The value of a shark

According to a study published in Oryx: The International Journal of Conservation, titled 'The global economic value of shark ecotourism: Implications for conservation', a dead shark in the Galápagos is worth just $200 to a local fisherman. In contrast, the same shark, alive and contributing to the region’s biodiversity, can generate up to $5.4 million over its lifetime through ecotourism.

At first glance, this seems like a simple economic decision. The shark’s value is much greater alive than dead. But when you dig deeper, the issue becomes more complex. It’s not just about dollars and cents. It’s about how we think about the value of nature, and how that ties into our ethical responsibility.

The Economics

From a purely financial standpoint, the choice is obvious. A live shark supports ecotourism, which creates jobs, income, and long-term benefits for the local economy. A dead shark only offers a one-time profit, disappearing once it's caught.

But this isn’t just about numbers. It’s about long-term sustainability. Killing a shark removes the possibility of future profits, and it harms the delicate ecosystem it supports. The shark is not just a commodity to be traded, it’s a key part of the natural world that provides ongoing value. Once it's gone, the benefits go with it.

This isn’t a temporary problem; it’s a generational one. The true value of a shark comes from its ongoing existence in the ocean, where it helps maintain a healthy ecosystem and a thriving local economy. It’s a deeper value than a quick financial transaction. It’s about thinking beyond the present and investing in the future.

The Philosophical Perspective

Let’s bring in a bit of philosophy.

When we consider the philosophy of Arne Næss, the father of deep ecology, the question of the shark’s value extends beyond simple economic metrics. Næss argued that nature is not something we use for our benefit, but rather something with its own intrinsic worth, deserving respect and preservation. He emphasized that all living beings are part of an interconnected web, and by protecting the shark, we protect the entire ecosystem, which in turn supports human life. Næss’s perspective urges us to see the shark not as a commodity, but as a vital part of the natural world, with value that transcends monetary gain.

Similarly, Baruch Spinoza’s philosophy reinforces this understanding. Spinoza believed that everything in nature is interconnected and governed by rational principles. In his view, the well-being of nature, including every creature, is tied to the well-being of the whole system. To harm the shark, for short-term profit, is to disturb the balance and rationality of the entire ecological system. Spinoza would argue that the ethical choice is to preserve the shark, as doing so respects the natural order and the harmony that sustains all life.

Utilitarianism, the idea that we should act in ways that produce the greatest good for the greatest number, helps us understand the broader implications of our choices. This perspective cannot ignore the broader, longer-term consequences. Protecting sharks is not just about the short-term profits or losses; it’s about making choices that ensure a thriving future for all life on Earth.

From a utilitarian perspective, killing sharks for short-term profit doesn't maximize the well-being of the broader community. Yes, the fisherman or business owner may benefit, but the long-term harm outweighs the immediate reward. Protecting sharks maximizes the good for all: local communities, tourists, and the ecosystems that sustain both.

Utilitarianism isn’t just about economics. It’s about considering the far-reaching effects of our actions. When we choose to protect sharks, we’re not just thinking about today, we’re thinking about tomorrow. We’re making a choice that benefits everyone, not just a few.

The Ethics of Animal Rights

Next, let’s consider the moral aspect. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Peter Singer argue that we have a moral responsibility to treat animals with respect. Kant’s categorical imperative tells us to treat beings as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. If we kill sharks for profit, we reduce them to commodities. We don’t respect their role in the ecosystem, their intrinsic value.

The argument here is simple: When we harm or exploit animals for short-term gain, we undermine not only the animals' dignity but our own humanity. If we want to live in a world where all beings are treated with respect, we must value them for their role in the world, not just their economic worth.

Peter Singer’s modern take on animal rights makes it clear: we have an ethical duty to give equal consideration to the suffering and well-being of all animals. Killing a shark for a quick dollar is more than economically inefficient, it’s ethically indefensible. It’s not just about saving sharks; it’s about making ethical decisions that align with our values.

Reframing Our Values

The true value of a shark is hard to quantify in simple economic terms. Yes, the numbers tell us one story, but the value of a shark, and the value of nature as a whole, goes far beyond the immediate return.

When we think about the natural world, we must shift our perspective. Nature isn’t a commodity to be exploited. It’s a system that sustains us. The decisions we make today will echo in the future, and the value we place on animals, ecosystems, and sustainability is a direct reflection of how we want to live in the world.

Philosophers like Aldo Leopold, father of the land ethic, remind us that we are part of a larger ecological community. We have a responsibility to protect the integrity of that community, not just for our benefit, but for the benefit of future generations.

When we protect sharks, we protect ecosystems. When we protect ecosystems, we protect ourselves.

The value of a shark isn’t just measured in what it brings in today. It’s about understanding its long-term importance in the web of life. Protecting sharks isn’t just an economic choice, it’s a moral one. It’s about ensuring that we make decisions today that lead to a better tomorrow.

In the end, it’s not about the financial value of a single shark. It’s about the broader, long-term prosperity of ecosystems, communities, and our shared future. The choice is simple: we can sacrifice the future for short-term gain, or we can invest in a world where both humans and sharks can thrive.

Choosing to protect sharks isn’t just about saving them, it’s about saving us.


Gallagher, A. & Hammerschlag, N. (2011) Global shark currency: the distribution, frequency and economic value of shark ecotourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 1, 1–6.

Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Barnes-Mauthe, M., Al-Abdulrazzak, D., Navarro-Holm, E., & Sumaila, U.R. (2013). Global economic value of shark ecotourism: implications for conservation. Oryx, 47(3), 381-388. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312001874.

Oryx, The global economic value of shark ecotourism: Implications for conservation, Cambridge University Press, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/oryx/article/DF79E85184E9EEA051BFA8B232835352