When Swordfish Conservation Biologists Eat Swordfish

We are seeing species decline and disappear at everincreasing rates. Environmental problems have become so widespread and emergencies so common that they are no longer perceived as drama. Few news items have the power to grasp our attention and elicit a sense of dismay. Gossip is presented alongside ecologic disaster and stock-market issues compete with nuclear threat and extermination of innocent people. When flipping through news after a long day of work, we may be attracted by the gossip and choose to ignore the disaster. After all, it is someone else’s disaster. We have not caused the problem; we are innocent. But are we? In our work as conservation biologists, we often pretend we are the good guys and problems are created by bad guys elsewhere. Is this a fair representation of reality? Does this take into account all the complexities? It would be fair to acknowledge that we, too, contribute to problems. For instance, the fancy laptop on my desk was made in China, perhaps at high environmental and human costs. Once trashed it may end up being burned by minors in Ghana to retrieve its valuable metal components. We think of ourselves as professionals who are aware of environmental problems and work hard to solve them, but we pay little heed to what we do, buy, and consume. Some of my reputable colleagues drive SUVs to the office every day, possibly where they write about climate change. I know excellent biologists who spend much of their professional lives condemning unsustainable fisheries or reporting high levels of toxic contaminants in marine megafauna, yet when eating at a restaurant they order swordfish or tuna from overfished and declining stocks. At this point their study subjects cease being endangered wildlife and become food. Although most conservation biologists probably behave noticeably better than most uninformed citizens, it is disturbing to see the hypocrisy of avowed conservationists, as if monks advocating poverty were to wear jewelry and expensive silk robes. Some of us have started to realize our current lifestyle is inconsistent with the message we voice. We wonder how we can ever stop contributing to global problems and eventually become part of the solution, at least in the areas we are most passionate and concerned about. Would that imply giving up comfortable life standards? Does that mean never again savoring that melt-in-the-mouth delicious fillet of Mediterranean swordfish, “just because” (apart from being loaded with mercury and PCBs) members of this shrinking population are caught in pelagic driftnets that incidentally kill thousands of cetaceans, sea turtles, and other endangered wildlife? Without question, we would prefer our governments to take care of environmental and ethical issues, rather than having to face difficult choices ourselves. If Mediterranean swordfish comes from unsustainable or illegal fisheries, why don’t they stop those fisheries in the first place? As the eminent conservation biologist and fishery scientist Daniel Pauly put it, “I don’t want to have to check in the morning if my orange juice was pressed by underpaid migrant workers – I just can’t.” In an ideal world, people should elect sensible representatives through the democratic process so that laws and regulations will allow us to make good choices. Being engaged as consumers and bearing the responsibility of making informed decisions is unpleasant and sometimes even impossible, as Pauly notes. Relying on government representatives to wisely choose for us would be optimal. Although it remains to be seen if present-day democracies are the most appropriate framework to nurture sustainability and promote conservation, democratic laws can only be changed or formulated by elected representatives. To empower politicians who may be promoting new values and sustainable lifestyles, voters should first identify their own values and realize that alternative ways do exist (a difficult task, considering our exposure to media that are predominantly market-driven). In addition, politicians must rely on public consensus (or demand) to issue wiser laws. So the burden is back on the individuals who have at least a chance of influencing the decision-making process through their votes and the market through their wallets. The most informed members of our society may also get organized and place emphasis on changing laws and other collective instruments, which are then enforced top-down. Although generally speaking people are unlikely to ever become virtuous unless they are forced to do so, there are growing sectors of modern societies that look for alternative models and seek inspiration from less