Image Alt

Artifishal, the ethic of a salmon

by Luca Albrisi

The road to extinction is hidden beneath a brilliant surface of good intentions.

“There’s not a right way to do the wrong thing”.
It is one of the final comments by Yvon Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia, within this documentary he produced and strongly wanted.
Artifishal is not just a documentary about the situation of fish farms, which are unquestionably leading to the extinction of wild salmon (and countless other fish species). In reality this documentary is able to question far more profound problems, which often tend to remain below the surface, mainly because they are presented or masked by good intentions.
Salmon then becomes a Trojan horse, whose objective is not a sacrifice in defense of itself but to become an example of the way in which the relationship between man and the animal world, in particular, is being reduced and between man and the natural environment in a broader sense.
I personally believe that the problem can be analyzed by two fundamental points of view.
The first one is ethical, and therefore more theoretical/philosophical, and a then there is a utilitarian point of view, decidedly more practical/economic.
The striking thing, however, is that from both these points of view there seems to be no positive feedback in the way we are currently approaching the problem.

Salmon is one of the most surprising forms of life among all fish, capable of being born in the river, migrating towards the sea with the aim of growing and strengthening and then returning – against the current – to its origin place to reproduce and perpetuate the species.
Furthermore, once dead, it constitutes a surprising nutrient for other forms of life of the sea. In practice a miracle of nature that for centuries has been a fundamental contribution to animals, plants and human beings.
But, as we unfortunately know very well, many of the latter have been used to thinking of nature as a department store from which to take, take and once again take, without relying on a real criterion of necessity.
This attitude has soon brought many species on the road to extinction and among these there is, sadly, even salmon.
To solve this problem, but at the same time continuing to economically exploit both salmon and rivers (via dikes, control units, etc.), men then decided to resort to a technical/scientific intervention.
How?
Through the control and technological modification of ecosystems, that is “producing” salmon through fish farms and nurseries with the purpose of reintroduction into the river as well as, obviously, for consumption purposes.
“Technology, in itself, is undoubtedly something that has allowed us to achieve amazing results in many areas of our lives but when we apply the technology to manipulation and control to ecosystems, often at first we have a successful appearance but then we are moving towards enormous failures” testifies the zoologist Gary Meffe.

And, specifically, the result of these breeding and reintroduction procedures resulted in more than 40% of extinct salmon, while to protect the rest, it was necessary to resort to the “extincion protection act”.
Once again, therefore, I wonder whether it is necessary to arrive at all  of this justifying these actions for the simple purpose of wanting to safeguard salmon production on the one hand and the exploitation of the river environment on the other.
But above all, does it really make sense to conceive a production that has other animals as its subject?
From my personal point of view, this attitude reveals the fundamental problem underlying any environmental (and animalist) issue: man’s attitude in wanting to place himself above other forms of life by claiming the right to exploit the existence of others in ways that go beyond the criteria of necessity and often result in brutality.
Because, on balance, we are talking about an industrialization of living beings.
But the dramatic thing, which we are not aware of, is that this process, even when, even if well-intentioned, is instead leading many species towards extinction.
And when a species becomes extinct, there is no going back.
Specifically, when work began on reproduction in nurseries as a solution to the problem, in fact, very little was known about the ecology of evolution but after a few years it was understood that taking wild fish and exposing them to living nursery conditions changed literally their genetics. Furthermore, reintroducing these “artificial” variations in the natural environment, has caused a genetic contamination of wild species, damaging their genetic heritage forever.
As far we know from evolutionary theories it is not the strongest species to survive but the one most prone to change and one of the peculiarities of the salmon-species is precisely that it has one of the largest genetic variations in nature, because of its adaptability.
But we are reversing this natural process of evolution and instead of favoring differentiation and complexity we are looking for a way of simplification, for pure convenience. All this unfortunately translates into a process of involution that is nothing more than a violence towards life and nature itself.
And so, once again, the desire to satisfy the food, tourism or energy market necessarily contrasts with the preservation of nature and above all with the survival of salmon and many other species.
We are used to thinking that these attitudes of “interference” in the natural environment are typical of the American world and that, in some way, they do not concern us so closely.
But if the problem of nurseries (or tank farms) mainly concerns U.S.A., Canada, Russia, Japan and Korea, Europe is instead facing the problem of net farms on the open sea.
This type of farming – the so-called “Fish Farm” – seemed at first to be the solution for everything, being able to protect wild salmon and, at the same time, allowing the local population to respond to the huge demand, national and international, of salmon production.
But unfortunately the Fish Farms – which have largely gained space in the fjords of Iceland, Norway, Scotland and Ireland – have also proved to be unsustainable. Even in this case, in fact, the attempt to manipulate salmon for production purposes resulted in the generation of complex problems.
On the one hand it was found that the fish inside the farms, being forced in large numbers into nets, have become an extremely easy target for parasites – such as sea lice – which in those environments proliferate undisturbed causing sores, suffering and various diseases in animals.
Furthermore, such a large gathering of fish produces a proportional quantity of excrement that, being not contained in any way, is deposited on the bottom of the fjords destroying the ecosystem and forcing the farmers to move along the coast.
And perpetuating the problem.
But the far more serious thing – at least on an evolutionary level – is that it has been discovered that in Norway from these nets farms there is more salmons escaping each year than the ones born in the wild, in rivers.
The result is that the genetic heritage of Norwegian salmon has been lost forever creating, also in this case, an involution of the native species.
Not to mention disasters like the one that happened recently in Norway that, due to the collapse of a implant, 305 thousand Pacific salmon escape into an area where – in nature – there would only be salmon from the Atlantic causing a literal invasion of an exotic species that entered into competition with the autochthonous one, also bringing diseases and parasites unknown to them.
Everything seems useless then.
Whether the purpose is, as previously mentioned, of moral or utilitarian origin, it seems that every time men try to deal with these questions, nothing good comes out of it. Even the best conservationist goals often result into a negative evolutionary modification.

