There's no shortage of reasons it would really suck if present trends continued and the world's oceans stopped supporting a robust fish population.
For one, it would deal a devastating blow to human nutrition and cuisine. The sea provides us with high-quality protein and many other valuable nutrients. Poof? Gone? (Don't be smug, vegans. Fish emulsion -- ground-up fish -- is a common and valuable input for organic vegetable farming.)
As for cuisine, can anyone really bear to contemplate Southeast Asian food without fish? Then there's Italian. No spaghetti alle vongole (clams)? Or that immortal Sicilian dish, pasta con sarde (sardines)? What, the southern French won't get to make bouillabaisse, the Basques will be robbed of their cod, the coastal Mexicans can no longer do hauchinango al mojo de ajo (garlic-crusted red snapper)? What will become of Vera Cruz? Of New Orleans?
No. This is wholly unacceptable. It won't do. Such a world does not interest me. Present trends must not continue; they must end immediately.
Thank God, Worldwatch Institute has come out with a plan promising a way out of this abyss.
Happily, Worldwatch isn't ordering us to immediately stop consuming seafood (though if that were the only way to preserve the oceans' long-term status as a food source, I'd be on board).
The report claims that through smarter fishing and careful stewardship, active human intervention can restore the health of the sea and its precious creatures. What we have here is what the economists call a colossal "market failure"; what's needed is swift, draconian, and concerted government action, backed by enlightened consumer choice.
According to Worldwatch, the report shows that "that being a more deliberate seafood eater doesn't mean a spartan existence; in fact, it could be the only guarantee that fresh and healthy fish continues to appear on our tables."
Like the guy says at the end of The Sun Also Rises, "Isn't it pretty to think so?"
James Bond calls for more marine protected areas
Where the Sahara meets the Atlantic
Comments
View as Flat
Pandu Posted 5:13 am
07 Nov 2006
I'd rather that fish were not killed to grow my vegetables. I prefer my fish alive.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 5:50 am
07 Nov 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:21 pm
07 Nov 2006
First off, while I respect everyone's taste I not only can envision, but I love a world without seafood, in which my culinary palate reaches the highest heights every day without having to leave a trail of destruction in its wake
While there are no doubt some examples of "sustainable" seafood it is stil one of the most energy-intensive products (deep-sea fish is equivalent in energy to industrial beef) and marine ecosystems invariably get harmed and marine mammals and other creatures killed in the process- in addition, certification is still sketchy at best
So while people are free to eat what they want don't fool yourself into thinking that seafood can be free of serious ecological harm- and it never will be
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
epskionline Posted 3:20 pm
07 Nov 2006
Seeing as how we don't need to eat fish (despite their many health benefits, regardless of mercury contamination), it seems to me quitting fish is a good idea. Get those Omega 3's from canola, walnuts, flax seed, or even supplements. I looked up NuTru's Omega 3 supplement, and one of those pills, while expensive, is way cheaper than fish flesh.
"The choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both." -- Tom Regan
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:55 pm
07 Nov 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:30 pm
07 Nov 2006
In a nostalgia-for-Camelot kind of way, it is important to give testimony to cuisine experiences that may soon pass away. Of course that is a less important consideration than the practical and unaesthetic one, that seafood is a major source of nutrition for a large part of humanity. Still, aesthetics should never be neglected or undervalued.
In fact, I almost never eat seafood anymore. Thanks, Sarah, for mentioning the Monterey Bay Aquarium's little guide. We have a copy, stuck to our refrigerator with a magnet that looks like a white duck, but I cannot remember the last time I referred to it.
Nevertheless, I have many fond memories of eating seafood: tuna in various forms, salmon, swordfish, my grandmother's anchovy pizza, crabcake, the kalamarakia at a Greek restaurant that we like ... It is probably fair to say that the meals that have given me the greatest pleasure, based on exquisite taste alone, have involved fish.
And yet, curiously, all that is now gone. Not because of any principle that I have adopted, but rather, more mysteriously, at this stage of my life the fish seem not to swim onto my table.
Just as well, though, in view of this discouraging report.
Thanks, Epskionline, for the recommendation of NuTru's Omega 3 supplement. Apparently, from what you write, it is made from vegetable sources, not from fish, no?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Jones Posted 12:12 am
08 Nov 2006
I'm not apologising for the status quo. It's a major problem. But the answer, as for most things, isn't just to avoid it. And I don't mean just because the problem isn't going away (which it's not); I mean I think that things--everything--are better seen as opportunities than crises. Just because the methods we use are unsustainable today, doesn't mean they can't be tomorrow.
Of course you can make an ethical decision not to eat fish today, if you perceive your presence in the market to be more a part of the problem than the solution. But I personally think that a solution is both necessary and good, so I won't be turning my back on fish... In other words, I seem to agree completely with the flesh and flavour of this report.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:23 am
08 Nov 2006
And remember, food is what tethers us to the earth and the sea. By appealing to people's senses, we might convince more to care about eco issues than we do by appealing to their sense of duty.
Permalink