Japanese fleet catches 177 whales in latest hunt
japantoday.com
japantoday.com
The real gruesome thing here is how we're not just hunting whales, but that the ones we do hunt are roughly 60% of the time pregnant ones[4].
[1] https://us.whales.org/whaling-facts
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/07/norway-b...
[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-30/whale-meat-marketed-to...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/world/asia/whales-japan.h...
Somewhat gruesome "traditionalist" hunting is practiced [1]: baby birds just out of the nest are scooped out of the water and have their heads torn off while still alive. But the sad thing is, it can still be argued to be more humane and sustainable than factory chicken farming. And is probably far healthier, too.
That's true, but compare that to historical values:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NorwegianWhaleCatches.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Norway#/media/File:...
It's pretty telling that they're not opting to tell you that it's a gradual ramp-up which is still around 1/2 of what they were doing in the 1980s.
The larger context here is that in 1992 Iceland, Norway et al. partially split off from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and formed their own North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO)[1].
Whaling quotas are now at an impasse where these countries decide them unilaterally, because the members of the IWC won't even have the discussion of what would be a reasonable science-based quota.
I have yet to see any suggestion that the whales being hunted in the North-Atlantic by these countries are threatened by these whaling practices. An large year-over-year increase on a relatively small quota tells you nothing. You need to look at how large the total stock is, how long it takes to renew etc.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Marine_Mammal_C...
It's like asking someone what they think a reasonable, science based quota for murdering people is. You're not gonna find a lot of room to negotiate when that's the belief
The descriptions of the treatment & suffering of orangutans in Borneo reads a lot like historical accounts of invading armies, replete with murder, cruelty, rape, and ripping babes from the arms of mothers.
Probably not what you meant, but I have kind of an aversion to the phrase "slippery slope", as I think people use it to imply that we shouldn't consider a point because we might not like all the ramifications.
If it turns out all the things I eat are writing ballads about how sad it is that they all get eaten, I'd rather know than not.
People shed tears over pets, yet pay others to abuse animals (factory farming) just to enjoy a meal that's equivalently tasty to easily available options. People will condemn the Japanese for eating whales or dolphins, the Chinese for eating dogs, meanwhile they themselves cause the suffering of significantly more animals.
I hope in very near future, the mocumentary Carnage begins to resemble reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnage_(2017_film)
Don't expect any better either. Outright lies and false equivalences like this are all they seem capable of. They have been singing the same song for a decade and can't pack in the smug enough to realize it's not working.
It's like sitting through D.A.R.E. in grade school: We know what you are doing and we see through it. All it leads to is me considering everything that leaves your mouth a lie.
But, the vegan movement does deserve some credit:
I will say I have been LOVING the `It's an animal right's issue` position vegan groups have been adopting lately. It's a powerful coherent message, is not smug, and speaks to people at face value instead of condescending to them. It's more "MLK Jr." and less "Women and Women First".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_minke_whale#Conserva...
> From 1987 to the present, Japan has been sending a fleet consisting of a single factory ship and several catcher/spotting vessels to the Southern Ocean to catch Antarctic minkes under Article VIII of the IWC, which allows the culling of whales for scientific research. The first research program, Japanese Research Program in the Antarctic (JARPA), began in 1987-88, when 273 Antarctic minkes were caught. The quota and catch soon increased to 330 and 440. In 2005-06, the second research program, JARPA II, began. In its first two years, in what Japan called its "feasibility study", 850 Antarctic minkes, as well as 10 fin whales, were to be taken each season (2005–06 and 2006–07). The quota was reached in the first season, but due to a fire, only 508 Antarctic minkes were caught in the second. In 2007-08, because of constant harassment from environmental groups, they failed to reach the quota again, with a catch of only 551 whales.
[...]
> In 1966, minke whales became the target of whaling operations off northeastern Brazil (6° – 8°S) due, once again, to the decline of sei whales.
