I have often observed, as I am sure you have, that people seem to care at least a little bit more when their dog dies than when their pet goldfish dies, even if it has a cool name, like James Pond. In the same vein, I see that there is a lot more attention given to the red meat industry and its environmental impact in documentaries, social media and popular discourse than is given to fish. This is especially true when you look at the availability of red meat and chicken vegetarian alternatives compared to fish alternatives. People in general just seem to care less about fish. They’re distant, small and too dissimilar to humans. This is why I think my question is an important one. Why do we need to save the fishies? If they all die, well, so what?
First of all, I think it is necessary to differentiate my question of ‘why we need to save the fishies’ from ‘why the fishies are in need of saving’. I think it is clear that humanity’s whole “kill all the fish” thing is going quite swimmingly. As a result of pollution and overfishing, the ocean will be without fish by 2048, according to a study by Boris Worm and others. That study is from 2006, and people are still talking about it and its relevance shows that not enough has been done to make it untrue. But what happens when all the fish die? If the results scare you, then you probably should care about saving the fishies.
Quite importantly, people who eat fish or depend on fish for income will suffer majorly. When there are no more animals in the ocean to fish, around 845 million people (almost 1 in 10 people) will face malnutrition. To make it even worse, most of those people will be the poor who cannot afford the luxuries of red meat as a form of protein. Also, all of those who depend on fishing for money, around 700 million people, will all lose their incomes. Starvation is usually a convincing argument but let’s say those people were able to adjust their diets and find new jobs as oceanic supplies steadily diminish. So what else?
If we carry on with our existing behaviour, not only will all the fishies die, but all the phytoplankton in the ocean will disappear. This is due to the significant involvement of fish in their food chain. Phytoplankton are these very small greens things that perform photosynthesis on the surface of the ocean. They ‘breathe in’ carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen, just like trees. They are actually responsible for 50% of the oxygen in our air. So, if they die out, 50% of our oxygen will be gone and be replaced by CO2, which not really a gas we want more of at the moment.
If you’re not convinced of the severity of this particular problem, history provides a nice example. About 250 million years ago, there was a mass extinction event called ‘The Great Dying’ (I know, a very cool name). About 70% of it was caused by the loss of oxygen due to changes in temperature which is comparable to the extinction of phytoplankton. Climate change, then caused by other natural geothermal events, caused global warming which led to a mass extinction. i.e. everyone died. So I’d say these phytoplankton are pretty important. They’re half of what is keeping us alive.
Obviously, if all the fish died then the oceans’ ecosystem will collapse, which seems sad but may not be entirely distressing to you. But it will also lead to the collapse of land ecosystems. Animals that rely on fish for food (known as piscivores) all lose the primary portion of their diet. These include grizzly bears, jaguars, wolves and numerous species of birds. They could possibly go extinct. Ecosystems that surround freshwater bodies like rivers could collapse as well, as they depend significantly on ocean life to support them. Then there are also chain effects. We can’t really predict what knock-on effects will happen, but we can guarantee that they will happen, and they will be detrimental.
So, the term “if fish die, we all die” might not be entirely and directly true. But what will happen is mass malnutrition, exacerbation of climate change, reduction in essential oxygen supplies, and the collapse of land ecosystems. And these are only the effects upon which I’ve elaborated. There are others, like the possibility of it causing worse pollution, more toxins in our water and also more dangerous coastal water activity (due to the loss of coral reefs as protection against large waves and tsunamis).
What this argument is not though, is a targeted dissuasion from eating fish. There are other sustainable solutions. Striving to reduce your carbon footprint and contribution to pollution would help. You could also ensure that you only eat sustainably sourced fish. But be very careful about how happy you are with corporate definitions of sustainability. While the fish may be sustainable, the many large polluting fishing boats and their bycatching may not be. However, cutting fish out of your diet seems like the most effective and efficient solution. So, you make your choice. Just make it quick, we have until 2048.
References:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qvg3zm/this-is-exactly-what-will-happen-after-the-last-fish-in-the-ocean-dies
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/november8/ocean-110806.html
https://greentumble.com/what-would-happen-if-there-were-no-fish-in-the-ocean/
https://guff.com/what-if-all-the-fish-in-the-world-suddenly-vanished