Discussion » Current Events » Whaling

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    <p>So the Japanese whaling fleet is heading home early, their efforts to kill enough whales to affect the eco-system apparently thwarted by foreign conservancy ships.</p> <p>I'm curious, what does everyone think about whaling? Are you opposed to it? If so, are you opposed to killing cattle and other animals too? On what grounds?</p> <p>Speaking of grounds, are you opposed to ground baby chickens?</p> <p> <object width="320" height="240" data="http://www.tudou.com/v/LVh1FF2l8hY/&amp;rpid=81480715/v.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> <param name="name" value="Ground baby chickens" /> <param name="src" value="http://www.tudou.com/v/LVh1FF2l8hY/&amp;rpid=81480715/v.swf" /> </object> </p>
  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Well. sometime, people tend to over react, it's like those activists refusing the magic show with fish as the guy did on CNY eve claiming it's not good for fish...

    If there's no risk of extinction and there is way to reproduce whales, I don't mind Japanse who like whale meat to consume it.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Why do you care if the species go extinct or not?

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Mo Miing, 

    The first law of ecology states that Everything is connected to everything else. Simply put, this assertion implies that all living organisms in this planet are interdependent on one another. At first glance, one organism may not be directly connected to another, but when traced, there actually exists a mutually reliant relationship among all humans, plants, animals, insects and other life forms. Man can therefore never claim that he can live in isolation because he is always dependent on other organisms in one way or another. All organisms form part of a co-dependent structure called the ecosystem.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    If the ecosystem can sustain it and the process doesn't cause undue pain, I don't care how charismatic critters are. If they taste good, I'll eat it without feeling guilty. You can show me the slaughterhouse videos, too. I don't care. I'm on 4chan. I fap to this.

    Shark finning is pretty barbaric, though.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Desmond, that was very well articulated. But it doesn't explain why extinction would be the issue for you. If the population goes from ten thousand to five hundred, the animals might not go extinct, but it will have a significant impact on the ecosystem. In fact, the entire reason that Japan is still whaling (besides to piss off the countries that told them not to) is to test the impact that killing all the whales will have on the ecosystem.

    And on the subject of the ecosystem, isn't the impact of raising billions of cattle more significant than the impact of driving several species to extinction?

  • Joakim Berg Solum

    Good points. I really don't see too much distinction between driving a species to extinction vs farming them for food. Look at cows these days... you won't find cows outside of the farm anymore, and within the farm they are just machines to produce milk and be harvested for meat. They've been demoted to the same level as plants. At least the whales are free before they are slaughtered.

    Would love to try some whale meat or dodo bird eggs...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Domesticated animals and livestock still make contributions to ecosystems, albeit perversely. Think of all the new antibiotic-resistant microbes growing in those cows' guts.

  • Joakim Berg Solum

    Well talking about eco-system, like Mo Ming said, raising cattle probably contributes a lot more to the eco-system (good or bad) than wiping out all those inbred cheetahs or panda bears. I was just thinkg that if alien overlords came to earth tomorrow and enslaved us Matrix style, we'd still be a part of the so-called ecosystem but serve a completely different function. I just hope the alien overlords are hot 4 breasted women...

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Good ol' PETA...

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    see the documentary -"the cove"

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Yeah, that was a good movie. Now if only they would make one about slaughterhouses...

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    the awful thing is that people don't even know what  they ate are dolphin meat since those meat already marked as whale or other meat in the supermarket in Japan~the government also hidding the truth to protect their benefits...those dolphin meat have very high mercury content which is highly detrimental to people's health...poor people...

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Gloria, true, but dolphin meat isn't any worse than tuna meat, or other whale meat, right? They are all poisonous due to the mercury level. People know they are eating animals, does it really matter which ones?

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    it matters , human are also animals,can we also eat human flesh?dolphins are very general human animals,they have 3-5 years old child thinking ability ,their brain size are bigger than chimpanzees  while the learning ability and intelligence are closely related to  well-developed, they have abstract thinking ability that can do a lot of  difficult acrobatics to amuse people, that's too cruel to kill and eat those cute animals anyway~

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Gloria, I think those things are true of a very large number of animals. Certainly apes and elephants. Most animals can learn to do tricks in captivity. I wouldn't presume the ability to analyze another animals thoughts, but I don't really think it's worse to eat people than to eat dolphins.

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

     "but I don't really think it's worse to eat people than to eat dolphins."

    wow, so u think eat humans is  natural ? that can't be a true human culture,Moming.

    they broke the cosmic rules(rule of pure love)~

    that's cannibalism...

    is cannibalism moral and custom of  your country?

