The Ocean Reader: Theory, Culture, Politics

Eric Paul Roorda’s introduction from “The Ocean Reader: Theory, Culture, Politics” provides further explanation of the idea of boundaries and human’s impact on nature. Roorda explains how while each ocean of the world is different in terms of depth, temperature, etc., they are all interconnected. He says how each of the Seven Seas shares the same currents and H2O molecules, technically meaning there is one large ocean. This brought me back to the idea of boundaries and what they really mean. A boundary marks the limit of an area, meaning the boundaries of each sea are just separating a specific spot of this one big ocean. These boundaries do depend on environmental factors of the seas themselves but have been created by human beings. Humans are the ones who have decided where the seas should be separated and why that decision was made. This relates to the idea that everything on our planet is created by mankind. While people did not decide what nature looks like and how it acts, they have decided where the boundaries of nature exist.

Humans have also decided where the boundaries of how we interact with the ocean are. There has been a long fear of the ocean due to how much of it is undiscovered. As explained in the reading, humans have not yet colonized the ocean. Humans might not live in the water yet but have found ways to live with it. The creation of watersports such as surfing, jet skiing, and paddleboarding allows people to break the boundary between land and the ocean. People are able to use the ocean for entertainment and exercise and live in harmony with the ocean that was so often feared in the past. I am interested to see how the future will change these boundaries with the ocean. Through further exploration and discovery, the ocean could hold an even larger role in human life.

The Ocean as a Place

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?