News Deceptive Japanese Whaling Season Begins

[Mech_Engineer]

Oh it has nothing to do with extinction, just subverting the greater good of the planet for someone's tastebuds.

So it's about hard science until I ask you to present the science, and then it's about the "greater good of the planet"? A claim based in personal feeling and individual interpretation if I'm not mistaken.

 

[DaveC426913]

Unless you count humans... are we not part of the food chain?

It's not about being at the top; it's about being in the top.

I think you mean the opposite of this based on your next sentence.

Thanks. Fixed.

None of this means it is not possible to maintain a stable hunting practice for them. You have a moral/ethical system which is against eating whales for whatever reason; the Japanese do not share this belief system. Who's right?

I'm not talking ethics. I'm talking practicality.

Sustainable hunting practices works great for me.

We're back to the same fallacious assumption- hunting will inevitably cause extinction. Sustainable hunting practices are possible, and farming certain breeds of whale is probably possible as well (although not done right now AFAIK).

Unless I'm out of the loop; hunting is currently leading to extinction unless we do something. Even for whales that are not endangered, the predator argument shows why it is quite a risk that it will.

Again, sustainable hunting works great for me.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well that's clearly not true: if environmentalists want to claim we can "destroy" an ecosystem then we most certainly can control it!

And stepping back from that obvoius logic, it isn't difficult to see that most of our interactions with the natural world are about exerting control over it. Ie: That's unrealistic. Humans have a huge impact on the ecosystem and it is impossible to get around that. So we need to manage (control) what that effect is. In some cases, that means accepting wiping-out entire ecosystems over hundreds of square miles because we have located cities there. In other cases, it means completely changing the ecosystem of millions of square miles to turn it into farmland. We're re-making the ecosystems of the world to meet our needs. Lots of species become extinct, whether because of humans or not. They may or may not have harmful effects on natural ecosystems or the needs of humans. So what I'm saying is that we need to manage (control) our impact on our environment not just to avoid deleterious effects but to go a step further and re-make the natural world to service us. And I know those words will make some vomit on their keyboards, but people can't be naive about this. Being able to manipulate our environment like no other animal can is a big part of what makes us different from other animals and what has allowed us to become what we are today. It's not a flaw in humanity, but an attribute that has played a huge role in enabling our current state of development.

I am in agreement with you on all this. And I know how contentious a stance it is.

My sister is a biologist, and she has taught me the wisdom of sheparding our planet, including managing it to suit our needs. It is naive to think that it is possible anymore to "let nature be".

We save the whales from extinction because we choose to have them around, not because they have rights.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Unless I'm out of the loop; hunting is currently leading to extinction unless we do something. Even for whales that are not endangered, the predator argument shows why it is quite a risk that it will.

So you're under the impression that you're "in the loop"- good. Maybe you can present some scientific evidence that Japanese whaling is currently leading to the extinction of a species of whale that they hunt.

Again, sustainable hunting works great for me.

Me too. Now tell that to the militant "environmentalists" that are attacking Japanese whaling vessels.

 

[DaveC426913]

So you're under the impression that you're "in the loop"- good. Maybe you can present some scientific evidence that Japanese whaling is currently leading to the extinction of a species of whale that they hunt.

It's not whether they are or not; it's whether they are violating laws designed to prevent overhunting.

Me too. Now tell that to the militant "environmentalists" that are attacking Japanese wlaing vessels.

Is it? Sustainable, I mean.

I don't see how it can be determined to be sustainable if it is not being supervised and enforced.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It's not whether they are or not; it's whether they are violating laws designed to prevent overhunting.

From what I understand, they're out there whaling under a loophole in the treaty which allows gathering for "scientific research." A little devious, but not illegal AFAIK.

Is it? Sustainable, I mean.

It is at least in theory. 1 whale a year for the whole year definitely sustainable. 100 whales- probably. 1000 whales- maybe. 10,000 whales- probably not (but might depend on species). There's an optimum somewhere there, it would have to be done based on population studies.

I don't see how it can be determined to be sustainable if it is not being supervised and enforced.

It would take knowing how many whales are being taken, and population studies of the region. Problem is, such a structure doesn't exist because so much of the west finds eating whales taboo due to incessant propaganda on the topic from militant environmentalists.

I'm personally pretty neutral on the matter, although I do think the Japanese should have the right to whale if they want to, at least in some sustainable form.

 

[DaveC426913]

From what I understand, they're out there whaling under a loophole in the treaty which allows gathering for "scientific research." A little devious, but not illegal AFAIK.



It is at least in theory. 1 whale a year for the whole year definitely sustainable. 100 whales- probably. 1000 whales- maybe. 10,000 whales- probably not (but might depend on species). There's an optimum somewhere there, it would have to be done based on population studies.



It would take knowing how many whales are being taken, and population studies of the region. Problem is, such a structure doesn't exist because so much of the west finds eating whales taboo due to incessant propaganda on the topic from militant environmentalists.

I'm personally pretty neutral on the matter, although I do think the Japanese should have the right to whale if they want to, at least in some sustainable form.

I am quite confused by your stance,. It sounds like you believe that, if we see an infraction that might have dangerous consequences, we should err of the side of not enforcing the spirit of the laws until we are sure.

It seems like you're saying police should not ticket a particular speeder until they can demonstrate that he has killed someone.

 

[ThomasT]

It appears, from a cursory 10-minute search, that humpback, fin and minke whales (that have been explicitly mentioned in this thread as being targeted by Japanese whalers) populations are ok (ie., the species' survival isn't immediately threatened) assuming current trends and restrictions. I looked up blue whales because they're the biggest. It isn't clear to me if anybody is targeting blue whales, but their numbers seem inordinately low. Sperm, or, interestingly, Moby Dick whales seem to be doing ok.