The tropical deforestation cycle is generally understood as: new roads lead to new accessible timber land. That land is then logged legally and illegally and abandoned. Hunger issues push sustenance farmers to slash-and-burn the cleared and abandoned areas for animal agriculture.
So, indeed, unless cotton and coffee and sugar behaviors can feasibly resolve hunger issues, it does make sense to focus on animal agriculture.
[0] https://www.actionagainsthunger.org/world-hunger-facts-stati... [1] http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-mi...
Just try asking people around how egg production works. Almost no one around me even had a clue. I even got an answer that chicken lays eggs once a year.
It's the ultimate fake burger that has a 1/10 of the environment while being vegan.
Now if there was an equivalent for chicken then it I would never eat another animal again!
And here's a hat tip for wanting to give up meat!
It's great to see people making better choices.
Ethan Brown is a great entrepreneur with a great mission.
Hope prices will come down and they can scale it, so more people can get their products.
I think the best route for global veganism will be vat-grown meat. I haven't had a chance to taste any but it seems the most logical route - why grow the animal when you can just grow the muscle tissue? After the process is made efficient it should be cheaper for ranchers, better for the environment, no animals have to die, tastes the same... Win/win/win/win
But I'll be right behind you in the queue when we get there. I've always been a bit of a carnivore, but the older I get, the worse I feel about eating animals, especially mammals.
edit: I'd prefer a response to downvotes. Companies like Kraft, Frito-Lay, and Post have had "food scientists" whose main job have been tricking people into thinking absolute garbage is tasty for years. The results is an obesity crisis and tongues that are too confused to guide us to decent nutrition any more.
If the impossible burger and the likes is not for you, why not try other meat free recipes that are equally tasty, if it means not oppressing and inflicting pain and suffering on to other sentient beings?
I don’t try to project human emotions on to animals; there is no way evidence animals have any objection to what you call “oppression” or that they object to what you call “pain and suffering.” Quite the opposite, I would say this is the evolutionary path they chose.
To your other point, the top 10 dishes I’ve ever had in my life were animals, and pan-frying a nice steak or pork loin along with eggs is a combination full of nutrition that I have never grown tired of.
However, I'm not sure you looked into how the majority of the meat we consume is being produced. If not, please review the videos below [0]. I'm curious to find out your thoughts on that - how that couldn't be described as oppressing and enslaving other species. Alex Hershaft - Holocaust survivor - certainly thinks so and draws comparisons to concentration camps and founded 'Farm' after escaped Nazi Germany.
> there is no way evidence animals have any objection to what you call “oppression” or that they object to what you call “pain and suffering.”
Do you have pets - a dog or a cat? If so, try to cut them with a knife and let me know what how they react. Anyway, no need to carry out this experiment - there is enough evidence that animals actively try to avoid pain. Why else are they screaming when they experience pain? Why else are animals being used in pain research? Maybe you think a pig can't be compared to a dog or cat. Pigs intelligence level has been compared to a young human child and piglets have passed the mirror test. Even fish feel pain [1]
>Quite the opposite, I would say this is the evolutionary path they chose.
How did they choose this path? We are breeding these animals into existence and there is no natural reproduction. Cows for example are forcibly impregnated on what is sometimes called rape racks - you can find these videos on youtube. There is nothing natural or evolutionary about this.
Anyway, let me know after reviewing all this information and after doing your own research - whether you still think it's OK for us humans to continue and support the large scale meat industry. Whether you think it's OK to inflict pain on sentient beings that can experience pain - just so we can derive pleasure from them by consuming their flesh.
[0] Reality of large scale meat production Meet your Meat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RX88IGJ35g
Earthlings https://vimeo.com/209647801
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain...
Your moral preference seems to be "avoid causing pain for sentient beings as much as possible." My preference is for the thriving of a wide variety of species with different evolutionary strategies.
You, presumably, also avoid pain as a rule, but there are cases where you would endure pain for a higher cause (ie: donating blood during a natural disaster).
Ideally, farm animals live a safe life without unnecessary pain, are given reproductive opportunity, and are slaughtered painlessly. The fact that current factory farms aren't ideal isn't a reason to give up on these animals completely.
