“Sustainable” is often treated as a golden standard, the moral high ground in how we interact with the natural world. But when we dig deeper, we have to ask: is it really sustainable, or is it just a slower form of destruction?
Take “sustainable fishing” or “sustainable hunting,” for example. These terms are often touted as responsible solutions, but they’re built on the shifting baseline effect—the idea that we measure the health of ecosystems against already depleted or degraded conditions. We are measuring our impact based on a “new norm”, realized or not, that reflects diminished, degraded, ecosystems and devastated wild populations. When we say something is sustainable, we’re essentially saying, “This ecosystem can survive this level of extraction without collapsing entirely… for now.” But what does that really mean for species and habitats that are already hanging on by a thread?
The truth is, sustainability has often become a way to greenlight extractive behaviors. It frames exploitation as ethical because we’re “not taking too much at once,” all while we continue to diminish populations and ecosystems over time. It’s like saying, “This ecosystem is on life support, but it’s okay as long as we don’t pull the plug entirely.” But is that really the bar we want to set?
True sustainability shouldn’t just mean maintaining what little we have left—it should mean fostering abundance, rebuilding what’s been lost, and creating spaces where ecosystems and species can thrive. Rewilding, habitat restoration, and meaningful protections for biodiversity should be the goals we aim for.
Sure, feeding 8 billion people is a massive challenge, and no one is saying we can stop fishing or farming overnight. The issue is how we’re doing it. Right now, many of our systems prioritize short-term profit over long-term sustainability and regeneration. We’re not just feeding 8 billion people—we’re depleting the very ecosystems we rely on to do so.
Take industrial fishing, for example. It often destroys marine habitats and overexploits fish stocks, leaving less for future generations and destabilizing the ocean’s biodiversity. But we have solutions. One of the most promising is the use of marine exclusion zones—areas where fishing and other extractive activities are completely prohibited. These zones allow fish populations to rebound and ecosystems to recover. Over time, these healthier populations spill over into surrounding areas where fishing is allowed. By fishing only the spillover, we could achieve a truly sustainable system—one that feeds people without degrading the ocean.
This principle doesn’t just apply to oceans. In agriculture, for example, industrial monocropping depletes soil and destroys biodiversity. But we don’t have to rely on that model. Indigenous farming methods like agroforestry and polycultures can increase yields without causing such harm.
We don’t have to choose between feeding people and protecting the planet. What we do have to do is shift our practices. Marine exclusion zones, regenerative farming, and investment in alternative protein sources like bivalve aquaculture or plant-based innovations are just some of the ways we can balance the needs of people and nature. It’s not about saying ‘stop’—it’s about saying, ‘we can do this better.’ Because if we don’t, those same 8 billion people will be left with a planet that can no longer feed anyone.
Support The Wild Life for as little as $1 per month
The Wild Life was created in January of 2017 by, me, Devon Bowker after finishing my degree in wildlife biology. It’s been amazing to see how things have changed over the past 8 years, both personally and here. I have tons of ideas and projects in the works and cannot wait to share them with you. Whether you’re a long-time follower or new to The Wild Life, thank you for being here.