While it does seem to be the case that the Japanese are trying to be somewhat deceptive wrt their whaling practices, I want to suppose that they're on top of things enough that they're not going to hunt any particular (or, at least not all) species to extinction.

Is hunting any particular whale species to extinction that important? It seems like it might be, or should be, but I don't know what criteria might be used, other than decidedly emotional ones, to ascertain whether it is or not. For example, how does the oceanic ecosystem affect our survival, and how important are whales to that ecosystem? My guess is, not that important. Just like the survival, or not, of, say, Milwaukee, isn't THAT important. But, for some reason, I find the mere prospect of it quite alarming.

Why are the Japanese being deceptive about their whale hunting? Because there are international restrictions, and at least some oversight and enforcement regarding those restrictions, and because there's a lot of money to be made from hunting whales.

The numbers suggest that, with no restrictions in place, perhaps right whales and blue whales could/would be hunted to extinction in the foreseeable future. Wrt to other species it isn't so clear.

As to esthetic/moral, ie., emotional, considerations, I can imagine a world without any "wild and free" animals, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live in such a world. The preservation of a species, any species, seems to have some sort of intrinsic value to me. I don't have a rational explanation for this at the level of ordinary language. Anyway, if a person advocated the extinction of, and had the means to bring about, the extinction of a species such as, say, whales, then I'm pretty sure that I'd rather that that person die than that the species become extinct.

Blue whale population trends:
http://www.wisteme.com/question.view?targetAction=viewQuestionTab&id=8441

Blue whale Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale

Humpback whale Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpback_whale

Fin whale Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_whale

Minke whale Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minke_whale

Japanese whaling Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_whaling

Whale species Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whale_species

 

[dreiter]

So it's about hard science until I ask you to present the science, and then it's about the "greater good of the planet"? A claim based in personal feeling and individual interpretation if I'm not mistaken.

I don't understand your question. We are debating whaling, are we not? Pros and cons? I think part of the problem is that we are having two separate arguments. One is about the feasibility of 'sustainable hunting' and the other is about the ethics of hunting at all. So which point are you trying to argue Mech? That sustainable hunting works to control populations? I don't see how anyone can argue against that. My points are against the concept of hunting in general, specifically the ethical and environmental issues of hunting.

 

[nismaratwork]

(reply to posts #30 and #31, and in general) Mech Engineer, there's a reason that the cultures you describe tend to be nomadic, or collapse under change. Generally such communities eventually grow and hunt themselves out of an area. Even if you have 100 responsible generations, it just takes one to create an unsustainable pattern of hunting and farming.

As for the intelligence argument, I'd say that open questions about it and the complete LACK of any need to do this, makes it absurd. I can't claim to make a deep moral argument, but if we don't need whale products (oil, ambergris, bones, meat) for essentials this is just absurd.

Now, it isn't wrong for you to eat a chimp, but you'd be an idiot to do it wouldn't you? I mean, think of the pathology, much as the case with pigs. We get to eat pork, and in return for our kind stewardship, we've created a vast reservoir for viral mutation in a near-human analogue (not in terms of intelligence). Is it morally wrong to have huge hog farms that serve as breeding pits for influenza?... no, but it's dumb.

In the case of cetaceans, we don't know what their intelligence is, or isn't. Clearly some are far more capable and self aware than previously thought (mirror experiments), but let's take this to the logical Mech Eng extreme:

Can I eat retarded people? How about ones in a PVS? I'm fitter, and a hell of a lot brighter, and I'm hungry. I have to ignore the abundance of other food sources, the macabre nature of my act, and the reality that I've chosen to eat closer to the top of the brainiac pile than the bottom.

Can I eat babies? Certainly a dolphin or humpback is far more capable and intelligent than a human infant, right? Maybe a better straw man for you to construct would have been that, and not wild animals which are by definition FREE of morality, hunting. Humans know what we're doing and have option a lion or tiger doesn't. Unless you're prepared to defend a "might makes right/bright makes right" argument, I'd be thrilled.

Last question: Why can't I kill other people if this is such a non-issue? There are billions of people, and an obvious source of protein, and intelligence or empathy shouldn't be a factor. Peoplebasa at my place; bring a light pilsner.

 

[nismaratwork]

So you're under the impression that you're "in the loop"- good. Maybe you can present some scientific evidence that Japanese whaling is currently leading to the extinction of a species of whale that they hunt.



Me too. Now tell that to the militant "environmentalists" that are attacking Japanese whaling vessels.

re bold: Why? Isn't it just people hunting people? Seems fair, and no moral issue, right?

 

[alt]

I like sea food.

Can't blame the Japanese for liking it too, particulalry with their dirth of resources and arable land.

Bon appétit !

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I am quite confused by your stance,. It sounds like you believe that, if we see an infraction that might have dangerous consequences, we should err of the side of not enforcing the spirit of the laws until we are sure.

It seems like you're saying police should not ticket a particular speeder until they can demonstrate that he has killed someone.

I think you need to PROVE a problem exists before you act upon it; not act as if it exists until proven otherwise.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I don't understand your question. We are debating whaling, are we not? Pros and cons? I think part of the problem is that we are having two separate arguments. One is about the feasibility of 'sustainable hunting' and the other is about the ethics of hunting at all. So which point are you trying to argue Mech? That sustainable hunting works to control populations? I don't see how anyone can argue against that. My points are against the concept of hunting in general, specifically the ethical and environmental issues of hunting.

My question is what right do other people have to prevent the Japanese from whaling, even without scientific evidence that their whaling practices are driving certain species of whales into extinction?

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you need to PROVE a problem exists before you act upon it; not act as if it exists until proven otherwise.

