of them, then give a nice pat on the back, job done, no more population issues, more for us,less for them.
You do know that the main argument of "overpopulation" is that the earth can't sustain realistically more than 500 million people, you think that if the idea gets heavily implemented, you will be among those 500 mil, or amongst those that will get dumped and burned in a mass grave, never to be seen or heard of again.
I know I said I wasn't going to comment further, However, I feel compelled to respond once more to Nosferat. Only because some people here may be trying to learn something and they may actually believe some of your argument here. This doesn't sit well with me.
Nosferat you keep saying "You do know that....." followed by (90% of the time) an unproven conspiracy theory or some kind of psuedo-fact.
I mean seriously. When you said "You do know that the main argument of "overpopulation" is that the earth can't sustain realistically more than 500 million people," I swallowed half a popsicle whole and got serious brain freeze when I read this. Where dude did you get this important information resource?
Here are the facts sir:
Definition for overpopulation: Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, environmental deterioration, and the prevalence of famine and disease.
Overpopulation and its inevitable effects are facts based on rudimentary logic/maths and supported observations in nature.
To David Ewar. Thanks David. Contraception and or family planning are very good places to start.
Some governments and other groups resist this because they want to maintain or increase their power base, not reduce it.
Wow. Thanks for the laugh.
What happens to the rest of the aquatic life in the seas and oceans when industrialised fishing has decimated the fish/crustacean population to the point of extinction? Has nature employed industrialised spawning and accelerated growth paterns yet to compensate for this?
A probable answer in the future, if this trend continues, is that certain fish would become a rare delicacy and be so expensive that only the super rich could afford to buy it, which, would drive people to catch whats left because of the money it would bring, however, as history shows those fishermen would still remain in poverty while someone else gains all the so called capital and those species become extinct and all you've got is worthless promissory notes as well as dead oceans and dead seas.
You dont need to have wars or extermination etc to reduce the population. People just need to have less children.
Within a couple of generations the population would move in the right direction.
Nosferat while I admire your passion against war I think your arguement has logical flaws. Here's why.
Higher population = higher consumption
This is consumption of everything we consume or use not just food.
Given finite resources, a population simply cannot grow indefinitely and be sustainable. Doesn't matter what species we are talking about.
We do need to impliment better management technologies and solutions, I agree. But we also need to address overpopulation. Otherwise overpopulation itself will justify wars, extermination , social breakdown, among other things.
Higher population in a completely wasteful society that has no regard for nature, or the planet or anyone else beside their own selfish beings? That is kind of obvious that there will be higher consumption.
However given the statistics by Sosa, that calculates the food waste only in the US, not other countries, it gives a somewhat nice number of pounds of food wasted as of this second, from the beginning of the year, the US alone has wasted 62194036964 pounds of food, now how many thousands of people you think can live from that food? A village, a small town, maybe 3 countries in Africa for at least 2 years?
Resource management can solve every single problem, there are giant portions of our land that can be used as fertile lands for crops, or for people to build smart towns that produce nearly no waste at all.
When was the last time you just had to eat fish? If tomorrow fish will not be in your local supermarket, will you die? Obviously not, however you rather have that and thus make other people kill everything in the ocean, than for instance not eat fish for only 2 months in every year.
With the current wasteful society we have, only the food we dump could maintain another 2 Planets with billions of billions of people on them. Or the land that some use, when was the lat time you just had to have 1500 acres of land? EGO, we go again,EGO, when overpopulation theme occurs, somehow I always remember Gollum' "my precious, it's mine all mine mwhahahha" because why should we start consuming less or sharing with others?
I mean to hell with them, let us all invent terms like overpopulation and "thirld world developing countries" that way we dehumanize the population of those countries and can easily justify testing viruses like aids on them, that kills them off, or start making food in those places 10 times more expensive so they can't afford to eat and will starve,leaving us with our conscience clear. I mean "it was either them or us, they had to go so the rest of us can live a better life"
Fully agree. Overpopulation is the biggest issue facing humanity. When the majority of the world's women are empowered to choose contraception the population will fall. However religions and the US elites are waging war on women because they're scared of this happening. There's already too many people and the problem is getting worse. That's why we're calling for a female-managed future - and quickly.
In some corrupt official's pocket I'm sure.
Of the $90,000 (US) fine, I wonder how much, if any, will be used to compensate the local fishermen for their destroyed nets and loss of income.
Read ALL my comments and I have never said the problems we face are not solvable. My point was they are not problems that exist in a vacuum. If population continues to grow unchecked these problems can not be solved by very minimal improvements we have seen so far. Look at the reality of our efforts to make even very small changes such as the Kyoto Treaty or simply controlling starvation in the Sudan. The politics and greed always take us a step back for every step in the right direction. How then can we hope to "take the pressure off" a volatile situation while the population puts pressure on food, health, housing, water and every other resource? The "elite class" is whoever happens to be in power at the moment with some better than others but always having their own outlook on life. If someone has a solution for the fact we all see things from our own experiences I would be interested to hear it. How we would go about reducing population growth in a meaningful way with invoking world wide authoritarian rule is a bigger challenge than any of these other "micro-problems" The only equitable method might be something like the "Children of Men" scenario where a world wide virus wipes out or reduces fertilty rates. I know this sounds like "debbie downer" but I would love to hear a viable alternate scenario.
over consumption, and its tainted at that. bunch mad hatters running around
Over-fishing is not the problem. "Over-population" is. You can never manage micro problems with unlimited human population growth on a finite planet. Now you dont have to watch the doc.
Your welcome.
"Over-population" is a nice term, do you work for I.G. Farben? We have the tech to make food out of thin air if we really want to, if science and not big business conglomerates were to receive serious funding I bet anyone that in 5 years time we could make sand edible and without any side effects for the human body, food problem solved, onto the next problem.