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

     I know someone would mention friends of human" dogs" .

    Then what about pigs,sheeps,chicks,cows? they can be human friends too, let alone the contribution they made to human,  I also saw someone take a little piggy as his pet ,  to eat  or not to eat?

    what I want to say is that "to eat dogs is unmoral" not means that "human who eat dogs are unmoral",even if one eat dog he can be also a moral man,the one who don't eat dog can also be unmoral ,because we should measure one's morality in all aspects.

  • Virgil W
    Virgil W wrote:

    @Gloria, IMHO- Well, an animal so trusting and loyal as a dog should probaly be spared if at all possible.

    Although morals should apply , what if that was all the nourishment that remained ?  Would you chose to eat Spot or Cujo yet sustain ?

    Although, Momings topic can be quite controversial to the woodsy type like me, I love the gift of life.There is no need to kill unnecessarily people. I hope you agree.

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    Virgil,since we are not living in the ancient times to kill animals for food, u think those whales and dolphins are all necessary for people to eat? apprantly,people who don't eat those meat can also lead a healthy life , I can't understand why people eat those animals that near extinct? there's no problem to eat pigs,chicks,cows even dogs since there are a great many of them~but people, how can people eat people? is it conforms to human nature? though it's exist in ancient times in cannibalic tribes but now  it is already civilized era~

    "There is no need to kill unnecessarily people"  who is the necessary people deserve to die?

  • Virgil W
    Virgil W wrote:

    @ Gloria, look at it this way "There is no need to kill unnecessarily, people". I was saying that there is no need to kill unnecessarily for food, especially when there is chicken, beef, pork, fish/seafood  and tofu right in front of us.

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    All of the existing ethics are conventionalized  by predecessors and most of people imposed on those few groups,suppose this planet ,the earth we live on,had no food, only by eating disadvantaged people to flourish in their own race and extend his own life that the law of jungle namely "morality", no one would think it is unethnical thing at that time~

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    so it is,people kill those animals because there has its market, if no one would eat those meat, who would kill them unnecessarily?still,the problem is that people eat those meat...

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Gloria, in my countries cannibalism is not the norm, but there are places where it is still normal, and I wouldn't pass judgement on them.

    Raising cows for slaughter arguably does more damage to the environment than would the genocide of many whale species. Maybe whales are more intelligent than cows, but does intelligence give soemthing a right to life? Certainly, a chimpanzee may be more intelligent than a retarded human, but it's still generally considered acceptable to kill chimpanzees.

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    Moming, u r really good at chicanery,huh~ I didn't say intelligence give something a right  to life~actually am more lean on the categoricall morality,everyone has his birthright which can not be deprived~so u think it is comprehensible to be cruel to kill those cute living creatures only for money and satisfy human's curiosity at food taste? It thoroughly exposed human's covetousness and selfishness~where is the end at last?

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    hehe, since this world is fucking crazy, things between "normal" and "abnormal" has already became ambiguous and contentious .now people are still governed by those people who owns power...still living by the law of jungle,people's  values and philosophy has already imposed by ones who owns the power and wealth... even those powerful people do some extremely cruel things to others they may still  think that is understandable...but those who said they are not restrict by those powerful people and has his own priciple and moral reason and still think killing whales and dolphins and anyother creature is comprehensible, I  should say they are amoral and cruel ones...

     

     

     

  • Kodi
    Kodi wrote:

    PETA is out of control!

    As long as sustainable methods are in place and no animals are driven into extinction then people should be able to eat whichever animals they want.

    Whale meat is pretty good.  I have had grey whale, humpback whale, baluga whale, fur seal, walrus, etc.... (I lived in an Alaskan native village) 

    There are quotas to follow for the harvesting of these mammals which should be honored.  Due to the traveling nature of the animals sometimes international guidelines should be established in order to promote the sustainability of the animal population.  If Japan does not follow international laws and gets more whale meat than their fair share then that is not cool. However, since not many other people want to eat whales then Japans whaling probably wont cause extinction.  Those PETA tree huggers need to stop with their whiney business of trying to give personality a human aspects to sea mammals.  They are animals.  We can eat them and they can eat us.  We should probably figure out ways to sustain populations, but definitely not ban all eating of animals. 

    Its so funny how on "Shepards of the Sea" these people are battling the Japanese whaling vessels and the whalers are demonized on the show.  However, those fucking hippies are interfereing with international business and market activity.  When the sea shepard boat got damaged they were all blaming the Japanese captain for trying to hurt them, however thats what happens when you get in the way of a ship with a smaller boat.  I was laughing my ass off when that happened!  The hippies looked so surprised!  Like, "OMG we can really get hurt fucking with these people's business."  What a bunch of idiots.......