> How did they choose this path? We are breeding these animals into existence and there is no natural reproduction. Cows for example are forcibly impregnated on what is sometimes called rape racks - you can find these videos on youtube. There is nothing natural or evolutionary about this.
The ancestors of current meat cows evolutionary chose, by being the easiest to capture and domesticate, the path of becoming dependent on humans for their species survival. It's natural because humans are part of nature, and it's evolutionary because the evolutionary strategy of submission was outstandingly successful.
And to clarify all my arguments are against the large scale meat industry - where most of the meat comes from. I'm not talking about meat from animals you personally hunt or personally raised and killed - or meat coming from farms where the farmers truly try to give the animals a good life.
> Are farm pigs less happy than wild boars? Are you against ant enslavement of aphids? Do humans oppress chicken more than cheetahs oppress antelope?
Wild boars are in their natural state, i.e. free in the wild. Most enslaved pigs lead a miserable life and are confined to very small places, i.e. not free. Do we need aphids for our survival? If not, why enslave them? We can't compare ourselves to cheetahs, who need meat to survive. Humans don't.
> Again you're using human values and trying to project them on animals
That's not what I'm doing. I enjoyed meat dishes, but after doing extensive research of where the meat comes from that I buy in shops I stopped consuming meat. I'm not putting animals and humans on the same pedestal, if that is what you mean.
> [...] but there are cases where you would endure pain for a higher cause
What higher cause are animals 'donating' their flesh to? In our society we don't need meat to survive anymore - it's been proven that we can get all the nutrients we need from plants and other non-animal food sources.
So the only higher cause I can think of - why we continue to make these animals endure pain - is because we derive pleasure from it. So it becomes an ethical question - does our need for pleasure justify enslaving and oppressing these beings and creating destruction on so many other levels?
> The fact that current factory farms aren't ideal isn't a reason to give up on these animals completely.
Factory farms are the reality. Those happy ethical farms are rare in comparison and we can't feed the world with this - it's not scalable - especially since most people want and can only afford cheap meat. Interesting to hear how we can have large scale and pain free factory farms? But I think the question should be, is animal meat the best way to feed the world?
> The ancestors of current meat cows evolutionary chose, by being the easiest to capture and domesticate.
I don't understand how this works - do you have any links to some research that show that this is the case? It was easy for us to 'capture and domesticate' other humans - but we gave up on that practice, because we as a society agreed it was wrong.
Look - I get it. It's not easy to give up meat and we tell ourselves that animals don't feel pain, that we need it to survive, that it's natural etc.
We constantly evolve our moral framework - we gave up barbaric practices that once were the norm. In the future the way we produce our meat now will be seen as barbaric and immoral. Yes there will still be some people who eat meat - those that hunt and raise and kill it themselves and meat will be available to those that just want to continue to derive pleasure from it, but it will be very expensive.
Edit: typos
I also find it a bit presumptuous that you think you know what will be considered immoral in the future.
Thanks for the conversation! I wasn’t conceived by your arguments to change my moral preferences. I’ve also personally found myself in the best health when I’m eating an almost entirely carnivorous diet including a wide variety of organ meats.
Maybe I'm being trolled? If not - I don't think you would say the same after watching Earthlings https://vimeo.com/209647801 or after reading Eating Animals [2].
>I also find it a bit presumptuous that you think you know what will be considered immoral in the future.
It's already considered immoral today by leading moral philosophers and other great thinkers, such as Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins[0], Einstein, Carl Sagan, Prof Brian Greene and many more. All I'm saying is that I think the majority of people in the future will adopt this view. Star Trek certainly protrayed this view [1].
Anyway, I'm not here to convince you - I can't. Only you can convince yourself. All I can do is present you with research and other information and encourage you to do your own research on the realities of the large scale meat industry. But I can fully understand that it's just easier not do that and just continue to tell oneself that we humans have a beautiful relationship with animals that we opress and exploit.
