A Moral Fish Story
If you’re like me, your grandfather once made you throw back a fish because it was half an inch too small. I was maybe 6 years old and sad to see the fish go because I didn’t have a lot of other catches to boast about. My grandfather pointed out at the time, we could’ve easily “stretched” the fish, but that would’ve been cheating. Rules are put in place to help us do the right thing and when with my grandfather, rules are followed.
I’d like to share another fish story, in which the “right thing,” is a more complicated matter.
In the 1950s and ‘60s, several oil platforms were erected in the waters of Santa Barbara. This made many people angry as it was a disturbance of the “paradise” image the area was trying to present but there wasn’t much to be done. Environmentalism was just becoming publicly present and the E.P.A. wouldn’t start until late 1970.
Of course, on January 28th, 1969, this story took the turn that you knew it was going to take. Due to improper safety measures, there was an eruption resulting in 1,000 gallons of crude oil per hour being pumped into the water. (A sadly familiar story half a century later.)
As part of the cleanup effort, Santa Barbara residents started G.O.O! (Get Oil Out!) The stated goal of G.O.O! was to not only stop the drilling but also to start forcing the oil companies to take down their platforms, returning Santa Barbra to what it once was. G.O.O! was largely successful due to the international attention the spill had attracted. Most new drilling was halted and what still goes on is being phased out with platforms being decommissioned at the expense of the oil companies.
Now for the fishy part.
In the 1990s, Research Biologist Milton Love received federal funding to study fish populations in the area of the platforms. Overfishing and some anecdotal evidence had caused a scare regarding some species.
Love and his team discovered that the elaborate and extensive framework supporting the oil platforms had been commandeered by various species of rockfish, sea stars, crabs, mussels and several other aquatic creatures. In one specific species, approximately 20% of the Pacific population could be found at just seven platform sites.
Love’s discovery helped lead to a California bill that allowed platforms to be only partially decommissioned. The wells still must be plugged and most of the structure would be taken away, but some could be left for ocean habitat. Drilling stops, the companies don’t have to pay as much to take down their platforms, everyone wins, right? Of course not.
G.O.O! and other groups point out that this bill helps the enemy: the oil industry. Money saved in Santa Barbra is money those companies can spend destroying some other natural environment. Allowing them any leniency sends the wrong message to other companies in other areas. Leaving part of their platforms might help fish, but that’s not why the companies are doing it. They might be doing the right thing, but it’s for the wrong reason.
My response: So?
That’s sort of the point of rules. They trick us into doing the right thing without us thinking about the reason. I would argue that following a rule simply because it’s a rule is bad reasoning. We follow rules because we trust that they have logic behind them and will help to guide society at large. Effective rules help guide us to the right action, whether it’s what to do with oil platforms or what fish to throw back with your grandfather.
