> I'd argue the biggest impact is on... the crab population?
The biggest impact of a lower crab population is a lower crab population. That's tautological, makes no sense, and why the article doesn't mention it. The decline in population already happened.
To be fair, news on the economy gets more clicks than news about falling animal populations. Just another perverse incentive that makes the system the way it is
We just came along and put some faces on paper so we could stop killing each other over whose fishermen get to catch crab. Then we called it capitalism and pretended that our economic systems transcend natural science.
I'd argue the biggest impact is on... the crab population? Guess nobody really cares for those after all. In which case losing them serves us well.