Change is hard... but 'refactoring' oneself is rewarding ;)
Anyway, thanks for making the effort to reply and for having a dialog.
[0] Vegan lifestyle is morally superior - Richard Dawkins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgmjh7bh7Ks
[1] Star Trek - 'We no longer enslave animals for food purposes' https://youtu.be/sS7NRtEJBcA?t=31s
[2] https://smile.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran-Foer... or wait for the documentary to be released hat is being produced by Natalie Portman.
- Using emotionally charged words and videos rather than basing your arguments on facts
- Assuming ulterior motives in my arguments (implying that any of my arguments are just an excuse for wanting to continue eating meat) and being intentionally obtuse in your understanding of my arguments
- Appeal to authority (some cherry-picked sample of people you consider great thinkers and Star Trek)
- Calling me a troll rather than addressing my moral preferences
Veganism vs non-veganism just comes down to moral preferences. Can you rank these preferences in order for yourself?
1. My own personal health and that of those closest to me
2. The health and success of humans as species
3. A diverse ecosystem and the continued evolutionary success of animals with a diverse range of evolutionary strategies
4. Minimizing pain/suffering for farm animals
That's my order.
Raising the living standards of farm animals is a valid moral preference and one that I also support. It's just extremely low on my list of moral preferences. I don't believe that current animal farming is immoral, however. You will meet some non-vegans who share your moral preferences and are just too lazy and would rather not think about it. I am not one of those people. I don't ignore the realities of factory farming in order to shelter myself, I just don't think there's anything wrong with it.
I've shared a lot of facts and information that is reviewed by a wider group and deemed as sound - you can call it 'peer reviewed'.
In terms of emotionally charged words, which words were those? Do you mean 'oppressed', 'enslaved' etc? Those words are appropriate to describe what is happening to factory farm animals. Those words were also used by a humans that experienced similar conditions, i.e. Alex Hershaft - a holocaust survivor. But maybe you think factory farms equals happy animal farms you see in children's books, but just at a larger scale. If so - again - I would encourage you to watch the documentary Earthlings (which is well researched and has won several awards) or do your own research of what factory farms are - there are plenty of videos about this online.
You didn't provide any facts or links to research to backup your arguments, e.g. you stated that cows' ancestors chose their evolutionary path - so the way I understood it - you basically said that cows, because they were easy to capture and easy to domesticate, chose evolutionary to become our food source. I asked for references that go into detail how this works, because I don't think that's how evolution works. But maybe I misunderstood you.
Most humans in general don't like to see other beings in pain - we have empathy and have the ability to be compassionate. I think your opinion about factory farms being beautiful would change after you've seen the documentary.
> some cherry-picked sample of people you consider great thinkers and Star Trek
The few names I shared are recognized as great thinkers by other experts or academia in general.
And what is wrong with Star Trek? We are inspired by science fiction and sci-fi ideas can become science fact (and have already). Star Trek in particular imagines a world where pain and suffering is greatly reduced - for both humans and animals. What is wrong with trying to achieve that goal? We have the option today not to kill animals for food anymore without having to jeopardize our health or survival.
So why in your view should we continue killing sentient & innocent beings, which science confirmed are capable of pain and regards as intelligent (pigs have been described as 3-4 year old humans cognitively) when it's not necessary anymore for our survival.
> implying that any of my arguments are just an excuse for wanting to continue eating meat
Sorry - I can see why you think that - I think I was slightly upset that you described me as presumptuous - which to me is a charged statement. I think I just can't understand why intelligent people like yourself think that animals living in factory farms is a beautiful thing. There is nothing beautiful about factory farms. Even my meat eater friends agree with that and they buy meat from more ethical sources. In hindsight I should have waited a bit before I replied.
> Calling me a troll
I didn't call you a troll. After reading your statement about how beautiful our relationship is with factory farm animals - I didn't know whether you were serious, hence the question whether I was being trolled - since trolling occurs often on forums. Apologies if you think I did call you a troll.