The problem exists. The problem is illegal hunting of whales, as per existing, enforced laws. Nothing more. The loophole is a violation of the spirit and intent of the whaling laws.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

(reply to posts #30 and #31, and in general) Mech Engineer, there's a reason that the cultures you describe tend to be nomadic, or collapse under change. Generally such communities eventually grow and hunt themselves out of an area. Even if you have 100 responsible generations, it just takes one to create an unsustainable pattern of hunting and farming.

So how does this give you or me or anyone the right to tell the Japanese how to live, especially in light of the fact that their hunting practices are not threatening the whale populations they hunt?

As for the intelligence argument, I'd say that open questions about it and the complete LACK of any need to do this, makes it absurd. I can't claim to make a deep moral argument, but if we don't need whale products (oil, ambergris, bones, meat) for essentials this is just absurd.

So if it isn't needed for absolute essentials, we shouldn't do it? That can be applied to a LOT of other stuff in our everyday lives. Should deer and elk hunting be banned because we aren't in desperate need of their meat or antlers?

Now, it isn't wrong for you to eat a chimp, but you'd be an idiot to do it wouldn't you? I mean, think of the pathology, much as the case with pigs.

I'm not sure you'd be an "idiot" to eat a chimp... anyway what does this have to do with whaling?

We get to eat pork, and in return for our kind stewardship, we've created a vast reservoir for viral mutation in a near-human analogue (not in terms of intelligence). Is it morally wrong to have huge hog farms that serve as breeding pits for influenza?... no, but it's dumb.

So, what exactly is your argument against whaling, rather than just eating meat in general? Whales are far more different than us than a chimp, so this seems to be an argument FOR hunting/farming them.

In the case of cetaceans, we don't know what their intelligence is, or isn't. Clearly some are far more capable and self aware than previously thought (mirror experiments),

Intelligence does not imply a moral or ethical reason why we should not hunt something, unless it is a sentient being IMO.

but let's take this to the logical Mech Eng extreme:

Honestly, your "arguments" are offensive and do nothing to add to this discussion. Are really going to try and say that there is no difference between whaling and eating babies?!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The loophole is a violation of the spirit and intent of the whaling laws.

Maybe the law itself is misguided... it is meant to protect endangered species of whales from extinction, but instead protects ALL whales regardless of their population status.

 

[DaveC426913]

Maybe the law itself is misguided...

That is a completely separate issue. And they are welcome to raise all stink about it. Not liking a law, doesn't mean you get to flout it. And it doesn't mean there are no risks and consequences to doing so.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm interested in defending the Japanese's right to hunt whales, because if we can stop them from hunting whales without scientific evidence or any real reason other than "that's the law," such "reasoning" can be applied to a lot of other daily activities that you or I take for granted...

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm interested in defending the Japanese's right to hunt whales, because if we can stop them from hunting whales without scientific evidence or any real reason other than "that's the law," such "reasoning" can be applied to a lot of other daily activities that you or I take for granted...

Then you should start with why was the law enacted?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Then you should start with why was the law enacted?

The law (treaty) was originally enacted due to a combination of a few species being threatened and political pressure from environmentalist propaganda. Problem is, many species have now recovered, yet the treaty remains...

Sea Shepherd should be calling for reform of the treaty to allow sustainable hunting practices where appropriate, not violently opposing all whaling.

 

[nismaratwork]

So how does this give you or me or anyone the right to tell the Japanese how to live, especially in light of the fact that their hunting practices are not threatening the whale populations they hunt?

Japan exists today at the grace of the USA's military, rebuilding, and compassion after their role in WWII. If you want to get reductionist, I'd say we have the right because we beat it, then bought it. Get it?

So if it isn't needed for absolute essentials, we shouldn't do it? That can be applied to a LOT of other stuff in our everyday lives. Should deer and elk hunting be banned because we aren't in desperate need of their meat or antlers?

Sure, works for me, but I can't claim that there's any risk of ungulate intelligence. We don't need all of the people alive either... why not kill them and use them for food? Why show the same degree of care for a mouse as a man? In short, I'm not biting at your straw man bait.

I'm not sure you'd be an "idiot" to eat a chimp... anyway what does this have to do with whaling?

I'm not allowed to have an aside when dealing with the intractable? Oh, and you'd be a FOOL to eat chimp, unless you're playing odds on disease.

So, what exactly is your argument against whaling, rather than just eating meat in general? Whales are far more different than us than a chimp, so this seems to be an argument FOR hunting/farming them.

We don't need to do it, their intelligence is an open question, and I like whales. Your argument is at the level of personal reactions, so personal reactions you get. There's a treaty, and your interpretation of its intent is what's really irrelevant here. I could go on, but why? By your moral and intellectual standard, all I need to do is assert my apex predator status to protect what I like, as well as kill it. Maybe the trick is: Whalers get a fair chance to kill whales, and anti-whalers get to kill whalers on sight. Everyone's happy, and you've added some spice to the hunt... and why not, right?

Intelligence does not imply a moral or ethical reason why we should not hunt something, unless it is a sentient being IMO.

That's a nice opinion.

Honestly, your "arguments" are offensive and do nothing to add to this discussion. Are really going to try and say that there is no difference between whaling and eating babies?!

If that's what you took from my arguments, you can't read very well, and seeing how DaveC has struggled to reason with you on simple FACTUAL matters, why bother? You're preaching, not discussing, and anyway, who cares if you find my arguments offensive; you're arguing that intelligence isn't a factor, so yeah... eat babies.

 

[nismaratwork]

The law (treaty) was originally enacted due to a combination of a few species being threatened and political pressure from environmentalist propaganda. Problem is, many species have now recovered, yet the treaty remains...

