This number made a strong presence in media – it marked the year that could bring extinction to all marine fish species. Will it happen in 2048, and will it ever happen, nobody knows, but scientist didn’t come up with that number without any reasons. They used calculations and models based on current information. So, if we continue treating our seas this way, maybe we will testify that event 30 years from now. After all, even if the prediction was not correct, the message is clear. Maybe there will still be some fish left in the sea, but if we continue acting this way, renewable fish populations that are still possible to be caught without the fear of overfishing will surely be gone. If you think about the damage caused by the disappearance of only one species important for the ecosystem, try and imagine the seas without all those fish populations, no predators, no prey, without herbivores, without skillful hunters. That would lead not only to the huge loss of food supplies and crash of the fishing industry, but also to violation of already fragile natural balance and water quality. With it, the mortality of other present species would be increased, and algal bloom would occur more often. In other words, it would heavily disrupt our oceans, the place where most of the Earth’s oxygen is produced.
Although the scientific approach to this problem may seem too severe and even exaggerated, bear in mind that many issues which scientists emphasized through the history turned out to be true – but people tend to take action too late, when the problem is already apparent. And everybody knows it’s „better safe than sorry“. In 1912, a scientific article by Francis Molena published in Popular Mechanics predicted the rise of the Earth’s temperature because of carbon dioxide produced by coal consumption, and it said: “The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.” I assume that at that time nobody thought about the potential problem, and why would people bother with the problems that might occur – and probably won’t – and especially the ones that might occur after 100 or 200 years? And now, we are the ones that have a problem predicted more than 100 years ago.
Remember the problem with whaling, hunting of whales for food and oil. A long time ago, there were so many whales in the seas that it seemed they were countless. But years of intensive whaling were followed by the development of fishing designs and equipment – floating factories, electric harpoons, increasing the number of catchers per factory, etc. The moratorium on commercial whaling was imposed in 1986 after decades and decades of overhunting had depleted the populations of many species. In 1986, the problem was present with all its consequences. It could probably be prevented if people acted earlier, but they often don’t think in advance if they have an instant profit. They tend to use resources as much as they can in a given time, forgetting about sustainability and long-term profitability. Thanks to the moratorium on whaling and fight against the poaching, the populations of many whale species have recovered successfully, which shows us how nature can get better once we allow it. Many scientific predictions based on calculations have proven right, but we don’t trust them until it is too late – many people still don’t believe in climate change, although it is clearly already here. And while we still have some time to fix some of its consequences, the current state is still not worrying enough to make strict measures on the global scale – we wait, and we make the same mistake all over again.
I often ask myself what I can do. How can we stop global problems? Billions of people are involved in this matter, fishing is everyday life for millions of us. But we can’t, and we don’t need to change the whole world all of a sudden. Try and change one man’s awareness, and maybe tomorrow he will do it in his environment. Talk to one fisherman and try to understand why he catches small fish, instead of returning it to the sea in order to grow bigger. Only when we understand why someone doesn’t think the way we do, only then we will be able to change their way of thinking.
On average, citizens of the European Union consume 23 kg of fishery products per person per year, of which 24% are aquaculture products. Although a slight aversion to aquaculture products still exists, it usually comes from poorly informed people or the ones still not used to it (because they are, for example, used to freshly caught seafood). Not all fish farms are equally rigorous, which means that not all farmed seafood is of equal quality. But, as you can find poorly farmed fish, with a little bit of informing you can buy farmed fish that differ from wild fish neither by quality nor by taste. Today’s fish farming sets very high standards – every fish individual passes numerous examinations, individuals are classified or eliminated due to their size, shape and physical state, young fish is vaccinated against certain bacteria, which has no impact on humans or environment, and at the same time prevents potential loss of yield and the spread of the disease to the entire cultivated population. Although wild blue fish such as sardines must be hunted to feed farmed fish, which again leads to depletion of natural resources, great effort is being made today to find other, non-fish sources of all the ingredients needed for optimal growth and development of farmed fish.
I think that we can do two things: first, we can at least sometimes replace the wild fish on the plate with the farmed fish. Second, we can begin to care about this problem and try to raise consciousness of our close ones.
When they taught us that sea was endless, they were wrong.
Sea is not endless. We owe it at least those two things. Let’s begin with small steps and, eventually, we will see that we can do more than we think.
This is the second text about overfishing on Ritosaurus. You can find the first part here: http://www.ritosaurus.com/posts/plenty-of-fish-in-the-sea/
Literature
Pingback: Eating fish today? - Ritosaurus