You wrote:
Most importantly, compared to the standard way of meat production in the developed world - factory farming, whereby animals are locked up in concentration camps for their entire lives and denied basic natural behavior - whaling seems vastly superior in terms of animal welfare. As the philosopher Peter Sandøe, leader of the Danish Ethical Council concerning Animals, told the Danish newspaper Politiken on November 7 1993, in connection with the resumption of Norwegian whaling: [O]bviously, it is extremely difficult to compare the whale's relatively short-lasting, but intense pain when being killed, with the other more long-lasting but less intense forms of suffering experienced in cattle farming. Personally, I have no problems in making such a comparison. The conclusion of this comparison is that I would rather be a minke whale living in freedom until the final few minutes of pain, than a... pig or hen...
[O]bviously, it is extremely difficult to compare the whale's relatively short-lasting, but intense pain when being killed, with the other more long-lasting but less intense forms of suffering experienced in cattle farming. Personally, I have no problems in making such a comparison. The conclusion of this comparison is that I would rather be a minke whale living in freedom until the final few minutes of pain, than a... pig or hen...
This does not belong in the discussion on the moral issue of killing whales. It is an attempt at moral equivalency. "You eat pork, don't you?" Well, I don't eat meat so I won't accept a guilt trip on that issue. Pigs are domestic animals, bred into being defenseless freaks, "pork chops on hooves" over centuries. Whales are wild mammals in the sea. There's no comparison. Of course I abhorr the cruel treatment of domestic animals especially within mega farming but that issue does not belong in a discussion on the slaughter of whales.
The discussion should be limited to the numbers of whales, the increasing threats to whales, the need for the slaughter, why Norway refused to sign on to the ban on the hunting of whales, etc. Overall, your article has a defensive tone.
more later... To thine ownself be true. W.S. CANADA
This does not belong in the discussion on the moral issue of killing whales. It is an attempt at moral equivalency. "You eat pork, don't you?" Well, I don't eat meat so I won't accept a guilt trip on that issue.
I'm afraid this ignores my statement as follows:
Some claim it is inherently wrong to kill whales for food, regardless of whether this is sustainable or not. I will not argue here that they are necessarily mistaken. However, I will argue that their claim, to have any merit, must at least be consistently applied to all animals unless relevant ethical distinctions can be made.
Italics added.
Thus, I leave aside the question of whether it is right or wrong, in itself, to kill whales for food. I merely demand consistency. In effect, I argue that consuming whale meat is not inherently worse than eating pork or meat from other complex mammals. Accordingly, there is no good reason to place a special ban on whaling, assuming, of course, that it is sustainable.
You mention being vegan. As I put it further down:
Going vegan on ethical grounds may be admirable, but non-vegans are in no obvious position to condemn sustainable whaling, while even vegans should have no more of a beef with this than with other ways of obtaining flesh.
Which brings us to this claim of yours:
Pigs are domestic animals, bred into being defenseless freaks, "pork chops on hooves" over centuries. Whales are wild mammals in the sea. There's no comparison.
Here I fail to see your point. You seem to argue that, because pigs have been domesticated so as to become, in effect, defenseless slaves, it is less problematic to kill them prematurely than it is to kill wild game. How so? Perhaps you can clarify.
Overall, your article has a defensive tone.
Well, that stands to reason, does it not? It is, after all, a defense... The world's northernmost desert wind.
I argue that consuming whale meat is not inherently worse than eating pork or meat from other complex mammals.
Do you want to reduce the discussion to a vegan/carnivore argument? Are you saying because I am a [almost] a vegan that I have no right to oppose the whale hunt? I'm arguing against the whale hunt because in general all whales are increasingly endangered.
That is not the question, it is not NECESSARY to eat whale meat. Most of Norway's whale meat ends up as a delicacy in Japan. Norway does not kill whales as a protein supply for its people, it kills whales as an expensive export product to make money. Greed fuels the whale hunt not necessity.
This from 2001
The Norwegian government announced in January it would allow the export of minke whale products. This trade would be despite minke whales being listed in the convention on the international trade in endangered species, and hence their export being banned. [...] Today a report by WWF underlines Greenpeace's concerns. It says seven out of 13 species that have been protected from hunting for 15 years, and some far longer, remain endangered. Collisions with ships, entanglement in fishing gear, intensive oil and gas development in feeding grounds, toxic pollution, and climate change, all threaten them, the report says. [Since this report was written, global warming has increased and climate change has heated up the oceans threatening all whales' food supplies.]
Today a report by WWF underlines Greenpeace's concerns. It says seven out of 13 species that have been protected from hunting for 15 years, and some far longer, remain endangered.
Collisions with ships, entanglement in fishing gear, intensive oil and gas development in feeding grounds, toxic pollution, and climate change, all threaten them, the report says. [Since this report was written, global warming has increased and climate change has heated up the oceans threatening all whales' food supplies.]
Your tone is excessively defensive and necessarily so since you are defending a practice which is scorned by most of the world. To thine ownself be true. W.S. CANADA
Do you want to reduce the discussion to a vegan/carnivore argument? Are you saying because I am a [almost] a vegan that I have no right to oppose the whale hunt?
I am baffled here and must ask you to read again what I said above; I am not sure I can put it any clearer. :-)
OK, I'll give it a try. Leaving aside for the moment the empirical question of whether the Norwegian hunt is sustainable at current quotas, and focusing on whether it is intrisically defensible or not to hunt minke whales for food, I am merely arguing the following.
As a matter of logic, people must either: (a) Reject the slaughter of all complex mammals for food as unethical; or (b) Accept the slaughter of all complex mammals for food as ethical; or (c) Accept it in general, but excepting some species X.
For present purposes, I'm not concerned with those in category (a). I disagree, but I respect and understand their standpoint and have no quarrel with it here.
Instead, I am asking the folks within category (c) for whom X = 'minke whale' to explain on what grounds they are making this exception. How exactly is butching minke whale any worse than butching cow, or pig, or sheep, or moose, or whatnot? Why the special preoccupation with this species? That is what I am asking.
Your being vegan or no has nothing to do with it; the logic is the same for herbivores and omnivores alike.
I'm arguing against the whale hunt because in general all whales are increasingly endangered.
As I have stressed, I'm talking only about the minke whale in Norwegian waters, so we should limit ourselves to that.
I have no problem in principle with the assertion that this population is in fact endangered, so that the current Norwegian quotas are not sustainable, if that is the claim you are making. But then, you need to quote some scientific sources and explain why these carry more weight than (a) the Scientific Committee of the IWC's estimate of the population in the Norwegian economic zone at 107,000 individuals; and (b) the application of Norwegian researchers of the quota calculation formula developed by said Committee itself, resulting in a quota of 797 animals this season.
Also, see my comment below. It will be challenging at best to debate the empirical issues without scientific expertise at hand, which is one reason why I focus on matters of principle.
That is not the question, it is not NECESSARY to eat whale meat.
I thought I had addressed this at length in my piece:
At this point, anti-whalers often take refuge in an argument from redundancy. Whaling for meat, they maintain, is especially bad because 'unnecessary' to feed human beings. It is true that whaling is unnecessary in this respect, but so is all meat production under modern conditions. Plainly, since a vegetarian lifestyle is now easy to pursue, no meat is a necessary commodity in developed countries: Lamb chops and pork, no less than whale steak, are conveniences. And a whale kill provides more meat than does the slaying of other animals. Going vegan on ethical grounds may be admirable, but non-vegans are in no obvious position to condemn sustainable whaling, while even vegans should have no more of a beef with this than with other ways of obtaining flesh. Especially not if they count themselves environmentalists: Whaling burns less fuel per unit meat produced than other kinds of meat production. In fact, producing a kilo of beef requires 30 times more energy than the harvest of a kilo of minke whale meat. Besides, the latter does not pollute the ground, erode the soil, or release methane into the atmosphere.
Especially not if they count themselves environmentalists: Whaling burns less fuel per unit meat produced than other kinds of meat production. In fact, producing a kilo of beef requires 30 times more energy than the harvest of a kilo of minke whale meat. Besides, the latter does not pollute the ground, erode the soil, or release methane into the atmosphere.
You go on to write:
Most of Norway's whale meat ends up as a delicacy in Japan. Norway does not kill whales as a protein supply for its people, it kills whales as an expensive export product to make money. Greed fuels the whale hunt not necessity.
Every word here is factually false, as far as I know.
There is currently no export of whale products from Norway to Japan, which hunts its own meat. The meat from the Norwegian hunt is for the domestic market, where supply and demand balance out to yield prices on a par with other meat.
Your accusation of 'greed' is also rather strange, especially since I adressed this in the diary entry:
Though whaling is of no national economic importance, it fills a need for supplemental income during the summer on the part of many local fishing communities, especially in the far north. Proceeds from the sale of meat allow people to carve out a living in a region where agriculture and manufacturing are not viable alternatives.
If you dispute this, may I ask on what grounds?
Your tone is excessively defensive and necessarily so since you are defending a practice which is scorned by most of the world.
Plainly, most of the world just don't care one way or another. And whether it should care is precisely what we are debating, so it begs the question to cite world opinion. Finally, what is the point of reviewing my 'tone'? Aren't the arguments what matter? The world's northernmost desert wind.
I think that is a false premise because, whales are cetaceans and cannot be bred domestically for human consumption. Whales are endangered worldwide and their decline is now closely linked to global warming.
As for Norway's export of Minke whale meat to Japan.
The decision allows Norway to resume export of an unlimited amount of meat and blubber from minke whales, to Japan, Iceland, Peru and other nations. Norway's decision was condemned by World Wildlife Fund as damaging to Norway's reputation as an environmentally friendly nation and as a move that could provoke the collapse of global protections for all whales. "Norway's reckless bid to re-open trade in whale products puts international protections for all whale species at risk," said Richard N. Mott, vice president at WWF. LINK
Norway's decision was condemned by World Wildlife Fund as damaging to Norway's reputation as an environmentally friendly nation and as a move that could provoke the collapse of global protections for all whales. "Norway's reckless bid to re-open trade in whale products puts international protections for all whale species at risk," said Richard N. Mott, vice president at WWF. LINK
Japan to Import Norwegian Whale Meat TOKYO , Japan March 6, 2002 (ENS) - Japan is planning to import whale meat from Norway for the first time in about 11 years, Japanese Fisheries Agency officials said Wednesday. The imports of Norwegian minke whale meat could begin as early as May [2002]. The officials say they intend to import up to a hundred tons of whale meat once they have obtained permission from Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. LINK
The officials say they intend to import up to a hundred tons of whale meat once they have obtained permission from Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. LINK
This
equals this To thine ownself be true. W.S. CANADA
I think that is a false premise because, whales are cetaceans and cannot be bred domestically for human consumption.
And? I just don't see the point. So what?
If anything, this counts in favor of whaling, as I have said many times by now:
(1) The animals roam free in the wild until caught, as opposed to festering in captivity; (2) Hunting is many times less energy-demanding than the keeping of livestock; (3) Hunting is indefinetely cleaner and less polluting, especially with respect to greenhouse gases.
Whales are endangered worldwide and their decline is now closely linked to global warming.
You are repeating this mantra over and over. Where are your specific facts as pertains to the specific population of the specific whale species in question, considered with respect to the specific quotas set by Norwegian researchers based on empirical study and an internationally approved formula devised by the IWC?
Unfortunately for Norway, the trade did not go well when the meat was found to be contaminated by toxins like PCB's.
So you now concede that there is no export of whale meat to Japan? How does that leave your charge that Norway "kills whales as an expensive export product to make money"? Let alone, your claims of 'enormous profit'? Are you prepared to retract all this?
For the record, my understanding is that the blubber, not the meat, is dioxin contamined, dioxin being a so-called lipidophile chemical entrenching itself in fat. And in any case, the meat (as opposed to the blubber, never eaten around here anyway) is approved for sale by the The Norwegian Food Safety Authority, not noted for its flexible approach. So that's good enough for me; and I suspect Japan is declining the meat for protectionist reasons. They have enough of their own. But this is incidental to whether the minke whale hunt is legitimate. The world's northernmost desert wind.
You can't limit the discussion by fiat. Does that mean that you accept his other points and are basically going to argue only that whales shouldn't be hunted because they might go extinct?
I will not discuss ALL ANIMALS as Sirocco does, but rather limit the discussion to whales. Okay with you?
I have not even touched his other points yet but yes I'm concerned about the extinction of whales. To thine ownself be true. W.S. CANADA
If you prefer to focus on the empirical issues of whether minke whales are endangered in Norwegian waters, that's OK, except that, as none of us has scientific expertise on the matter, it's tricky to discuss. Certainly I won't be able to do much better than citing the Scientific Committee of the IWC; Norwegian researchers; and so on. The world's northernmost desert wind.
On the subject of comparative animal pain:
Is hunting whales cruel ? Minke whales are hunted using an explosive harpoon. These replaced the "cold" (non explosive) harpoons because they killed the animals more quickly. However, the whales may still take a considerable length of time to die and there is widespread agreement, especially when it is compared to methods used to kill farm animals, that whaling is inhumane. LINK
Sirocco, you assume that I am [almost] a vegan on ethical grounds. My motive was based on nutrition and health before ethics. Like any biological creature, my first imperative is to survive, and animal fats do clog up the arteries which can lead to coronary arterial diseases. Not to mention, that there is a proven relation to breast cancer and eating animal fat.