  • Martin Svean
    Martin Svean wrote:

    yea please elighten us .

  • Kodi
    Kodi wrote:

    How many damn whales could we possibly eat?  As long as there are quotas and people follow them it should be fine.  Enough whales to balance the eco system..... 

     

    Sometimes poeple forget that we are part of the eco system too.  We are not seperated by some devine right.  We should not kill off species to the brink of extinction, but then again we should also not be barred from utilizing what we need from nature. 

    I lived in an Alaskan Native village and whales as well as many other sea and wild land mammals are staple foods for them.  They have been eating these things since the beginning of their arctic culture.  Furthermore, the Japanese have also been whaling since they cinstructed the first Japanese boats. 

    Westerners are the poeple who forced these mamals to the brink of extinction because we had to kill as many as possible as qucikly as possible for profit on the oil market and we did not even eat the damn whales.  It was purely a business back then for western countries while civilizations that actually relied on the whales for nourishment still took their small protion of the whale population without making too big of an impact.  Now that these western whalers grandsons and granddaughters have turned into whale defenders everyone should just stop eating whales simply because someone likes them and they are gentle giants that breath air like humans? 

    I do agree that Japanese whalers do take more than their fair share of whales, but i do not think their activities will drive them to exctinction.  We do the counts here in Hawaii every year and I actively participate in this activity.  Our numbers are still very strong and all the pacific whales pass through the islands.  The populations are sustainable up to this point because of the international moratorium on whaling that is largley followed with the acception of some native groups and the Japanese whaling vessels. You also do not want too many whales in the oceans either becuase that could also be bad. 

    Be wary of whos info your looking at.  Many of the organizations who are putting out whale numbers and information are bias.  Most people just go along with them because it seems like the right thing to do. I like whales.  They are beautiful and amazing creatures, but they are not more special than any other creature who desrves a sutainable population on Earth. 

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Andy, sorry for the delayed response, I just saw your request. I thought this was common knowledge or I would have provided information earlier.

    "Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation...

    ...Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems...

    ...Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation...

    ...The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. ..."

    Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

    Or you might just read the wikipedia article on the environmental impacts of meat production

     

    Kodi, how've you been? Back in Beijing?

    The specified purpose of the Japanese whaling fleet is to kill enough whales to have an environmental impact. This is all in the name of science, of course.

    I don't have a big problem with someone taking a boat out on the ocean and killing a whale for the next five years' dinner. I think that taking a fleet out to ambush migrating populations is disgustingly genocidal though. However, I don't know that I have a much higher opinion of raising livestock for slaughter.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Oops, I have to note that the comparrison to transportation aspect of the 2006 study has been debunked. There is nothing incorrect about the damages done by raising animals for slaughter, but the lifecycle damages were compared only to the emissions from transportation, rather than the emissions from the transportation lifecycle.

  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:

    莫明我懒得打英文了...对于这个问题,我的原则始终是明确的:只要现有的捕杀或养殖,对于小范围或大范围的生态平衡不会造成现实或潜在的严重危害,且捕杀或养殖活动对动物造成的痛苦与这些动物的中枢神经系统发达程度相匹配,我就不会觉得有什么问题。

    具体说,“生态平衡不会造成危害” 并非一定意味着这一物种没有灭绝的危险,很多时候我们过分地夸大了一个特定物种对环境的重要性。当然,这需要专业的评价体系,而不能仅仅依靠人们的所谓“常识”。

    “潜在的危害” 是指,在评价危害的时候,要尽可能谨慎,毕竟“生态平衡” 这个词儿太复杂,很多关系并不是那么直接和已知的。

    “痛苦与这些动物的中枢神经系统发达程度相匹配” 是指,举个例子说,对于鱼和牛,我们要有不同的屠宰标准。对于鱼,相对可以简单粗暴些。

     

    基于这个原则,对于一些事情,我确实有自己的标准。好比说,如果肉食猫的养殖标准且卫生,对于宠物猫的偷盗行为控制严格,对于肉食猫的屠宰方式也有严格的法律规定,那么,虽然我是如此喜欢猫的一个人,对于别人的吃猫行为,我感情上非常反感,但我坚决维护他们吃猫的权利,且决不会因此评价他们的道德行为水平。

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    已读。大哥说的有道理。不过,好像如果我们继续使用常用的捕杀以及养殖方式,那么我们也无法保持生态平衡。养牛对于水和空气的生态系统有严重的损害。大屠杀整圆荚体的鲸鱼也许对大海的生态系统也有相当严重的危害。我不知道该用什么标准来规定什么是能杀的,什么是不能杀的。

