MeadtheMan

Even though documentaries such as this bemoan the evil of fast fashion, in a way, it's like the fast fashion of documentary?? Let me explain how it's so in three ways.

First, the extremely inane graphics, which eclipse any important messages that they wish to convey. Do all Americans have ADHD with extremely short attention span? Why do you have to cut to sensory-overload visuals every few seconds?! Let the commentaries sink in a little. For example, when you throw things away, there's no such a place as an "away." Let that sink in, with gravitas, because while it's common sense, that realization hasn't drilled into many people's consciousness. Give it some gravity, instead of desperately trying to entertain the audience at every corner. These are uncomfortable, inconvenient truths, they're supposed to make us uncomfortable! And visuals don't have to serve no purpose or distracting or, worse, makes things less understandable. For example, instead of showing images of garbage flooding some cities in a cheap AI manner, why not translate millions of tons into something easier to comprehend - for example, how much that weight is compared to, say, an elephant? How heavy is the packaging compared to the actual food that we consume, or maybe more importantly, how much energy it takes to produce the food compared to that required to produce and break down the packaging?

And the insanely bad computer-generated narrator? Give me an effing break. So cliché and this isn't even an AI-gone-bad documentary.

The second problem is, while the documentary correctly points out that one of the greenwashing methods is to make you believe that consumers are the problem and consumers alone can save the world, some of its concluding messages are contradictory: telling consumers, yes you should have the right to fix your phone, use this paper lid instead of a plastic one, hey look at this totally recyclable shoe, yada yada. Those are important, but unless there's a seismic change in how corporations work and the governments regulate, how we should move away from fossil fuel asap, and how we should consume LESS, of anything, period, things might not move in a way significant enough to prevent a total climate change catastrophe. Maybe, better still, reevaluate our relationships with things, and how much better if that sweet relationship is applied to other human beings instead.

The last problem, as alluded to earlier, is the lack of gravity. Despite the grave challenges suggested in the documentary, there's still an attempt to paint unicorns over things. While we shouldn't be nihilistic, and it's ok to end on an optimistic note, there should be moments in the doc where you really, really emphasize how BIG of a problem this obsession with buying and selling is. Otherwise, the takeaway for some will just be like "oh, will just try a little harder next time, no big deal." It. Is. A. Big. Deal.

This man must be permanently stopped, anywhere in the world. And the donor system must be better regulated since he isn't, and won't be, the only one.

At the risk of sounding like victim blaming, however, sometimes some people can be a little shallow with looks - the most cliché form of beauty propagated endlessly by media - and they can be easily duped by cheap compliments. You could hear them talking how they might feel it's wrong or even disgusting at times, yet they went through with it because they're charmed. After learning what's transpired and that there could be intentional mixed-ups, two of the parents were even relieved that both their children got their DNAs from Mr. B&B whom they've selected from an online menu. I'm sure for them the decision to have a baby was made with utmost gravity, but the way some of them went about it - similar to that of marketplace online shopping - suggests otherwise.

The irony is that we might repeatedly teach our kids "it's the inside that counts," yet when we want to conceive, we might be obsessed with a certain type of beauty. This has to stop. After all, this is NOT the first time that our obsession with blond hair and blue eyes has brought us horrible chaos in the world - one very notable, terrible event that happened in the 20th century needs no reminder...

The understanding of our gut health, as mentioned in the documentary, is gaining traction. So it's great to see ideas and studies being presented as they started rolling in.

However, these experts have to be wary that, since their goal is to inform and convince people of the facts that they've learned, they have to be very, very mindful about the boundaries between what are: i) facts (proven many times over), ii) likely scenarios (as shown by many promising correlations and results, but there are still many questions yet to be answered, and iii) personal hypotheses waiting to be put to test.

For example, when they're talking about bacteria giving us signals - what we should consume or not. I think that belongs to category ii) or iii) - more studies needed? It's terribly confusing, so should we give in to the signals? Nay (like the guy who says he doesn't want to because bread will make him gain weight) or yay (Enders or the guy who eats differently in China, not sure if he thinks it's entirely good or bad though). And speaking of the latter, I happened to live in East Asia and North America, alternatively, for a few years, the exact opposite happened? When I was in one region, I craved for things I couldn't get but was prevalent in another? So, perhaps it's psychological as well? What's the story here, don't throw things around like junk science when you've spent so many years making serious efforts. Some of the experts just spill things out like they're ironclad facts without any caveats (esp. Gilbert). It's self-sabotaging, really.

Then, there's the nutrition angle. I guess most of the experts here are not in this field, and diets are highly contextual... but haven't we established that red meat isn't that good? So for the woman who'd like to try a variety of foods, that's great, but why encouraged her to try pork/potato chip? If the goal is to "live life a little," then that should be said in a different way.

And as other commenters pointed out, it helps, tremendously, to put things in simple terms for the public. But that doesn't mean dumbing ideas down. You can present the general ideas, then go slightly deeper - without relying on inane illustrations - sometimes, most of us can handle the challenge, trust me.

"Hack" is an aggressive term, and it's not just irrelevant here, it may suggest something else entirely (think about hacking bros). So why used it? To make it more click-baity? Also, what happened to these people? Not even a short-term follow-up if they're doing/feeling better/worse? While it's great to have people with a variety of concerns here, but their concerns seem very disparate from one another? Yes yes, I know our gut is connected to our whole body and mind is the message being put forth here, but without a cohesive approach, it seems like they're just a bunch of people who have problems with food, and microbiome shouldn't necessarily be the main entryway for some of them, at least initially.

Lastly, we get it, we shouldn't treat poop as a kind of taboo... but honey, give us some time to get used to that idea? Why show such a long montage of the couple preparing poop? Goodness, we'll get the idea with just a short clip, it doesn't need to be SO literal.