> Veganism vs non-veganism just comes down to moral preferences. Can you rank these preferences in order for yourself?
I have trouble understanding what you mean with moral preferences. The way I understand it, morality are emergent values / principles that over time we as a society agree are either good or bad and some of those values have been coded into law.
For example, we as a society have agreed that enslaving other humans is bad. I can't go and say my moral preference is to have slaves and then proceed to enslave people for my benefit. Of course slavery still exists today - but it would land me in jail if I would get caught enslaving other people.
But I think your order makes sense. How we differ is that I see various solutions for some of your options and I try to choose a solution which creates the least damage (to people, environment, animals, etc) - in particular:
> 1. My own personal health and that of those closest to me
It has been medically proven that humans can lead a healthy life without having to consume meat. I've posted a link before, maybe you haven't seen it or maybe you thought it wasn't credible enough. A summary is here in case you haven't read it:
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage."
> 2. The health and success of humans as species
Our health and success depends on a healthy environment. The UN did a report a few years ago about our impact on the environment. I've shared the link before, but a summary is basically that the UN urges to reduce our meat consumption heavily or adopt a meat free diet. So if all humans on this planet would adpot your values, it would mean the success of the human species would be in jeopardy. It bascially means we can't feed 7.6 Billion people with animal meat without destroying the environment. Maybe in the future with lab meat - but that future is not here yet.
> 3. A diverse ecosystem and the continued evolutionary success of animals with a diverse range of evolutionary strategies
I wouldn't consider the billions of animals that are kept in factory farms part of the ecosystem. I wouldn't call being bred to lead a miserable life and then to be consumed a success either.
> I don't ignore the realities of factory farming in order to shelter myself, I just don't think there's anything wrong with it.
So are you saying that oppressing & killing animals is OK - even though we don't have to anymore to ensure our survival? That's how I understood your statement.
In summary - my thinking pattern is pretty simple (all backed up with references I previously supplied - not going to paste them here again - post is too long already)
- Can animals suffer? Yes, just like us, animals try to avoid pain & suffering.
- Factory farms equals cruelty, suffering, pain, death and desctruction to the environment (our life ground).
- Do I as a human need meat to survive and to be healthy? Science says no and millions of humans who culturally don't consume meat are also evidence for this.
- Do I have access to alternative food sources that allows me to thrive? Yes.
- Is it more efficient to just directly consume plant food, rather than feeding plant food to animals and then eating the animal? Yes.
- "But bacon tastes so good!!!" Is it morally justifiable to kill sentient beings just to satisfy my taste pleasure? No, the costs are just too high.
- "Hmmm, plant-based food is actually very tasty and there is so much variety and my blood work is excellent"
To me it's just logical not to eat meat anymore. And to use sci-fi references again - Spock and Yoda would agree with that.
Edit: typos and formatting.
Above I mentioned I don't consider factory farm animals part of the ecoystem. Technically they are of course, as they produce CO2 etc, but what I meant was about your statement around diverse ecosystem - which factory farms don't contribute towards, but quite the opposite - it destroys ecosystems.
Did you know animals can develop mential illness? Repeptive and odd behaviour by animals is frequently observed in factory farms.
As stated before, pigs are highly intelligent creatures[0], moreso than domesticated pets and in their natural environment they are clean and do not poop near where they sleep and eat. Being deprived of natural light, natural socialisation, in overcrowded filthy conditions covered in their own excrements and constantly being fearful of pain - this highly stressful environment means they are at risk of mental illness[1].
Now having been presented with all the information by recognized experts and organisations - do you really think factory farms[2] are a beautiful thing? How can we justify this daily cruelty towards millions of animals to continue?
I will end this conversation with the following quote I found inspirational - from the late Aaron Swartz:
"Think deeply about things. Don’t just go along because that’s the way things are or that’s what your friends say. Consider the effects, consider the alternatives, but most importantly, just think."