  • Undermoonlight
    I prefer to think that there is no right or wrong on this matter. Whaling or no whaling is about human interest, and supporting whaling or preventing whale is also about human interest. Superficially speaking, it's just difference of opinions, and "filithily speaking" (to those 'innocent', pretend-to-be-pure princes and princesses), it's all politics. Evinronmental protection...to a large extent, is a term which one interest group uses against another interest group...Yes, we need to protect the environment that we live in, but how? Is the prevalent opinion stating the truth? What is the ultimate truth?...Can Science really sustain the great task of preserving human civilization or just lead to ultimate destruction because of the underlying ideology it promotes? Sometimes, we are just a bunch of animals who have yet been able to see the whole picture of our world...In fact, just doing a little pondering over human history, we will find that lots of "advanced" scientific concepts in certain time periods have been proved wrong later...So, please do not hold on to extremeties...there are always alternate possibilities...
  • Undermoonlight

    I prefer to think that there is no right or wrong on this matter. Whaling or no whaling is about human interest, and supporting whaling or preventing whale is also about human interest. Superficially speaking, it's just difference of opinions, and "filithily speaking" (to those 'innocent', pretend-to-be-pure princes and princesses), it's all politics. Evinronmental protection...to a large extent, is a term which one interest group uses against another interest group...Yes, we need to protect the environment that we live in, but how? Is the prevalent opinion stating the truth? What is the ultimate truth?...Can Science really sustain the great task of preserving human civilization or just lead to ultimate destruction because of the underlying ideology it promotes? Sometimes, we are just a bunch of animals who have yet been able to see the whole picture of our world...In fact, just doing a little pondering over human history, we will find that lots of "advanced" scientific concepts in certain time periods have been proved wrong later...So, please do not hold on to extremeties...there are always alternate possibilities...

  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:

    莫明,这没有什么“不过”的转折关系的,你说的这些,我按我的评价标准,自然也有判断,只是没有说出来罢了。

    我确实觉得现有的养殖业多多少少会对自然界造成危害,例如产生废水废气,引起土地荒漠化等等。于是,我整体上对大规模的养殖业并没有支持的意思。

    只不过,这个问题已经不是针对某一个物种了,而是针对一个规模很大的行业的存在的道德判断,甚至是对地球上绝大多数人的生活习惯的判断。毕竟我们无法要求全球所有的杂食者都变成素食者,或者减少肉食在他们食物中的比重。

    这个问题可以讨论,但麻烦得多,而且会引起很多其他新的问题,好比说,如果要求人们为了环境少吃肉,是否同时需要要求他们改变很多很可能比吃肉对环境破坏程度还大的行为,比如说不开车,不住大房子,夏天少开空调,冬天少开暖气,等等。再比如说,其实农业本身,对自然界本就有很大的破坏,于是,我们吃小麦水稻是不是也是道德上不正确的?

    至于捕鲸这件事情,从现在我所知道的事情来看,确实对生态平衡有影响,于是,我对这个事情的态度是很明确的:反对。

     

    我之所以要强调我对类似这种事情的是非判断原则,主要是想间接反对一种现象,就是人们通过无所谓是非的纯个人喜好去对他人的行为进行价值判断。最常见的例子有两个,一个是吃猫吃狗,一个是日本人杀海豚。

    这两件事情,从目前来看,我都反对。我反对吃猫吃狗是因为市场不正规,存在很多偷盗宠物狗的行为。我反对日本人杀海豚是因为海豚的种群数量受到了威胁。

    有一些典型的反对理由,是我所反感的:1)猫狗可爱:这是无所谓是非的纯个人喜好,且这个理由其实很残忍,对于“不可爱”的动物来说; 2)XXX动物是人类的朋友:这个也是无所谓是非的纯个人喜好,而且这个理由也很残忍,对于天性和人类相抵触的动物来说; 3)现有的屠宰方式不人道:这个其实是事实,而且我也反对,但我不会只是拿“杀猫的方式不人道”,“杀狗的方式不人道”来说事儿。据我对当今屠宰行业的了解,不仅在中国,而且在很多西方国家,对于牲畜的屠宰方式的残忍程度,只会比大家所见的杀猫杀狗的方式更甚。我反对一切不人道的屠宰方式,但不会只盯着个别动物说事儿;4)XXX动物很聪明:这是一个没有逻辑的判断,起码没有人曾经说明,一个动物的中枢神经发达程度和它是否能成为人类的食物之间有什么明显的关系,以及你所认为的threshold上下的动物,他们的中枢神经发达程度到底有什么本质区别。另外,猪其实非常聪明~