Sea Shepherd should be calling for reform of the treaty to allow sustainable hunting practices where appropriate, not violently opposing all whaling.

Much as people talk about the intent of "the founding fathers", this is meaningless. A nation which owes its ongoing security to our military has no place violating an existing treaty.

If you feel so strongly, change the treaty, but until then it's breaking that treaty. Now, we have proof (and agree) that these species WERE threatened. We don't know if upon removal of this treaty, that these species might not be again and a new treaty would be tough to come by. From an empirical standpoint, I'd rather keep the treaty, not take the risk for NO REWARD, and go with the sure bet: this treaty saved species, and may still be doing so. Prove otherwise.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm interested in defending the Japanese's right to hunt whales, because if we can stop them from hunting whales without scientific evidence or any real reason other than "that's the law," such "reasoning" can be applied to a lot of other daily activities that you or I take for granted...

Like what... hunting whales? Yeah, that's damned right. I'm yet to see the brief in a court of law that uses the illegal hunting of whales in Japan as a means to restrict freedoms of any other kind, anywhere else. Another straw man... do you live near a hay-bale or something?!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

...I like whales.

This is your argument in a nutshell. The rest is ad-hominem attacks, slippery slope, and straw-man arguments.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is your argument in a nutshell. The rest is ad-hominem attacks, slippery slope, and straw-man arguments.

So, acting as a mirror for your own style worked, and now through the Socratic method you've realized this is the composition of your own arguments?

or... You're as deeply entrenched as ever, plus I'm a dick?

 

[nismaratwork]

This is your argument in a nutshell. The rest is ad-hominem attacks, slippery slope, and straw-man arguments.

Alternate response:

yet the treaty remains...

It's the law.Alternate 2:

I like whales more than I like the Japanese's right to hunt them, especially given an evolving and uncertain view of cetacean intelligence.

Alternate 3: EVERYTHING that DaveC has said, and you've dismissed, dodged, ignored, and thrown fallacies around.

Alternate 4: I'm a whale in a person suit.

Alternate 5: You claim That I've committed straw man fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and that I've engaged in the slippery slope argument. Your argument is that if we uphold an existing treaty, we set a slippery slope in place for the abrogation of more rights. You relish the irony, right?

Alternate 6: You claim That I've committed straw man fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and that I've engaged in the slippery slope argument. In fact you claim that all but my own affection for whales is fallacious. Retract that or back it up.

edit: Alternate 7: Maybe I come from the ancient tradition, and believe the whales deserve their go'el haddam?

 

[dreiter]

(reply to posts #30 and #31, and in general) Mech Engineer, there's a reason that the cultures you describe tend to be nomadic, or collapse under change. Generally such communities eventually grow and hunt themselves out of an area. Even if you have 100 responsible generations, it just takes one to create an unsustainable pattern of hunting and farming.

As for the intelligence argument, I'd say that open questions about it and the complete LACK of any need to do this, makes it absurd. I can't claim to make a deep moral argument, but if we don't need whale products (oil, ambergris, bones, meat) for essentials this is just absurd.

Now, it isn't wrong for you to eat a chimp, but you'd be an idiot to do it wouldn't you? I mean, think of the pathology, much as the case with pigs. We get to eat pork, and in return for our kind stewardship, we've created a vast reservoir for viral mutation in a near-human analogue (not in terms of intelligence). Is it morally wrong to have huge hog farms that serve as breeding pits for influenza?... no, but it's dumb.

In the case of cetaceans, we don't know what their intelligence is, or isn't. Clearly some are far more capable and self aware than previously thought (mirror experiments), but let's take this to the logical Mech Eng extreme:

Can I eat retarded people? How about ones in a PVS? I'm fitter, and a hell of a lot brighter, and I'm hungry. I have to ignore the abundance of other food sources, the macabre nature of my act, and the reality that I've chosen to eat closer to the top of the brainiac pile than the bottom.

Can I eat babies? Certainly a dolphin or humpback is far more capable and intelligent than a human infant, right? Maybe a better straw man for you to construct would have been that, and not wild animals which are by definition FREE of morality, hunting. Humans know what we're doing and have option a lion or tiger doesn't. Unless you're prepared to defend a "might makes right/bright makes right" argument, I'd be thrilled.

Last question: Why can't I kill other people if this is such a non-issue? There are billions of people, and an obvious source of protein, and intelligence or empathy shouldn't be a factor. Peoplebasa at my place; bring a light pilsner.

Very good points!

My question is what right do other people have to prevent the Japanese from whaling, even without scientific evidence that their whaling practices are driving certain species of whales into extinction?

Like I said, I am not arguing about extinction, I am arguing about the human right to kill other creatures, in this case intelligent sea mammals, but the argument works for any animal really.

...Should deer and elk hunting be banned because we aren't in desperate need of their meat or antlers?

So, what exactly is your argument against whaling, rather than just eating meat in general? Whales are far more different than us than a chimp, so this seems to be an argument FOR hunting/farming them.

Intelligence does not imply a moral or ethical reason why we should not hunt something, unless it is a sentient being IMO.

Honestly, your "arguments" are offensive and do nothing to add to this discussion. Are really going to try and say that there is no difference between whaling and eating babies?!

I don't see why an advanced civilization needs deer and elk hunting either.

Just because something is different gives us the right to kill it wantonly?

If you are willing to eat something based on it's intelligence, then nismara's point holds. Where do you draw the line? Severely retarded people or people in a vegetative state can very well be of lower intelligence than a whale or chimp, so do you think it's fine to eat them?

