Animal Rights Dummies On Whales Wars

[apeiron]

Personally, I have no love of whaling. But an essential point here is that the minke whale population is large enough that it could be sustainably harvested - according to the standard fishery models by which we fish down other marine stocks. So the argument for international community action rests purely on moral views about the right to kill large marine mammals, not on the idea that the Japanese are endangering a species.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is interesting to me how people's perception of the relative legitimacy of authority influences their moral judgments.

In the US anyone could theoretically "arrest" someone for committing a crime though it is generally frowned upon. Despite popular "literature" which depicts vigilantism most people would probably be put off by strange people in tights and capes acting irresponsibly and recklessly in the name of "justice".

 

[cesiumfrog]

if the Japanese had it their way the whales would become extinct however it's not damning that they fish to some degree because , face it , animals get killed all around the world. Killing anything is wrong , yet it has to be done , whether it's your choice of cows , deers , kangaroos , whales

Kangaroo meat can be obtained just by culling wild populations before they start to die of from starvation, there is understood to be no threat to the ecosystem as a whole and comparatively minimal disturbance or suffering to the individual. Intensive farming of cows here is in a rather different league to that.

Did you know that banishing fishers from reserves, and completely prohibiting certain forms of fishing, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/enric_sala.html"?

Several things are wrong here. First off, the International Whaling Commission has no teeth. Japan does not recognize the legality of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. By the IWC's own rules, Japan is doing nothing wrong.

Regardless of the framework enacted by states, people still have to stand for what they think is right. Perhaps even more so if they know nobody else will. Just a shame they haven't figured out a more effective and peaceful means of accomplishing it.

But really, claiming to whale for "scientific research purposes"?

Personally, I have no love of whaling. But an essential point here is that the minke whale population is large enough that it could be sustainably harvested - according to the standard fishery models by which we fish down other marine stocks. So the argument for international community action rests purely on moral views about the right to kill large marine mammals, not on the idea that the Japanese are endangering a species.

It isn't some ancient cultural tradition for the Japanese to be canning whales down around Antarctica. If the populations were allowed to recover to natural levels, Japan's whalers wouldn't need to venture away from Japan's coastal waters.

I think people underestimate the http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jeremy_jackson.html".

 

[russ_watters]

Example 2. The Japanese whalers are breaking the law by whaling in an established whale sanctuary. The law empowers any group to enforce the law, so a bunch of incompetent hippies follow the boats around and throw stink bombs.

Obviously, one tactic is much more effective. But does that effect the morality of the action? If the Sea Shepard were more competent and more effective, would people's moral feeling be different?

Third, I'm not aware of anything in the law that empowers anyone other than recognized authorities to enforce the law.

Though I say this, I'm not really all that interested in the moral implications here - I just love watching good slapstick comedy.

 

[apeiron]

It isn't some ancient cultural tradition for the Japanese to be canning whales down around Antarctica. If the populations were allowed to recover to natural levels, the Japanese whalers wouldn't need to venture away from Japan's coastal waters.

Where you have differences of opinion, you have to step back to some broader principles that can be agreed.

Which species humans decide to kill and eat (or just kill because killing seems fun) is obviously a local cultural choice.

What is universal is all humans have to kill something to eat (even if it is just lettuces).

What is also universal is that all humans have some longterm interest in the survival of their kind.

So it seems clear that the rational starting point for discussion is that anything can be killed for eating as long as it is overall sustainable. Or even just killed for fun.

Of course I would agree that the oceans are being over-fished and a lot of the fishery sustainability models are very suspect.

If we are talking Antarctic waters, what about the toothfish (so-called Patagonia sea bass)? Which is what marine biologists are actually saying.

The minke get all the attention due to this animal rights grandstanding but are not actually threatened. Whereas the trade in a high priced delicacy continues in New York and Paris with official CAMLR blessing at the moment.

The parallels are all the more striking as the Ross Sea toothfishery is also being done under the banner of exploratory science.

 

[luma]

Killing whales is as atrocious as murdering chimpanzees. We search desperately on other worlds for intelligent life while condemn the other intelligent life on earth. How would we explain our stewardship of the planet to an alien observer? How would we look? Would we be welcome in an intergalactic community based on our behaviour?

Whaling is wrong. Killing dolphins is even more abhorrent. Especially considering that dolphins save human lives. Fisherman in Brazil even cooperatively catch fish with them.

Part of their culture? Part of my culture is hunting Japanese...

 

[rescue]

I really don't understand why the japanese need to kill so many whales ...

Some whale species are endangered so why hunt them? What will they do when whales are extinct and there's nowhere left to hunt them?