 

We should then – I believe – take a step back and, as Yvon Chouinard also suggests, stop “trying to control nature instead of working with it”.
I believe a food awareness that really makes us realize what we put in our dishes is what we need. About what it really is and the its route to reach us.
Personally, I decided not to eat meat anymore (and yes, vegetarians do not even eat fish as it also belongs to the animal world) for reasons that are first and foremost ethical – in fact, I don’t find right reducing of a sentient animal being into a simple product – but this is a personal choice that must mature in each of us. But, more generally, I believe we still need an even more profound paradigm shift that puts us in front of radical choices and the decision whether to go in an ethical direction, of coexistence and sustainable profit (under various aspects) or towards a logic of pure consumerist profit.
Because, in my opinion, at the moment it all depends on our being slaves of consumerism. Why do we want to eat salmon – potentially – every day?
And why do we not want to realize that salmon at such a low price necessarily means animal, environmental and sometimes even human exploitation?
As mentioned in the documentary “Everyone wants to save whales” – and I would also add pandas, or turtles or salmon – but unfortunately the bitter reality is that few people really want to change their lifestyle to achieve these goals .
Few people want to give up, at least in part, to the false idea of well-being that has been offered to us in the last century; to the idea that everything – and every life – should be available to us, at any time.
To renounce to mere consumption.
I know it’s not easy, but I think a radical change of mentality is necessary.
We should restart from questioning ourselves and our relationship with the world, reviewing the criteria by which we give an “economic” reading to our relationship with nature and other animals and try to acquire an ethical dimension of coexistence of such relationships.
And we should also try to do it without falling into protectionist attitudes such as “it is up to us who love nature to defend it” because, after all, even this attitude suggests a position of undeserved superiority. The goal should instead be to fight for a respectful co-evolution.
After all, the question should be reduced to “allowing fish to be fish in an environment for fish” because nature knows how to make a fish and the only thing that is required is to let them be what they are without using them excessively.
It is a matter of developing a perspective that knows how to go beyond ourselves and put the needs of those who come after us in first place. And not necessarily our children, our grandchildren or other human beings but the well-being of that ecosystem that was able to generate all living things, including us.
This is why I am convinced that the purpose of modern environmentalism should not be limited to the denunciation of environmental problems and abuses but should rather work on actions aimed at this change of perspective.
And we, the ones who are often outdoor, must be the ones to “look beyond” trying to spread this message.
Of course, disrupting a political-economic system is not easy and it is certainly a very far goal. But it is probably the only way to arrive at a real co-evolution with that nature of which we are a part.
And I am sure that losing this challenge would mean the extinction of innumerable species including, probably, ours.
And to quote Frankie Joe Myers from Yurok Native American, who witnessed the disappearance of salmon from their rivers:
“You must be strong and respectful.
And fight the battles regardless of their difference.
We don’t care if we have the biggest or richest man in the world in front of us.
We have to raise the bar, always. “

Share this Feature