By your moral and intellectual standard, all I need to do is assert my apex predator status to protect what I like, as well as kill it. Maybe the trick is: Whalers get a fair chance to kill whales, and anti-whalers get to kill whalers on sight. Everyone's happy, and you've added some spice to the hunt... and why not, right?

Good point.


Mech, I want to ask you, how do you determine that eating these animals is justified? Do you feel that God has given us animals to eat? Do you feel they are unimportant because they are less intelligent than you? Do you think it is a tradition, and therefore ok to practice? And for an inflationary last question, do you do it simply because you like the taste?

 

[DaveC426913]

Like I said, I am not arguing about extinction, I am arguing about the human right to kill other creatures, in this case intelligent sea mammals, but the argument works for any animal really.

There are no "rights", except those invented by mankind.

I don't see why an advanced civilization needs deer and elk hunting either.

Well, to eat.

True, we can make other choices. But those are choices. And that involves weighing priorities.

Just because something is different gives us the right to kill it wantonly?

No. Things that are not different we can kill wontonly too.

If you are willing to eat something based on it's intelligence, then nismara's point holds. Where do you draw the line? Severely retarded people or people in a vegetative state can very well be of lower intelligence than a whale or chimp, so do you think it's fine to eat them?

People do have rights.


Good point.

Mech, I want to ask you, how do you determine that eating these animals is justified? Do you feel that God has given us animals to eat?

It is justified because we must eat. The onus is on you to demonstrate why we should not eat certain things.

Do you feel they are unimportant because they are less intelligent than you?

What does "important" mean in this context?

Do you think it is a tradition, and therefore ok to practice? And for an inflationary last question, do you do it simply because you like the taste?

It is Ok to practice because we must eat. Demonstrate why we should not.

 

[nismaratwork]

There are no "rights", except those invented by mankind.



Well, to eat.

True, we can make other choices. But those are choices. And that involves weighing priorities.


No. Things that are not different we can kill wontonly too.


People do have rights.


Good point.


It is justified because we must eat. The onus is on you to demonstrate why we should not eat certain things.


What does "important" mean in this context?


It is Ok to practice because we must eat. Demonstrate why we should not.

Your bolds are fighting for dominance! I'm confused...

So, by your logic DaveC, would it be fair to say that we should eat what is easiest for us to kill, cook, and distribute? Right now, that's cattle, not Elk, Deer, or Whale... so I'd need to be sold on the change, as is the attempt has been made (successfully) with Deer, Elk, and Bison. You don't see me calling Ted Nugent a monster for killing deer and sending a ton (literally) of their jerky to our troops. I'd call him a monster for other reasons, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[nismaratwork]

So, in terms of viability and ease we can conclude that eating humans is a no-no because of prion and other disease/pathogens; We can conclude that for primates as well, and maybe even swine. There's your ethic for not eating babies and the elderly, or in the germane case of native Papua New Guinea tribes, a small amount of the revered dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)

So... even that is really just a matter of practicality at a basic and instinctual level. I think that's a good place to begin with 2 ideas: 1 Dave is right, and no one has the right to an intrinsic right, right? 2 You can construct a viable ethical lifestyle based on bottom-up practicality.

 

[Newai]

It's strictly for scientific research. The whalers are only killing the whales to find out what's killing them.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's strictly for scientific research. The whalers are only killing the whales to find out what's killing them.

That's the only time I've laughed in real life in this thread. Thanks!

 

[dreiter]

This multi-quoting is a big hassle! :D Also I would like to bring in some ideas of another person, Gary Francione, because I think he has answered some of your points more succinctly than I would be able to...

There are no "rights", except those invented by mankind.

You are saying that rights can only be applied to humans, but this is a fallacy. From Francione: "Just as the moral status of a human or animal is not determined by who caused the human or the animal to come into existence, the application of a moral concept is not determined by who devised it. If moral benefits went only to the devisers of moral concepts, then most of humnankind would still be outside the moral community. Rights concepts as we currently understand them were actually devised as a way of protecting the interests of wealthy white male landowners; indeed, most moral concepts were historically devised by privileged males to benefit other privileged males. As time went on, we recognized that the principle of equal consideration required that we treat similar cases in a similar way and we subsequently extended rights (and other moral benefits) to other humans. In particular, the principle of equal consideration required that we regard as morally odious the ownership of some humans by other humans. If we are going to apply the principle of equal consideration to animals, then we must extend to animals the right not to be treated as a resource.

It is irrelevant whether animals devised rights or can even understand the concept of rights. We do not require that humans be potential devisers of rights or understand the concept of rights in order to be beneficiaries of rights. For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others."

Well, to eat.

True, we can make other choices. But those are choices. And that involves weighing priorities.

I agree with you completely. What I am saying is that there is NO priority for an advanced society to eat meat besides the result to the taste buds, while there are many priorities against it, such as environmental degradation, negative health results, and inflicting unnecessary suffering.

No. Things that are not different we can kill wontonly too.

Like other people? I hope you aren't arguing for this!

It is Ok to practice because we must eat. Demonstrate why we should not.

I don't think we need to have a large discussion about how meat consumption is worse for the planet than eating plants, or how meat consumption has more deleterious effects on human health than plants, or how it is morally more preferable to kill a strawberry than kill a whale. These things are all quite obvious at this point, and I hate the idea of belaboring them further...

 

[drankin]

I don't think whale meat is commercially available in the US. If it is I want to try it out. In lieu of that I'm going to have a fat burger at Red Robin tonight. I have yet to be convinced that I should eat a soy burger instead.

Good luck convincing the human race that they should not eat meat. Even if it were possible, which it is not, it would have to be substituted on an enormous scale.

I think we should focus on why whales get beached and work more on preventing that.

 

[mugaliens]

Good luck convincing the human race that they should not eat meat. Even if it were possible, which it is not, it would have to be substituted on an enormous scale.

