The Omnipiscis Manifesto

A manifesto for 

The Omnipiscis Theory of Fundamental Existence, 

which states that all known things are fish.

I. Introduction.

The Omnipiscis Theory of Fundamental Existence states that all known things, including matter, concepts, and beliefs, are fish. Our world is currently facing a major crisis: only few people are enlightened by the knowledge of Omnipiscis. Oftentimes, people waste time talking about unnecessary, insignificant things, such as financial security, career life, health, and family. We must stop this. There are countless topics that clearly matter much more than these, such as this theory.

Allow me to explain.

II. Why the Conventional Definition of “Fish” is Flawed.

Firstly, what even is a fish? The Oxford Dictionary defines “fish” as “a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water”. However, this definition desperately needs a revision; nearly all of the mentioned characteristics have either exceptions or rather interesting special cases.

“a limbless”: It is almost certain that fish have had limbs. Examples are several extinct sarcopterygian species phylogenetically located approximately at the link between fish and tetrapods. Perhaps the most notable of these is the Tiktaalik, which had elbows and primitive wrists, though it is debatable whether or not those count as actual limbs. As evolutionary research continues, however, scientists are becoming increasingly certain that species more apomorphic than the Tiktaalik had legitimate tetrapod-like limbs, while not being tetrapods themselves. Aside from these fish, there are also several modern species that have limb-like body parts, such as the lungfish and gurnards. 

“cold-blooded”: “Cold-bloodedness”, or ectothermy, is also not a defining characteristic of fish. Many fast-moving pelagic fish are mesothermic and can conserve heat using countercurrent heat exchange in their blood vessels. Additionally, the Opah is a fully endothermic, or “warm-blooded”, fish.

“vertebrate animal”: Species like the Hagfish have no vertebral column, but only a notochord. Though they are still vertebrates, the average person may not classify them as one.

“with gills”: It is a fact that all fish have gills. However, the lungfish also have lungs, allowing them to live out of the water for up to a year. This is true for the Polypteridae as well.

“and fins”: There are fish that lack fins. One example is the hagfish.

“and living wholly in water”: Multiple species of fish do not live wholly in water. The mudskipper spends up to 90 percent of its time on land; it lives nearly wholly on land.

The conventional modern definition of “fish” is questionable. In many cases, it can be vague, and in certain cases, it is completely incorrect. This word even has a confusing history. According to Oxford Languages, “fish” comes from the Old English word “fisc”, a noun denoting any animal that lives exclusively in water. This history has led to people naming multiple species “fish”, even if they are not considered to be one by the conventional modern definition. For example, crayfish, shellfish, starfish, jellyfish, and cuttlefish are not fish.  

The confusing modern definition combined with the rather strange history necessitates a reformation for the definition of fish. We desperately need a new definition far more reasonable, far more understandable, and far more glorious. Fortunately, The Omnipiscis Theory of Fundamental Existence provides humankind with such a definition. 

The truth shall now be bestowed upon you, reader: everything, including all known matter, ideas, and concepts, is a fish. Using evidence based on modern cladistics and California state law, I will verify the validity of this claim.

III. Why All Things Included in Vertebrata Are Fish.

Though some may argue that “fish” is a paraphyletic group that excludes tetrapods, all tetrapods are cladistically included in fish; that is where their ultimate ancestry lies. After all, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that “all tetrapods are essentially limbed fish”. We must remember that, phylogenetically, tetrapods are closest to the members of Sarcopterygii, meaning they must be included in that class. One cannot include all the other members of Sarcopterygii in a clade, but exclude only the tetrapods; that would break the rules of cladistics.

According to Clint Laidlaw, a biologist and professor with a Ph.D. in Biology Education and Master’s degree in Evolutionary Ecology, “crocodilians are more closely related to birds than they are to any other living group of reptiles. You can’t make a reptile group with crocodilians, lizards, snakes, and turtles without including the birds.” Laidlaw correctly demonstrates the flaw of the non-cladistic approach to taxonomy. To include crocodilians, lizards, snakes, and turtles in “reptiles” but exclude birds only would be like including one’s mother, father, children, and cousins in “family” but excluding one brother only. Though Laidlaw is not specifically talking about fish, the concept remains the same and can absolutely be applied to support my claim. 

All tetrapods are fish. Vertebrata entirely consists of tetrapods and other fish. I have now established that anything included in Vertebrata is a fish.

IV. Why All Things Not Included in Vertebrata Are Fish.

According to the California Fish and Game Code §45, a fish is defined as a “fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those”. Our term of interest here is “invertebrate”. How would we define it? “Invertebrate” is taxonomically insignificant. It is not a clade, but a forced conglomeration of over 30 animal phyla, excluding Chordata. There are several invertebrate clades that are more closely related to vertebrates than other invertebrates. “Invertebrata” is paraphyletic. An improved definition of “invertebrate” would be anything that does not develop nor possess a vertebral column. This definition is superior because it comes from logic and the direct meaning of the word, rather than being a jumble of multiple phyla like it has been traditionally.

According to Zakqary Roy, an ichthyologist and native species specialist who has studied fishery science at Rutgers University with a focus in pathology and disease in fishes, “Bacteria are fish. Plants are fish… …by the California Fish and Game Code, everything in the world is a fish except mammals, birds, and reptiles.”

An invertebrate is anything that does not develop nor possess a vertebral column. That is anything not included in Vertebrata. According to California state law, invertebrates are fish. I have now established that anything not included in Vertebrata is a fish.

V. The Conclusion.

I have now established that anything included in Vertebrata is a fish and anything not included in Vertebrata is a fish. In other words, everything is a fish.

Do you recall when I explained that Clint Laidlaw was not talking about fish, but reptiles? Well, I was incorrect, as reptiles are fish.

What are you using to read this glorious information? Where are you doing it? What are you holding? Wearing? Looking at? Well, the answer to all of those are fish. Are you reading this in a book? A book does not develop nor possess a vertebral column. It is an invertebrate. It is a fish. Are you reading this on a computer? A computer also does not have a vertebral column. It is a fish. Do you exist? You are cladistically a fish. Can you speak English? The English language does not develop nor possess a vertebral column. It is a fish. How are you today? Happy? Sad? Neither happiness nor sadness have a vertebral column.

My dear fish reader, I sincerely hope you can see the potential of this greatness. Everything is a fish. You are a fish. I am a fish. Your dog is a fish. We speak fish, think about fish, believe in fish, and are made of fish. The Earth is a fish. On vacation, you travel to a fish. Everything, from the infinitely expanding universe, to the subatomic quarks it is all made of, to even the beliefs and philosophies people follow, is a fish. All conceivable things are fish.

It does not matter whether or not you choose to accept The Omnipiscis Theory of Fundamental Existence. Ultimately, you will still be a fish and your opinion will still be a fish.