The ocean is obviously not "broken". It is a large body of salt water covering the majority of the planet's surface. It still exists as a liquid, therefore it's still an "ocean"
A more useful translation of the title is "The ocean had a lot of artistic meaning to me in the past. A recent trip demonstrated to me that this artistic value is now gone"
Very difficult to get clicks for, sure, but at least with the modified title I can pick it up and know what to do with it.
It's a shame the author had this experience. I too like the birds and water without debris. I wonder, though: is the state of the entire ocean the same as this author indicates? Or might he be using a bit of artistic license and hyperbole to emphasize his loss?
I feel that he's probably stretching things quite a bit for effect, but that's fine. After all, the point is his emoting to us and us understanding his feelings. I was able to feel what he was feeling. Very well done.
The problem here, however, is trying to have some sort of public policy discussion based on what amounts to a poetic interpretation of reality. Just what is the ocean supposed to do? Look pretty? Purify our air? What job do we assign the ocean that it can then fail or succeed at? Do we owe some consideration to a large body of water that we don't to, say, a rock? Or is the ocean's "job" just to keep us alive?
These are subjective questions. Different people can have widely different answers to them. We make a mistake when we jump from a nicely written article about one man's personal loss at his view of the changing state of a large body of salt water and deciding what's right or wrong for everybody else in the world.
So I liked it, but with caution. Many readers will be unable to both appreciate the author's loss and keep in mind the context of these types of works. It all just bleeds together to them.