We're all subject to this. No one is exempt.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are saying that rights can only be applied to humans

No. I am not.

I am saying rights can only be applied by humans. And we simply assign them as we see fit.

What I am saying is that there is NO priority for an advanced society to eat meat besides the result to the taste buds

Agreed. We don't have to. And there are valid arguments for choosing not to. But there are no overarching reasons why your beliefs override the beliefs of someone who chooses to.

I don't think we need to have a large discussion about how meat consumption is worse for the planet than eating plants, or how meat consumption has more deleterious effects on human health than plants, or how it is morally more preferable to kill a strawberry than kill a whale. These things are all quite obvious at this point, and I hate the idea of belaboring them further...

OK, so don't. Everybody is entitled to make set own priorities. There is no overarching argument that we must minimize our "meat footprint".

Taken to the extreme, if we all did what was "best for the planet" we'd never get out of bed - or leave our caves, at it were.

 

[dreiter]

Agreed. We don't have to. And there are valid arguments for choosing not to. But there are no overarching reasons why your beliefs override the beliefs of someone who chooses to.


OK, so don't. Everybody is entitled to make set own priorities. There is no overarching argument that we must minimize our "meat footprint".

Taken to the extreme, if we all did what was "best for the planet" we'd never get out of bed - or leave our caves, at it were.

And taken to extremes, we would get up every day with the goal of totally screwing our world over. You can't just ignore problems because you don't want to pay attention. If we did that then it would be the extreme. You say that the decision to eat meat is a matter of opinion, and that's true, but that doesn't make it a non-argument. Again, from Francione:
"Animal rights are no more a matter of opinion than is any other moral matter. This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from asking whether the morality of human slavery is a matter of opinion. We have decided that slavery is morally reprehensible not as a matter of mere opinion, but because slavery treats humans exclusively as the resources of others and degrades humans to the status of things, thus depriving them of moral significance.

On another level, this question relates to...the position that all morality is relative, a matter of convention or convenience or tradition, with no valid claim to objective truth. If this were the case, then the morality of genocide or human slavery or child molestation would be no more than matters of opinion. Although it is certainly true that moral propositions cannot be proved in the way that mathematical propositions can, this does not mean that “anything goes.” Some moral views are supported by better reasons than others, and some moral views have a better “fit” with other views that we hold. The view that we can treat animals as things simply because we are human and they are not is speciesism pure and simple. The view that we ought not to treat animals as things is consistent with our general notion that animals have morally significant interests."

 

[ThomasT]

The following is related to the OP wherein it was stated that "their [the Japanese whalers] activities are utterly reprehensible and disgusting", and since the OP continued with "and their attempt at deception is an affront to thinking people throughout the globe", then I'm assuming that the former quote is directed at the activity of whaling, per se, and not at any perceived or conjectured deception wrt that activity.

My points are against the concept of hunting in general, specifically the ethical and environmental issues of hunting.

While I find no particular fascination with, or need to, hunt and kill animals, I know some people, and they're close friends, who do hunt and kill animals. Without pretending to be able to explain what compels them to do this, I nonetheless think that I can understand why they do it. I honestly don't think that there's any moral issue involved unless the hunters are intending to inflict unnecessary pain on the hunted, and wrt the hunters that I personally know I don't believe that that's the case.

Regarding environmental issues, appropriately restricted hunting seems to me to be a good thing, not a bad thing. But, I'm amenable to being convinced otherwise.

... we are having two separate arguments. One is about the feasibility of 'sustainable hunting' and the other is about the ethics of hunting at all.

I don't know that there's any good argument against the idea that sustainable hunting is feasible or beneficial to the stability, and therefore the sustainability, of certain herd animals.

There are more or less isolated populations of humans that rely on hunting. We could, of course, prohibit their hunting activities and require them to subsist on 'farmed' animals. But, of course, that has its own associated moral considerations. Mankind has been hunting and eating other animals, opportunistically and systematically, for as long as we know.

So, I don't really see any ethical argument, in any absolute sense, against hunting. However, as previously noted, I'm amenable to further education and enlightenment on the subject.

If we are going to apply the principle of equal consideration to animals, then we must extend to animals the right not to be treated as a resource.

Well, we do seem to be increasingly applying the principle of equal consideration to animals, that is, broadening the scope of egalitarianism. This is evident wrt changing attitudes wrt the treatment of lab animals, and, in particular, whether certain animals, such as chimps, should be used as lab animals at all.

However, we also 'farm' certain animals for consumption. Most notably, chickens and cows. Now, I like chicken soup and stew, and I absolutely love beef stew, but I also don't want these animals to have to endure any sort of unnecessary pain. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem practicable to me that we might be able to sustain the dietary demand for these animals without, in some sense, 'farming' them.

And now you can make an argument for vegetarianism. And I'll listen because I'm pretty sure that at least one of my friends is a committed vegetarian. There are others who say they are, but I'm not so sure they're telling the whole truth.

What I am saying is that there is NO priority for an advanced society to eat meat besides the result to the taste buds ...

I'm not so sure that this is the case. Convince me that I can live as healthily on a diet of, say, rice and soybeans, as I can on a diet of, say, rice and chicken or cow meat.

Anyway, imho, there are more meat eaters and hunters than you can possibly convince to not be meat eaters and hunters. And, again imho, this (presumed) fact doesn't necessarily threaten the, more or less thriving, existence of ANY species.

Bottom line, yes, I think that restrictions on Japanese and other whaling is a good thing. But, I also think that whaling, or the hunting of any particular animal, should not be outlawed. Just reasonably restricted.