Problem is, big business and grossly overpayed an under educated individuals are in leadership positions. Mass stupidity and greed is more of a problem than too many people wanting to have kids.
Thats why I listed over fishing as a "micro problem". Over population "amps up" pressures and problems in almost any area related to human existence not to mention all other life on earth. Its hard to believe other wise intelligent people "buy in" to corporate conspiracy theories that basically say if it was not for corporate greed we could just solve all our problems with technology. This is an extremely narrow minded approach to the problems we face. I dont doubt ANY level of greed at the corporate level I just dont see any difference in the individual level that says I can have everything I want and all the babies I can physically produce and science will take care of the risk. I have heard all the same arguments for decades about "what Detroit could do if they really wanted to" and never seen any evidence of it. You can put everyone on the planet in a Prius or whatever the next generation green vehicle is and you are still creating the same problems with battery production and the pitiful record of recycling efficiencies. Try to understand that exponential growth problems that can never be kept up with the marginal at best improvements in technology.
Every singe problem you mentioned has had a solution at least 20 years ago. Overpopulation is a nice term, a nice propaganda pamphlet constantly bombarded in the minds of individuals till it drives them completely insane and disconnects them from reality.
Thus allowing the elite class to maintain it's status quo. Why help and give what you have,when you can keep what you have by killing others? Seems legit does it not? I mean let us kill people in the name of preserving the human species instead of investing in not the invention but the implementation of technologies that from the 80's onwards have already solved the aids problem, the cancer problem, housing, and land problems oh and the food problem as well.
This term of overpopulation is overused, the first time I read about it was in history books from the industrial era. Then it was a serious issue and no viable solutions existed in the 17-18'th century. Today to mention overpopulation is like hearing prime ministers and presidents blaming a coup d'etat "global terrorism" and "al qaeda". It sounds so ridiculous and childish that I have to imply a face like "for real man? Are you for real? so you are not kidding, for real now, this is no joke right?"
Still it's much easier to blame overpopulation and thus implying solutions that can easily justify the extermination of millions upon millions of human beings, then for instance blame big business, labeling it a conspiracy theory, so you can even further maintain the same level of ignorance,the same status and giving yourself a pat on the back while millions of others either starve or get butchered in the name of "preserving the species in fright of overpopulation"
Wow dude? All I can say is wow. Wait no, I can say more....You are talking about patching a fundamental problem. There is overpopulation. Period. The more you patch it (support it)artificially to sustain an artificially over blown population the more unstable your house of cards.
It's not just over fishing and food. It pollution, its deforestation, its global warming, etc.
There's one thing you can do to reduce all of these things simultaneously. Reduce the population. We can still implement some improved management technologies. But fundamentally the root problem is overpopulation creating unsustainable burden and demand.
You seem to have a reading problem? Did I just not write that every problem already has a solution that was invented at least 20 years ago?
Let me recheck, oh wait, I did, I did saw a puttycat. Where does your research come from? Goldman Sachs? Shell? General Motors?. Are these the ones that keep constantly bombarding your mind with this corporate bs of overpopulation?
You do know that aids was invented just for that reason right? Africa is going to be the next land mass where the wealthy will start growing genetically modified crops that will yield, you guessed it, oil for our cars. Now if we have the technology to do that, we also have the tech to address hundreds of other problems.
You keep talking about it but you forget that the term "overpopulation" gives me the justification to kill you, I mean you did know that before you started typing right?
The fundamental problem exists only in your mind. Firstly with the tech we have now,we could easily house at lest 20 billion if not even 30 by the estimates of some scientists on our planet. Everyone would have housing,food and their basic needs would be met. But this also means that rich arrogant and narrow minded people will have to let go of their 6'th house in Hawaii and their 8'th Rolls and 10'th Ferrari, and this is something that those in power will never do.
Secondly there is the term of "leveling out" each country started with a giant population boom, then it leveled once it reached a certain technological point. The US or EU does not have such a population boom as it had in past years, China will level itself out in the coming decades and India as well, the population boom is never constant in any place on our Planet.
Thirdly, minor things like not having 12 kids/family should be implemented, and have already been implemented in certain countries, those are not terms of "overpopulation" but terms of "let others enjoy the planet as well, not only you and your offspring"
The actual problem is with the average person, since ,vain and empty material values do not go hand in hand with sharing and caring about others.
I mentioned it before and I shall mention it again, it is much more easy to maintain the status quo of the current state of affairs and start exterminating millions possibly even billions, than change the entire system.
Who told you that the way the world works today is the good way? How do you know? How did you come to the conclusion that the term "overpopulation" that sound more and more like "the final solution to the jewish question" is the only way out?
It takes more effort do change the system, a complete overhaul of things, so I understand that people rather watch other people die in pain than maybe not use a car that is almost as big as a freaking house, or not buy 5 big 50" LCD tv's in their home. I mean the EGO of the average joe always justified torture,murder and rape.
Exactly who is advocating extermination as the solution to over population? Where did you here this? I must be missing something.
As long as greed runs the globe there will always be too many people. As this is being written, there is plenty for everybody...PLENTY!!! But to the oligarchy there will never be enough. As they hold their billions in one hand, they steal the food out of the mouths of babies with the other.
@ZarathustraSpeaks.
The film is not about "over-fishing." It is about robing the precious marine resources from some of the world's poorest people.
Now, why don't you watch the documentary and give us a proper review.
Fair enough, but "robbing" usually involves taking something of value from a person or group for the benefit of another. If that group had all the "marine resources" they wanted(not needed) they would have no reason to "rob" them. As long as population grows unchecked scarce natural resources will be the catalyst for inequity without a revolutionary change in the greed of humans that has been constant from the beginning of time.