World Without Fish

“Darwin’s ideas were extremely controversial in 1859. Some people were upset that he did not see nature as kind. Others thought his vision of how humans evolved conflicted with what was written in the Bible. They did not like the idea that he accorded no special mystery to the creation of man, that it was just another animal created by chance experimentation in nature.”

Some of Mark Kurlansky’s ideas in this book are also controversial because of their implications for humanity. The types of changes we’d need to make, our role in the destruction of the planet, and the anxiety that comes from accepting the damage and possible danger to come make people hesitant and reluctant to accept the facts he presents.

“It is important to understand that there are not two worlds: the world of humans and a separate world of plants and animals. There isn’t a ‘natural world’ and a ‘man-made world.’ We all live on the same planet and live in the same natural order.”

Another key idea from the introduction is that human beings do not exist outside of nature. We belong to the same natural order as every other living organism and are equally susceptible to the consequences that come when the balance is upset and self-corrects.

“There are many things that are scary about the idea of evolution reversing itself, but the scariest is that we, the Homo sapiens, are latecomers to the evolution game. In the 500 million years of life on Earth, we only arrived about ten million years ago. So if the chain of life unraveled and evolution went backward, we would not be among the survivors.”

Human beings are not important or significant in the grand scale of the evolutionary timeline. Thus, while human activity may have drastically altered our evolutionary trajectory, we are not necessarily equipped to survive the consequences.

“Fishing was a game of fishermen tricking fish, finding new and better ways to catch fish.”

When Kurlansky discusses the history of fishing, it becomes clear that modern fishing techniques, such as bottom dragging, have caused serious ecological damage and removed much of the joy of fishing. The sense of gamesmanship, ingenuity, and joy that this quote evokes is completely at odds with dragging a massive net along the ocean floor and indiscriminately scooping up everything in its path.

“The Gloucester Daily Times article further asserted that the history of the British fisheries showed that if New England did not ban trawling in its infancy, the trawler owners and the businessmen who made a living off the trawlers would later on become too powerful to stop.”

This pattern emerges throughout the book: once the money being brought in by a particular practice or piece of technology hits a threshold, it becomes impossible to reverse course. While greed and shortsightedness certainly play a role, entire infrastructures rely on the increased catches as well—for example, fish need to be transported, processed, and marketed after they are caught, so drastically reducing the catch would have devastating financial implications for entire communities.

“It was not understood that this species [orange roughy] was not like other fish we had known.”

Overconfidence in our understanding of the natural world is a common component of many of the mistakes Kurlansky outlines throughout World Without Fish. The orange roughy also illustrates how quickly irreversible damage occurs (it was nearly wiped out in just 10 years) and why it is imperative that we approach the delicate complexity of the natural world with respect.

“The truth is: scientists are sometimes wrong and fishermen are sometimes wrong.”

Throughout this chapter, Kurlansky explores the tension between fishermen and scientists regarding the issue of overfishing. While he places blame on both camps, he also highlights that they each have important knowledge and skills to contribute. Given the enormity and complexity of the problem, he stresses that they need to work together to find a solution.

“The only problem was that most fishermen thought of overfishing as something that was done by fishermen in other countries. Even today, most fishermen in the world, no matter where they live, will say that the worst fishing practices are those done by foreigners.”

Politicians frequently blame outsiders when things are going wrong because of their own and their constituents’ xenophobia. Blaming a distant, faceless other (whom the general population may already consider suspect) is easier than being introspective, admitting fault, and taking responsibility.

“But there was a debate in Iceland between those who thought these boats should be kept out of their waters and those who thought Iceland should get a few of their own.”

A common theme in the book is that when traditional fishing methods are replaced with modern ones, ecological disaster follows. The problem is that despite historical evidence and examples from other countries illustrating this pattern, the promise of huge profits is too difficult for most countries to ignore.

“Ralph Mayo, a marine biologist in New England, compared the problem of measuring fish populations to measuring icebergs. It is generally agreed only 10 percent of an iceberg is actually visible above the ocean: the other 90 percent is hidden under the ocean. Mayo called this the ‘perception problem.’ With fish, he said, you ‘see some cod and assume this is the tip of the iceberg. But it could be the whole iceberg.’”

The “perception problem” reflects the “nature’s bounty” myth and the profound unknowability of the ocean. Even though the ocean is vast and largely unexplored, our tendency is to err on the side of abundance because we believe the natural world offers endless resources. As Kurlansky argues, miscalculating “nature’s bounty” has devastating effects.

“To see [that eliminating fishing destroys people’s lives] requires only a glimpse at modern Newfoundland. After the codfish ban in the 1990s, Newfoundland lost its way of life. Not only were the fishermen put out of work, so were the people who processed fish, and the people who marketed fish, and the people who transported fish.”

One aspect that complicates the problem of overfishing is that fishing is central to the culture and economy of many communities. Suddenly removing fishing altogether—like what happened in Newfoundland in the 1990s—has cultural and economic effects that mirror the ecological impact of fish species disappearing on the food chain.

“Along with the environmental loss, Newfoundland lost its culture. Human beings are part of the natural order, so it’s not surprising to find human society follows the same natural laws as biology. Just as species need diversity in order to survive and prosper, it may be that human civilization needs a wide variety of cultures, different ways of life, in order to survive and prosper.”