As far as the stuff about eating retarded people or whatever, well, that's just silly. I mean, really, in my worst projections, and I AM a cynic regarding the evolution of mankind, that sort of thing isn't ever going to become a consideration. It's much more likely that mankind will become essentially vegetarian.

 

[dreiter]

Thomas, would you argue that animals (including humans) perceive death to be worse than pain? Because hunting is more than inflicting unnecessary pain, it is inflicting unnecessary death. There is no need to make tribes eat farm animals as you suggest. There is no need for the eating of animals at all! You have mentioned that you are uncertain if a healthy life is possible using soybeans instead of meat, and I can tell you on no uncertain terms that not only is it possible, it is healthier. Looking at any nutritional breakdown of meat products versus soy products, you can easily see the superior nutritional profile of the soy alternative. Meat has protein and some vitamins and minerals, but tofu has both of those as well as fiber and phytochemicals. So I don't think arguing the health issues is the way to go ;) As for the 'you can never convince everyone to stop eating meat so why bother', well that might as easily be 'you can never convince others to vote like you do so why bother'. If you think voting is futile, then I suppose I can see why you think changing your diet is futile.

 

[ThomasT]

Thomas, would you argue that animals (including humans) perceive death to be worse than pain?

No.

Because hunting is more than inflicting unnecessary pain, it is inflicting unnecessary death.

I presume that there are things worse than death, such as prolonged excruciating pain (I imagine, but don't really know).

There is no need to make tribes eat farm animals as you suggest.

I agree, they should be allowed to hunt the wild animals in their territories as they always have. Eating 'farmed' animals is simply the norm in my world.

There is no need for the eating of animals at all!

For some societies there seems to be.

You have mentioned that you are uncertain if a healthy life is possible using soybeans instead of meat, and I can tell you on no uncertain terms that not only is it possible, it is healthier.

Ok, for now, I'll take your word for it.

Looking at any nutritional breakdown of meat products versus soy products, you can easily see the superior nutritional profile of the soy alternative. Meat has protein and some vitamins and minerals, but tofu has both of those as well as fiber and phytochemicals.

Ah yes, fiber. I'm 62. I take fiber supplements. It seems to help.

So I don't think arguing the health issues is the way to go ;)

Well, I'm not really arguing health issues. But I do remember a study that said that societies that subsisted primarily on meat and milk (ie. the farming of animals) seemed to be healthier than primarily vegetarian societies. Of course, there might be many factors in play here. So, I never regarded this as definitive.

As for the 'you can never convince everyone to stop eating meat so why bother', well that might as easily be 'you can never convince others to vote like you do so why bother'.

I don't think I said that. Did I say that?

If you think voting is futile, then I suppose I can see why you think changing your diet is futile.

I don't think voting is futile. I think it's idiotic, that is, voting republican or democrat, if you want to ever see any real change from the status quo. If you don't then of course by all means continue to vote democrat or republican. And, I don't see becoming a vegetarian as necessary in any sort of moral sense, or necessarily beneficial dietarily. I like eating chicken and cow meat. I'm 62 years old and healthy as a horse and have been eating, primarily, chicken and cow meat for my entire life. I eat a vegetable and/or a fruit maybe once a month.

 

[DaveC426913]

And taken to extremes, we would get up every day with the goal of totally screwing our world over.

Why would we do that?

Where did I even hint that we would wish to screw up our world, (which would subsequently screw us up)?


All I'm doing is pointing out that, when we choose to limit ourselves, and protect our world we do it for our own benefit, not for the benefit of some morality outside the influence of humans.

The key is that we decide what is the right thing to do.

In that sense, animals do not have rights, they have privileges - privileges can be taken away if we see fit.

"Animal rights are no more a matter of opinion than is any other moral matter. This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from asking whether the morality of human slavery is a matter of opinion. We have decided that slavery is morally reprehensible not as a matter of mere opinion, but because slavery treats humans exclusively as the resources of others and degrades humans to the status of things, thus depriving them of moral significance.

Correct. We (the majority) have decided that all humans have rights. This was not the case when the world was much much more of a frontier and foreigners were enemies or animals.

The view that we ought not to treat animals as things is consistent with our general notion that animals have morally significant interests."

Yes. It's an argument. It is not a given.

The problem with this whole whaling thread is that many people assume that these "animal rights" are a given.

.
.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why would we do that?

Where did I even hint that we would wish to screw up our world, (which would subsequently screw us up)?


All I'm doing is pointing out that, when we choose to limit ourselves, and protect our world we do it for our own benefit, not for the benefit of some morality outside the influence of humans.

The key is that we decide what is the right thing to do.

In that sense, animals do not have rights, they have privileges - privileges can be taken away if we see fit.



Correct. We (the majority) have decided that all humans have rights. This was not the case when the world was much much more of a frontier and foreigners were enemies or animals.



Yes. It's an argument. It is not a given.

The problem with this whole whaling thread is that many people assume that these "animal rights" are a given.

.
.

Well, I've been clear that I don't even believe in an objective reality of human rights, except for mutual consent, as you've said. I said flat out to the guy I was arguing with, "I like whales", as one of the justifications. I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion, and I know that you're trying to go nap-of-the-earth with the scientific view here; I accept that.

We humans organize from basic principles of mutually extended privilages based on the ability to end or ruin each others lives. That ruining can be seizure of food or land, women and children, or even spreading disease. The killing, is obvious. We then try to explain WHY, beyond the obvious utility of a measure of social interaction, we should extend the same privileges in ANY form to ALL people. For most of history, and in much of the world, that's just not the case for people; they don't think they have rights, they KNOW that they don't.

