Before modern scientific exploration, the Ocean was seen as an expanse devoid of life. This was a belief that prevailed until the 19th century. This was mainly due to the Ocean being vastly unknown, there was a lot of space left up to humans to create and imagine many things. Because of this perspective, there were also many superstitions and fears when it came to the ocean’s depths. Eventually, scientists experienced modern technology and were able to explore the Ocean and the diversity of life within. When reading Eric Paul Roorda’s text, many things stood out. Still, on exploring the theme of the Ocean being seen as devoid of life, Roorda mentions how the Ocean was seen as inexhaustible which is one of the reasons for our climate crisis. However, this was not why it stood out, it stands out mainly because of the contrast in views. “The fish and marine mammal populations of the Ocean have also seemed unchangeable, inexhaustible, and impervious to the onslaught of the harvesters. But such is not the case.” (p.1) The Ocean has been overexploited for many years since people began to fish and attempt to conquer the Ocean, which led me to the question: If the Ocean was viewed as devoid of life, why was it also seen as unchangeable and inexhaustible? For me at least, they are two very different states. Something inexhaustible to me is everchanging and abundant, so, if people had seen it almost as lifeless, why did they believe it was an everlasting resource for them?