Do you think a movement of conscientious consumers can reverse the rapid depletion of world fish populations?

Whether we, as a planet population, can make a difference and save dwindling fish stocks and repair damaged environments depends on education. Firstly education at the grass-roots coupled with determination to make a difference in the world.

Individuals acting locally while thinking on a global plane (i.e. the 100-Mile Diet Plan) can make a huge difference.

Then we need education at the level of the decision-makers who authorize "clear-cut" (as a parallel to tree-cutting practices) to obtain fish to preserve and sell to everyone else.

Coupled with education efforts, there is a need to stimulate
media resources to re-evaluate methods of publishing news.

Pandering on the local level to promote imported produce and supporting the paid advertising with editorial content is counter-productive.

As others have noted, do we have the will to make decisions and the self-discipline to try those decisions by personal action?

M. E. Sanford

Remember back in the "good old days" of the post WWII era. Everyone had previously thought that no other war was ever going to happen after the Great War, and then bam, a second one comes along and outdoes the first. What immediately followed this second calamity was a boom in consumer spending, and availability of consumer goods. Capitalists believed that in the wake of such atrocities, the world gone mad a second time, it was only appropriate that we begin hoarding as much material belongings as possible so that we can drown ourselves in a sea of miscellaneous crap rather than a sea of despair. The war gave the United States the manufacturing capability to produce massive amounts of goods in very little time. If we were to apply this kind of super-speed mentality, as if we were fighting a war (though I despise it when people say we are in a fight against nature. Sorry, we're just in the way) then the marginalized projects, products, and potential of a sustainable society would be thrust into full swing.
This idea of conscientious consumers is not new, it just has taken on an imperative stimulus. If we, as a global community, are unable to adapt to this shift in the global system (i.e. global warming, disruption of biogeochemical cycles, etc.) then we will be facing resource wars. The developed nations would most likely, despite their charitable streak of the past half century, close themselves off to the rest of the world, maintaining resource based alliances with appropriate countries, and let the rest of the developing world fend for themselves. The death toll by the end of the century might top 500 million, and that might even be modest. I'm not a doomseer, nor am I a cornucopian who seem to think that things will only get better just because it makes them feel warm inside to do so. This planet's resources are finite. It's a closed system. But, we have the technology, the ideas, the money, and the ability to maintain them so that we don't die out in a hundred years, or at least revert the already disparate global community into a Cold War-scape; but this time we might be firing weapons and not just mouths.
I know I didn't talk about fish specifically, but the irresponsibility within the fishing industry, and consumers' own consumptive abandon has gone beyond, "Oh, I didn't know." Twenty years from now, our actions might be looked upon as criminal complacency.

Consumer action is good, but not sufficient. Creating preserves where healthy eco-systems can be maintained, is also necessary. Stopping/limiting pollution and destructive fishing techniques are necessary. And limiting the total fish catch to sustainable limits, is also necessary.

I believe that if a notion of changing fishing regimes comes from 'consumers' making informed choices; then you will get the wonderful backlash - similar to that associated with organic produce. Namely, the big supermarkets will see the potential money-making opportunities, and adapt accordingly. However, as in the case of organic food, supermarkets have consistently forced the producers to sell at lower and lower prices, all the while marking the prices up in stores, to increase their own profit margin. The farmers are forced to slim down their profit margins, while the supermarkets increase theirs. Also, as with organic food, standards will slip. Organic food can now be sold in the EU, with up to eight percent of the product being allowed to come from GM sources, without any labelling. The same will almost certainly will occur with fish stocks as (a) it is realised that there aren't enough sustainable sources to keep up with demand and (b) the checks and balances involved in ensuring all fish sold is from sustainable sources will not be able to check all boats in all fleets (more likely only being able to check a fraction).

In short, consumers will perceive their purchasing of fish from 'sensitively' managed sticks as being the saviour of endangered fish species. The burden of guilt will be removed. But it's not really helping. The only way threats to fish stocks can be protected is if the numbers of fish caught is severely restricted. This will not happen by consumers 'choosing' to eat from 'sustainable' stocks.

Conscious consumerism in itself, in a world packed with people – we are too many, our numbers are much higher than planet Earth can sustain – won’t solve this or any other environmental problem. Also, our society is totally dominated by the idea of consumption, guide by the economical interests of corporations and governments alike. And “people” tend to frame inside this picture as part of it, find it “the natural way the world goes” and so on. Unless radical (and fast) change comes – social, political and economical change – I think we are pretty much doomed.

That is naive, at least given the timeframe. No grand endeavour based on moral-character alone is enough - it needs to be translated into the political structures. After 30++ years being eco-sensitive there is virtually no shelfspace for unbleached paper, tiny corners for organic produce, a little (& growing) space for recycled paper, growing but still small purchase of Fairtrade coffee, etc. Progress? Yes. Overwhelming to overcome the need? Not even close. People are so bombarded by consumerism, are so entrapped by globalizing squeezes on time and job quality, etc and - my take on human nature whatever that is in the swirl of postmodern sentiments - they/we simply don't and can't morally care and keep in sight all the morally needed claims on our time (I haven't mentioned Darfur, AIDS, local or global rights issues, homelessness, etc, let alone tending to one's sick parents or raising children).

The best path is for the morally aware to "get to" the power structures (& that can mean becoming elected as well) and help them see the need. There is hope in that - Canada still remembers the collapsed East Coast fishery. And again my take on human nature - the big Royal "we" will only act when it is clear the threat is real and imminent - the only problem can be if the awarness / educational component ramps up too slowly, then our communal desire for change on this basis, may be too late.

In the end, with any change, we will either learn or not, but that is the path - one that encompasses all dimensions of being human - moral character, awareness and educational component, political translation, and some form of community or support to keep one going.

So I'm all for "movements" - just make sure there are well-rooted.

As highlighted by last week's Science magazine report, world seafood stocks may collapse in our lifetimes if we don't significantly reduce current consumption levels. In Catch of the Day: Choosing Seafood for Healthier Oceans, senior researcher Brian Halweil explores how buyers of seafood—including individual consumers, school cafeterias, supermarket chains, and large food producers—can reverse this trend and preserve the fresh catch of tomorrow.

Cast your vote in our poll, and let us know your thoughts by submitting a comment.