Kurlansky’s comparison of ecological diversity and cultural diversity shows there is a wide range of perspectives and ways of living within the different contexts, circumstances, and environments humans inhabit. Likewise, while ecological diversity also leads to struggle and conflict between species, different cultures can also come into conflict.

“From the continued preservation of the individuals best fitted for the two sites, two varieties might slowly be formed. These varieties would cross and blend where they met.

—Charles Darwin, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES”

Darwin suggests that biological variation arises when circumstances present different ecological niches to be filled; however, when the two varieties stem from the same species, they are still capable of reproducing. While Darwin is describing species here, Kurlansky prefaces his chapter on four potential solutions to the overfishing problem to underscore the importance of a multifaceted approach—like nature, the problem is complex and cannot be solved with a one-size-fits-all solution.

“Furthermore, overcrowded pens produce such enormous quantities of waste—including chemicals that are sometimes used—that they pollute surrounding waters.”

The irony of solving one ecological issue by creating another makes environmental conservation such a tricky problem to tackle. Ecosystems are delicately balanced, and small changes can easily start a chain reaction that wreaks havoc on that balance.

“It should also be remembered that while the problem is preserving fish, fish farming does nothing to preserve fisheries.”

Because overfishing is an ecological and economic problem, finding effective and satisfactory solutions is difficult. Entire communities depend on fishing not only for their livelihood but also for their sense of purpose, belonging, and culture. While Kurlansky is insistent that fish populations need to be protected immediately, he is also sensitive to the impact banning commercial fishing will have on fishermen and their communities.

“A British government spokesman called the case ‘a major success in the control of overfishing,’ which is probably true from an administrative point of view. From a biological one, this seems less certain.”

It is important to note that a government’s perspective and goals will not always align with biological imperatives (such as reducing overfishing). For politicians who want to be re-elected, optics are often as important as real outcomes. As this example demonstrates, appearances can be more important than meaningful results.

“Other fishermen have turned to gill netting. This is an old fishing technique in which a net is anchored in the sea. Fish swim into the net and get caught in the holes in the mesh, literally grabbed in the gills by the net. The advantage of this is that a fisherman can leave the net at sea and come back for it later, so the fisherman is not using up his days-at-sea time or fuel.”

Gillnetting is wasteful because the unattended nets catch indiscriminately, and this strategy is antithetical to the time-limit regulation intended to help fish populations recuperate. However, because fishermen need money to survive, they will do what they can to catch fish. Gillnetting illustrates how policies often have unintended and unpredictable consequences.

“While fishing is still extremely dangerous, switching from sail to engines was one of the many technological changes that have made fishing a little less risky. Other changes include improved weather forecasting, cell phones, and special suits that keep fishermen warm and afloat in the water if their boat sinks or capsizes.”

Many technological advancements have devastated fish populations and the natural order of the oceans (and beyond); however, they’ve also made fishing less dangerous. Kurlansky points out that solutions to overfishing must balance restrictions and regulations that do not impinge on fishing safety.

“It would be safer for the oceans if oil was transported in smaller ships, but oil companies argue that this would make oil far more expensive.”

Once again, despite the enormous threat to the environment that oil transporters present, money is the bottom line. The idea that smaller ships would make oil more expensive raises important issues of consumer and corporate responsibility: First, nothing stops oil companies from risking the environment to increase profit margins. Consumers (and their elected officials) would have to pressure (i.e., legislate) oil companies to make environmentally sound decisions. Second, if smaller boats result in more expensive oil, consumers can either reduce their reliance on oil or pay higher prices.

“The wildlife came back, the tourists returned, Cape Cod recovered, and the incident was largely forgotten. But 40 years later, scientists at the nearby Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution went into a Cape Cod salt marsh and found that the mud just below the surface still smelled of oil. Fiddler crabs were no longer digging deep holes, instead stopping when they hit the oil layer and then digging sideways. They appeared to be drunk from the oil fumes.”

The consequences of environmental disasters are not always immediately apparent. Nature exists and unfolds on a time scale much longer and slower than human life, but our brief existence biases us toward the present. However, ecosystems are so complex that it is often difficult to predict and understand consequences until years or decades have passed.

“Until the leak [in the Gulf of Mexico] was plugged up on July 15, the well was leaking about two million gallons of oil every day. The exact amount, possibly more or less, is not known, but it was the equivalent of a major oil tanker disaster every day for three months.”

This example demonstrates that as technology and our ambitions improve, so does the scale of destruction. Drilling for oil under the sea poses an incredible risk, but as the more accessible sources of oil run out and our dependency on it remains, accidents become a constant threat.

“Some of the most destructive fishing is done by wealthy countries off the coasts of poor ones.”

Kurlansky emphasizes that money is perhaps the biggest obstacle in combatting overfishing. In poor countries, the immediate need for money outweighs the concern about future ecological problems. The wealthier countries must think long-term rather than take advantage of the desperation of poorer ones.

“To call for the boycott of a sustainable fishery simply because they are catching the same species of fish as other unsustainable fisheries is not only a terrible injustice to the fishermen who went to the trouble and expense—and sometimes danger—to fish correctly but it also makes fishermen feel that there is no incentive to catch fewer fish in a sustainable way.”

Consumers who want to purchase sustainably harvested fish frequently cannot know which fish are “good” and “bad.” This dilemma isn’t which fish species should or shouldn’t be caught but how and where they were caught. Making educated consumer choices is difficult because the information is constantly changing as fish populations recuperate or decline or as more information becomes available.