It smells a little like fish in here...

Ever so rarely we, the writers over here at The Mister Speaks (I use writers to refer to myself, the voices in my head, and the ever-present thought of what might I reasonably say without having a heavy metal pot smacked across my head by the Wife), like to take a slightly different approach. You see, it's not all "Your Mom" jokes here. Sure, on occasion some fun is poked in the general direction of a few politicians, but The Mister Speaks is about serious issues, like proper dishwasher loading techniques, and a few jokes here and there shouldn't detract from the importance of these issues. So, tonight, we turn to more heady subjects, like fish.

Now, at about this point, you may be asking, how is fish a heady subject? Well, many people, myself included, enjoy eating fish and other types of seafood. I mean, anyone who has ever enjoyed snacking on a fish taco can tell you what an excellent, even stimulating, experience that can be. So you can imagine my shock and dismay when I saw these reports that ocean fishing may be wiped out within the next 50 years (see stories here, here, and here). Now, there are certainly those around the world who do not enjoy eating fish. And there is definitely a case to be made that those of us (and by this I mean nearly everyone) in the relative opulence of the Western world consumes far too much flesh, be it from land or sea (I must note that this point was raised first by the Wife in a discussion on this topic earlier). But two points seem to me to relatively important here. First, fish, provided they are not farm raised, require no human input of food to thrive. In other words, unlike a cow or pig, there is no one sailing the world's oceans dumping corn overboard to feed the fish. They do quite well on their own, at least until humans come along and either overfish them or destroy the ocean floor through pollution and harmful fishing techniques. Thus, in theory at least, every nation has a vested interest in saving the natural ocean fisheries in the interest of promoting a greater world-wide food supply (it is possible to feed more people on the food fed to a cow to fatten it than it is to feed on the meat of that same cow. More ocean fish = less cows = more corn). More on this in a little bit. A second point can be raised regarding culture. Try to imagine a Japan without sushi (non-farm raised sushi at least) or a Britain without fish and chips (cod, the fish most commonly used, being one of the most threatened species). Sure, both countries have beef. Hell, Japan even treats their cows better than most men are treated by their wife (seriously, beer and massages? Ever tried getting those from your wife?). But both have issues with beef production. Japan lacks enough space to raise extensive herds of cattle (hence the high price of Kobe beef, well, that and the beer). Britain lacks a protection against that nasty tendency many of their cattle possess of contracting mad cow disease. Besides, given the appalling lack of proper denistry that seems to challenge your average Briton, which is the more appropriate diet: tough beef or soft fish?

Now, I said earlier that the nations of the world had a vested interest in preserving the fisheries. Apparently this naive statement of mine developed from a misguided belief that world leaders like to eat. How wrong I was. One of the stories above mentions that warnings about the decline of the cod fishery in the North Sea have been directed at European leaders for quite some time now. Apparently these warnings fell on deaf ears (not entirely surprising given that Germany seems to like participating in wanton destruction while France tends to run at the mere suggestion of confrontation). So, with Europe clearly unwilling to do anything, I turned with hope in my eyes to my own beloved USA. Surely, I thought, we would act upon dire scientific warnings. And then I read this and this. Okay, so apparently when I said "we would act upon dire scientific warnings" I wasn't specific enough. I didn't mean that we would distort or suppress these warnings. Are you kidding me?!? Okay, so these stories don't point directly at research on fisheries, but is it that big of a leap from suppressing studies linking global warming to hurricanes to suppressing data on harm being done to the fisheries? Maybe I'm blowing this out of proportion. Maybe there was good reason to doubt scientific experts who have spent years in their fields. Besides, it's not like anyone in this country would care about a link between global warming and hurricanes, right?

Am I angry when I read things like this? Yes, I am. Am I probably somewhat responsible? Yes, I think I am. I don't recycle, and I rarely think twice about engaging in an American consumer culture that encourages wastefulness while draining resources from lagging regions of the world. Am I hopeful that things will change? No, I'm not. Any administration that responds to record-setting hurricanes by passing an energy bill bloated with kickbacks to oil companies is unlikely to take action on a few measly fish (and I doubt the Democrats would do much better). So, my friends, is anyone up for a trip to Britain and one last round of fish and chips?