NONE of that... has anything to do with this discussion anymore in my view. The lines have been drawn at: I Want vs. I Believe, and they're unlikely to move. Some people want whale meat, and I, being capable of doing so, express my disgust and anger with that choice, and my belief in a go'el haddam system for this new frontier. The flipside of packing heat in the wild west after all, and the freedoms conferred, was a lack of security... I think whalers can live and die under the same basic principles of retribution.

Remember, if this isn't a moral issue, why should I be morally troubled when whalers are killed, their livelihoods destroyed, etc? I'm thrilled, and in a world where you could kill them on sight as rangers do to poachers in some nations, I'd be in line with a gun. The whalers can pack heat too, and now you REALLY have 'The Most Dangerous Catch'.

History indicates that if diplomacy fails, violence will settle the issue eventually, if only through mutual destruction.

 

[dreiter]

For some societies there seems to be.

That's great for those societies, but Japan/US are not hunter-gatherer societies, so this does not apply to us.

Ok, for now, I'll take your word for it.

Don't take my word for it, just look around a few minutes. From Wiki:
"Vegetarian diets are usually rich in carbohydrates, omega-6 fatty acids, dietary fiber, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, potassium and magnesium.[3][4] They contain lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein.[3]
Studies show that the health of vegetarians compares favourably with that of non-vegetarians.[5] British vegetarians have lower death rates than non-vegetarians,[5][6] although this is at least partly due to non-dietary lifestyle factors, such as a low prevalence of smoking and the generally high socioeconomic status of vegetarians, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish.[7]
Vegetarians avoid the negative health effects of animal protein including red meat: A 1999 meta-study of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in Western countries found the mortality rate due to ischemic heart disease 26% lower among vegans, compared to regular meat eaters, and 34% lower among ovo-lacto vegetarians and pescetarians...
There is evidence that vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index,[3][4] lower risk of obesity,[17] lower blood cholesterol levels,[3][4] lower homocysteine levels,[4] lower risk of high blood pressure,[3][17] and lower risk of type 2 diabetes.[3][17] One large prospective study found that non-meat-eaters had only half the risk of meat eaters of requiring an emergency appendectomy.[5]"

I don't think I said that. Did I say that?

Yes, see below.

Anyway, imho, there are more meat eaters and hunters than you can possibly convince to not be meat eaters and hunters.

And, I don't see becoming a vegetarian as necessary in any sort of moral sense, or necessarily beneficial dietarily. I like eating chicken and cow meat. I'm 62 years old and healthy as a horse and have been eating, primarily, chicken and cow meat for my entire life. I eat a vegetable and/or a fruit maybe once a month.

That's great for you. The question is what your pleasure is worth to society and the environment. Even if you don't recognize the moral status of animals, do you recognize the environmental destruction that meat has to our planet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_meat_production"

All I'm doing is pointing out that, when we choose to limit ourselves, and protect our world we do it for our own benefit, not for the benefit of some morality outside the influence of humans.

The key is that we decide what is the right thing to do.

In that sense, animals do not have rights, they have privileges - privileges can be taken away if we see fit.

I agree with these statements, but I don't see how you are using them to explain your ignoring this issue.

Yes. It's an argument. It is not a given.

The problem with this whole whaling thread is that many people assume that these "animal rights" are a given.
.

My argument is that animal rights should be a given, just as black rights or women's rights are.

 

[DaveC426913]

My argument is that animal rights should be a given, just as black rights or women's rights are.

They can't be a given. Since rights are an entirely human invention, and animals cannot demand their own rights, the only way animals get rights is if we bestow them and enforce them on their behalf. i.e. the only contention that there will ever be over the rights of animals is that of humans who think they should have rights versus humans who think they shouldn't.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not to be rude, but I don't really give a **** who's vegetarian here. Talking about eating meat in GENERAL has only tangential ideological bearing on the issue of whaling for "culture". This is the same cultural stewardship that gives us shark-fin soup, and no more tigers...

The OP and title are pretty clear... whaling. If anyone wants to debate the health and wisdom of a vegetarian diet, please... do it in a thread about that. This is a serious issue that deserves more than the usual gadfly intellectual exercises found in this section of PF.

If you want to discuss the reality of rights, there's a lovely philosophy forum that a Jesuit could get lost in. These matters only apply here as a specific case, and one in which there is the VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY.

 

[Newai]

They can't be a given. Since rights are an entirely human invention, and animals cannot demand their own rights, the only way animals get rights is if we bestow them and enforce them on their behalf. i.e. the only contention that there will ever be over the rights of animals is that of humans who think they should have rights versus humans who think they shouldn't.

Okay, I have to ask how what I think is a fair exception can be excluded by that (just to help me understand your argument, please): there are a lot of people who are so disabled that they can not demand their rights. But aren't their rights a given regardless?

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay, I have to ask how what I think is a fair exception can be excluded by that (just to help me understand your argument, please): there are a lot of people who are so disabled that they can not demand their rights. But aren't their rights a given regardless?

Mutually Extended Privileges... MEP... I'm trademarking it . Rights are a concept based in an absolute moral authority in what (I believe) is an amoral universe. Privileges, we can exchange under the golden rule, and other concepts of equity, and build from there.

 

[mugaliens]

That's the only time I've laughed in real life in this thread. Thanks!

Humorous, yes, but also tragic, in it's Dean/Lewis sort of way.

 

[mugaliens]

They can't be a given. Since rights are an entirely human invention, and animals cannot demand their own rights, the only way animals get rights is if we bestow them and enforce them on their behalf. i.e. the only contention that there will ever be over the rights of animals is that of humans who think they should have rights versus humans who think they shouldn't.

Dave C, you bring up an interesting argument. What about the organisms which live upon both you and I to this very day?

Icky, yes, but something to think about, particularly as neither you nor I gave them any permission to live upon us at all.