    嗯,基本上就是这样

  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:

    另外,展开说一下,我觉得Undermoonlight的部分说法其实确实是那样。很多道德上的东西,更多成为了政治上互相攻击,以及小团体间互相道德判断的玩具。这些事情里面,往往掺杂了太多太多的无逻辑因素,不科学因素,不可比因素,以及太多太多的双重标准。

    按照道理来说,以“保护环境”为例,如果行为A和行为B对于环境的破坏程度相同,人们就应该对这两个行为的关注程度和批判力度相当才是。显然,事实并不是这样的。举个简单的例子:行为A:美国人开车的习惯和日本人开车的习惯的区别;行为B:日本人捕鲸;如果有人愿意去量化,我相信,行为A对自然环境的破环程度要比行为B大得多得多得多得多。但现实是,日本人捕鲸这件确实错误的事情,受到了几乎全球的关注,且这件事情已经扩大到了政治领域。但是,美国人的过度耗能的生活习惯,却基本上被人们看成是“理所当然”的一部分。

  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:

    所以,基本上我很不喜欢去从太高的道德角度去谴责他人的做法不好,大多时候只是指出他人的行为不对这一性质上的判断就好了,而绝不想摆出一幅站在道德制高点上的样子。因为如果这样,我觉得我问心有愧,好比说,凭什么我没事儿干的时候就愿意想当然地把大排量车的油门踩到底,去山里兜风,却还要去从道德上指责他人捕杀海豚或鲸鱼的问题 -- 他们这样做是错了,指出这种错误是每个人都有的权利,只是,人性如此,你如此,我也如此,我们都本性热衷于指出他人的错误,却很少能看到自己的问题。

    于是,在我看来,人们愿意站在道德制高点上的本性,以因为思考能力和知识匮乏带来的判断力低下,和由此而来的诸多“双重标准”的表现,基本上是当今世界很多小问题,大问题的根本来源。

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    整体来说,大哥写得非常好。道理很明显。赞。如果明儿没事做我就来翻译。

    ”按照道理来说,以“保护环境”为例,如果行为A和行为B对于环境的破坏程度相同,人们就应该对这两个行为的关注程度和批判力度相当才是。“

    我就在这一点要补充一点:我认为咱们不仅要考虑行为对环境的破坏程度,而且要考虑把行为改善的难度。假如美国人开车对环境的破坏程度和全世界人民吃肉对环境的破坏的程度是一样。如果人民做素食主义者比美国人不开车容易,那我认为咱们应该先重看这个比较容易改善的行为。我当然不赞成美国人过度开车或其他的过度耗能生活习惯,但是有些是非常难改善的。除非在美国的几个大城市以外,几乎没有公共交通。大多数美国城市发展的时候是以私人汽车为主流的交通方式。目前没有实在的替代方式。我这么说可能显得很虚伪,但是我总是认为在北京开车比在美国的一般小城市开车坏多了。在北京我们有选择。我那里没有买车,也从来都没有觉得有必要买。地铁最后一班车后我才愿意做出租车。在非常冷、着急、或别无选择的那十几次我还是打了的士,但是我一般来说受不了人在那里开车。话说回来,我在美国自然而然天天都开车,也不觉得我特别坏。这就是因为改善很难。我可能就是给自己找借口,但是咱们如果要规定世界人民不能再大规模地捕杀养或者殖动物,我赞成。

    我不记得我为何不是素食主义者。

  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:

    这事儿的难易程度对大家而言是如何,我不好判断,只是对我而言,我宁可少开车,也不愿意少吃肉的,哈哈哈。

    但是,我基本上很同意你说的“原则”,毕竟我们的目标是解决问题,而并非只是指出问题。从解决问题的角度讲,引入“行为改善的难度”的概念确实很重要。

    只是,你后面说的也都很同意,就是说,这个“难易程度”判断起来,确实很困难,而且很容易陷入双重标准,各说各话的境地,于是最后可能有演变成“话语权”之争了。好比说,打个比方,说不定日本人觉得,吃鲸鱼肉,比什么开车之类的事情,更加地天经地义呢。

    嗯,在北京,开车上下班儿确实是神经病。那个我也试过,结果是开车上班儿1个半小时,还得早起,路上还生气,还得花汽油钱,还得一路换档...做公共交通40分钟,基本上不要钱,还能玩儿游戏或者再打个盹儿:D

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc