Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
carlito wrote: »
Well, firstly they are not critical to the entire marine ecosystem. In all probability, if they were to become exctinct little would happen except stocks of krill and fish (and giant squid if you include sperm whales) would increase, which would actually be of benefit to humans. It would not be an "unimaginable disaster": although I do enjoy your constant hyperbole. Not that I am advocating the extinction of whales.
Also, you say that humans don't depend on whale meat consumption for their survival or wellbeing: that is patently false. Firstly, significant numbers of people have been dependent on whaling for centuries, economically, socially, and culturally.
So the ban on whaling does threaten the survival of these communities (and for some cultures their actual individual physical survivial, e.g. Inuits).
Secondly, people's wellbeing does depend on the consumption of whalemeat, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to resume whaling.
People don't like being bullied by far off political bodies who have no understanding of their cultures, and they like being able to harvest resources that their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have harvested.
Whether whaling is "barbaric" or not is a purely normative matter.
Again, "barbaric" is entirely normative. I wouldn't say they are greedy. Norway already operates commercial whaling outside the IWC, and has been conducting an entirely sustainable hunt for years. And as I've said the potential consequences are not catastrophic, and there is little indication that the resource would be overexploited.
Whether it is a niche food or not is irrelevant. Because you consider a food "niche" does that mean its acceptable to stop other people consuming it? I don't see how that follows.
The other assumption you make here is that the pre-moratorium over-exploitation of whales was perpetrated for food, which it was not. Whales were harvested on such an industrial scale for their oil, which was mainly used for making margerine, lighting, lubricants, and cosmetic products (amongst other things). UK, Norweigian, South African, American and later Japanese and Soviet whaling fleets made huge profits from whale oil, which is why whaling was so excessive. However, from the 1970s alternative sources (that were more economically viable) were developed for products previously made using whale oil, usually using petroleum but also vegetable oil (e.g. sunflower oil). So there is no reason to assume that a resumption of commercial whaling now would equal a resumption of overexploitation: in fact if what people have been saying about low demand for whale meat is true it would probably not even result in any extra whales being killed.
I think you're being slightly dishonest in your argument. Its pretty clear that the whalers have indeed "won the numbers game:" the stocks they want to harvest have recovered to pre-exploitation levels. There is no serious conservation argument to be made.
That leaves "barbaric"/ethical/intelligence/method of kill arguments, which is what I suspect is the reason why you oppose whaling.
Aladdin wrote: »
Funnily enough only yesterday you were saying what terrible problems the alleged overpopulation of whales could create. Though apparently is alright if goes the other way.
In the case of either Norway or Iceland (can't remember which one), from the grand old era of 1930.
And as for the others, the point remains that today nobody depends on them in any way whatsoever.
How many whales could the Inuits manage to kill per year? Hardly the tens of thousands the combined fleets of Norway, Iceland and Japan if they were allowed to hunt at will, I'm sure you'll agree.
Of course the population of the world, the techniques and means to hunt and fish and our capacity to carry out checks and surveys due to advances in technology have changed everything have they not?
It is the culture of the Chinese to kill tigers and use their crushed bones for "medicine". Do you defend their right to hunt tigers too, as part of their culture?
You could say the same of everything. I'm sure those who believe in stoning women to death for adultery don't see it as barbaric at all...
Other than the fact that the moratorium exists because we almost drove whales to extinction, you mean?
It follows because absolutely nothing would be lost if people weren't allowed to eat whale meat again. Other than a few diners lamenting the loss of the delicacy as they look through the hundreds of different options still available on the menu...It also means that there is no need to kill a single whale ever again doesn't it?
Not only that. Any lift of the moratorium will quite probably mean a threat to the very survival of the species in the mid term, if not short term.
I really don't know what makes you think any different. Even as the cod population reaches its very end there men across the world are still fishing it with impunity saying it's their 'right', 'heritage' or 'livelihood'
wheresmyplacebo wrote: »
erm as i have said previously, i think whaling is nasty but allowable and controlled is better, and at the moment, they're having enough bloody trouble flogging it from the icelandic and japanese scientific catches so i don't see why it needs to be lifted
carlito wrote: »
Thats entirely consistent. Whales eat large amounts of fish and krill, and so do we. We're in direct competition with them. Now, I'm not suggesting that the whales are in any way "responsible" for the depletion of stocks of fish and krill. Animals cannot be considered responsible for their actions, they will simply breed as fast as their biology allows them to, and are at the mercy of their food source as the main variable for their survival, if they are not predated upon. Now we no longer predate on whales, the only limiting factor on their numbers (besides pollution, collisions with ships, climate change, etc) is the quantity of prey available to them, and they will consume this prey without restraint, since that is what they are genetically programmed to do. If all whales went extinct, it wouldn't have "unimaginably catastrophic" consequences, it would simply mean that there would be more of their prey species for us to harvest. Since we overharvest these resources as well it wouldn't make that much of a difference.
Untrue. Norweigian and Icelandic commercial whalers depend on whaling. So do Japanese "scientific" whalers.
Then you have significant numbers of people (especially in Japan) who are now unemployed, with their communities devastated, because they are no longer allowed to hunt whales.
You'd be suprised. Firstly, the point is that in reality Norway, Iceland and Japan are "allowed" to hunt whales at the moment, and they do. The IWC is a voluntary organization and signatories are allowed to lodge official objections that allow them to "break the rules": this is what Norway did almost immediately after the moratorium, and have been hunting whales ever since. As we've noted, the Japanese have effectively resumed hunting whales under the guise of "scientific whaling." Iceland are doing the same. If the IWC continues to refuse them the right to do it commercially, eventually they'll just withdraw from it entirely, and then there won't be any regulation at all. Secondly, no one is suggesting that they should be allowed to hunt whales "at will," what is being suggested is lifting the moratorium so these countries can carry out a highly regulated, sustainable hunt. This, at the present time, would certainly not mean killing "tens of thousands," because that would not be sustainable, so no, I don't agree.
Yes, certainly I would, if there was a population large enough for a sustainable hunt, and their hunting activity was monitored by an international body.
But stoning women to death concerns humans, not animals. Also, I wouldn't advocate coercing countries into changing their laws, its up to a sovereign state to decide what laws it sets. We certainly shouldn't support or encourage countries/cultures who carry out stoning of women, but that doesn't mean we should coerce them into changing their laws, either.
But what makes you think you have the right to dictate to other cultures and individuals what they "need" to do? What they "need" is freedom to do what they wish to do, as long as it doesn't endanger the existence of the common resource they want to harvest. If they are regulated well enough then I don't see that they will endanger whale populations. Because you don't see the "need" for it it doesn't give you the right to dictate to people on the other side of the world what they are allowed and not allowed to do.
So do you think we should have a complete moratorium on commercial fishing as well? Because that represents a much greater and more widespread "tragedy of the commons" than whaling, and with far greater consequences.
Its clear that fishermen will also deplete stocks past the point of collapse, so surely there should be a complete ban on commercial fishing as well? And why stop there, there are plenty of other common resources that are being overexploited. But there is no indication that an official resumption of whaling will result in overexploitation, especially considering the public and media spotlight on whales.
Aladdin wrote: »
But whales have been around for hundreds of thousands of years unbothered by man and their numbers have never been a problem. Then suddenly man takes an interest in them and we are told their numbers must be controlled before they the oceans are packed solid with them.
I don't buy it.
Yes, those in the trade. Not entire countries.
That is exactly the argument put forward by those fishermen who trade in cod. Should we allow them to continue for the sake of their jobs?
Well given that they're managing to hunt nearly two thousand between them with all the restrictions in place, imagine how many they'd be hunting if they were free to do as they please- specially Japan.
Nice. That's not even for meat. Just for ignorance and superstition (for that is exactly what it is) and sometimes for the vanity of despicable cunts who think it's cool to have a tiger skin rug on their living room.
But seeing as tigers are one of the most endangered species on earth right now, do you support the right for the Chinese to hunt them as things stand?
We obviously hold opposite views on that issue. I wouldn't support the use of force because it almost never works but sanctions, as much pressure as possible, boycotts, hell, yes. Who's going to speak for the women otherwise?
Moratoriums need only apply to those species that are being overfished and are being depleted to dangerous levels, so no I don't believe we should have a moratorium on all fishing.
There should be one on cod, that's for sure. And, to be brutally honest, to hell with 'jobs' and 'livelihoods'. There is a lot more at stake here. The same can be said in my opinion of whaling, which is one of the reasons why I'd like to see it banned altoghether
carlito wrote: »
Where are you getting your information from for this?
If there is little demand for whale meat then I don't see the problem in lifting the ban, since its even less likely to result in exploitation than if there was regulation of high demand.
briggi wrote: »
I can't really see the sense in banning something because of risk of extinction and then as soon as the numbers are healthy again, deciding to lift the ban and allow the behaviour that caused the problem to resume. It may be too simplistic a view but I think there's a lesson in there that hasn't actually been learned.
don't know how much I believe that livelihoods rest on being able to go whaling, and how much I believe that it is a cultural tradition that is deserving of preservation. If there truly are people who depend on whaling to live hand-to-mouth then I would prefer to look at helping them to make their livelihood in other ways, rather than allowing them to start whaling again.