Justifying the Norwegian whale hunt because other domestic animals are killed and eaten is not justification at all. You would have to prove that Norwegians were being deprived of protein and needed whale meat to sustain themselves. In fact your argument is self-defeating because you give examples of other forms of animal protein that are available to the people of Norway proving that they do not need to kill whales.
As to whether or not the Minke whale is endangered or not, I could throw some numbers at you, like the annual increase in the Norwegian whale kill, like the decline in all whale populations even the Minke (due to global warming especially), the enormous profits that Norwegian whalers are making exporting whale meat to Japan but those numbers are available to you via Google if you want them.
The Norwegian whale hunt is a greedy exploitation of an animal that is endangered world wide.
To thine ownself be true. W.S. CANADA
There is irony in your plea for consistency. So you want to use a global carnivore consistency to defend your country's inconsistency with the rest of the world regarding the ban on whale hunting.
Try as I might, I don't understand what you're driving at.
I am simply asking how feeding on minke whale is intrinsically worse than feeding on all the other kinds of meat eaten every day the world across. That is all.
As to the alleged cruelty, I agree this is a valid concern but am aware of no 'widespread agreement' that the hunt is inhumane.
I have noted that some 80% die instantaneously. Some take longer; these are put to death with rifles. And importantly, they aren't necessarily conscious just because they are alive. On the contrary, most are knocked unconscious by the shock from the harpoon grenade. In fact, even the small minority that remain alive and conscious for more than seconds are not necessarily in deep pain, thanks to endorphines. Think about how soldiers wounded in combat often report having felt little or no pain for minutes - typically, until the immediate threat had passed and the situation calmed down.
Your near-veganism and its motivation is not at issue. What is at issue is the double standards of decrying the whale hunt in principle, but accepting the consumption of other beasts, without explaining what makes the difference.
The question is particularly acute given that, as mentioned, harvesting this natural resource is a vastly less polluting and energy-intensive way to acquire meat than the production of livestock.
But this is like saying that the people of Britain don't need to slaughter sheep. True; so what?
No, here you are asking me to do your work. If you wish to challenge the recommendations of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Committee, go ahead. But you can't expect me to take on that daunting task on your behalf, would you say?
And, once again, you are wrong about exports to Japan. There is no such thing at present, AFAIK (and I searched the Net in two languages to find trace of any). The 'enormous profits' are in any case a figment of the imagination.
Here we go again, with unsupported claims which, to all appearances, are false. How exactly do you propose to back this up? The world's northernmost desert wind.
The IWC numbers of minke whales in the North Atlantic have been disputed. I have some material on Minke Whale numbers if you want.
I backed up my final statement about greed with the proof of exports to Japan.
It is not comparable because whales cannot be bred domestically for human consumption, their numbers are declining and cannot be replaced.
Since the Minke whale meat sent to Japan by Norway has been found to contain toxins like PCB's there is no point in promoting its consumption. Only 2% of Norwegians eat whale meat, they think it is so 'yesterday.'
Now please stop stating that my statements are "false" because you do not agree with them. I have backed up everything I posted.
Thanks for the discussion.
I'm off. To thine ownself be true. W.S. CANADA
Disputed by whom, then? On what basis?
No, you didn't. Your linked-to items note, correctly, that (i) Norway lifted its self-imposed ban on export of legal whale products in 2002; (ii) Japan at some point considered importing Norwegian whale meat. They do not show that any substantial export has actually occurred; let alone of:
the enormous profits that Norwegian whalers are making exporting whale meat to Japan
- or that:
[Norway] kills whales as an expensive export product to make money. Greed fuels the whale hunt not necessity.
These allegations have the dual distinction of being: (i) undocumented by anything you have put forth; and (ii) inconsistent with your own claim that:
the trade did not go well when the meat was found to be contaminated by toxins like PCB's.
You also dismiss my comparison to consumption of farm animals thus:
Actually, it isn't correct that minke whales cannot, in principle, be bred domestically. And in fact, the Japanese have recently been considering creating enormous off-shore minke whale farms. Let's get clear on something here: Suppose this was done. Would you still object to the harvesting of this resource?
As to the declining numbers, you still haven't provided a single source for your claim that the minke whale is endangered in Norwegian waters.
Sorry, but I beg to differ. The world's northernmost desert wind.
