I haven’t watched it but in general the anti-hobby people always focus on the wrong problem. They take the emotional appeal route and like to talk about how taking from the reefs and having a low survivability throughout the chain of custody is the problem. That isn’t the main issue, since people take probably 100’s of 1000’s of times more (and a lot more destructively) from the ocean to eat, which has a 0% survivability. I think of eating animals in the modern era as just as much of an unnecessary indulgence as having them as pets, if not much more so. As far as I know Martin Sheen isn’t a vegetarian and so he and probably many others who worked on this film are intentionally killing a lot more aquatic life than I am. I wonder if he catered fish to his production staff? It’s like saying keeping a dog as a pet is cruel but torturing and eating 1000 dogs during the same time is fine.
The real problem, and the one that is a dilemma for me but never gets focused on, is that our hobby is very resource-intensive and wasteful. The energy expenditure and pollution involved in collection, transport, equipment, salt, etc, and our life support systems with all the associated carbon footprint is the main problem. Add to that the use/waste of a lot of fresh water. All of the major pressures on the natural reefs (temperature, pH, pollution) are exacerbated by our partaking in the hobby vs not. I sometimes wonder how many acres of reef I’ve contributed to destroying over the years to have 160 gallon show tank in my home.
Of course the reasons they don’t focus on that is 1) it’s an intellectual argument rather than an emotional one so it doesn’t resonate with most people, and 2) it could be applied to many other hobbies and indulgences we do but don’t want to acknowledge the destructiveness of.