[0]Smart Pigs - BBC Earth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mza1EQ6aLdg
[1]Mential illness in animals http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150909-many-animals-can-b... https://www.mspca.org/animal_protection/farm-animal-welfare-... (section on psychological effects)
[2] Again, I'm not talking about farms where you know the farmer personally - where farmers usually only have a couple of hundred animals or less and where farmers truly care about animals and try to give them a good life - where animals can roam around freely.
Impossible tastes as if you took low quality meat, pureed it, took all the fat out, made it into a patty, and then froze it. Sure, you could trick me into thinking its real meat, but not high quality meat.
And of course, this is completely different than creating a steak or something.
So here are our options:
1) Eat real meat and derive pleasure from it, but at the cost of having to make animals suffer, having to kill them and getting food that's quite energy intensive and destructive to the environment and destructive to the people having to work in that industry (factory farming)
2) Hunt and kill animals yourself or raise and kill them yourself - ensuring they (hopefully) had a good life (but still questionable from an ethics point of view whether it's right to kill an animal when you don't need to, to survive).
3) Eat fake meat that's close to the real thing, but no animals have to suffer or die. In the future it will be as good or better than the real thing [1]
4) Explore so many meat free recipes that can equally bring us pleasure and slowly change our habits and tastebuds that are better for the planet.
Option 2 is better than option 1 - but most people couldn't do it and also with option 2 we couldn't feed the world - so to me the future is based on option 3 and 4, i.e. plant based.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704
[1] When fake super meat is better than the real thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TpQl9V9yoA
Edit: typo
We aren't going to fix climate change (or any systemic problem) by tugging on the heart strings of a few people who might be influenced by an idea especially when it is at odds with one's material context.
When I say planet I meant the animals, people and our environment. The UN had a study a few years ago [0] - urging to reduce meat consumption or reduce it heavily - due to the impact on the environment.
For me personally it's more about the animals themselves. They are sentient beings and how can we justify creating hell on Earth for them and killing them just so we can derive some short lived taste pleasure in our mouth. Meat tastes great, but the cost is too high and it's irresponsible to continue feeding this pleasure (when we have so many better alternatives) after we've got all the evidence that it's destructive on so many levels.
> [...] rather than blaming producers who are actually in power
Our demand for animal flesh and animal products is causing this, so the consumer is in power. Our meat consumption is cultural, we've been growing up with it. How come for example we don't explain to our kids at a young age that the tasty bacon comes from Pepper the pig's sister and friends? How come we don't want to show them the realities of meat production... because we know it's literally a horror show.
Watch this kid realising herself what's on her plate. Don't tell me it's not heart breaking to watch this? [1] Kudos to the dad for not forcing her to continue to eat meat.
> [...] who might be influenced by an idea especially when it is at odds with one's material context.
I'm not quite following, can you clarify?
> I find the end of (4) an argument from other leftists who are vegan really really suspect.
I don't really follow this either - what is suspect and what's your definition of leftist? Here is the definition of veganism [2] - it's bascially trying to end cruelty towards other sentient beings - why would one not support this view?
[0] http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/dtix1262xpa-prior...
[1] Irish girl doesn't want animals to be chopped up anymore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsaGeAz3TSM
[2] Definition of Veganism
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
edit: typos
In the end -- why not both? As an individual, over the course of your lifetime, if an American eats even 50% less meat than typical, they would produce a lot less pollution and a lot less suffering in the world. Meanwhile, they'd still be eating more meat than historically normal. Win-win-win?
And yes, the thought of eating a dolphin or a humpback whale is kind of sickening. I guess that is largely due to Greenpeace and their "Save the Whales" stickers that I remember as being nearly omnipresent in my childhood. The difference, I guess, is that cows (and dogs) were not hunted close to extinction.
OTOH, stopping the hunt for whales is one of the few things where a huge number of countries all over the world has been able to find a consensus before whales are a different memory known only from skeletons in museums. Japan is basically giving the rest of the world the finger, and not because they are facing starvation without that precious whale meat.
Once they are out of minke they will legally or illegally hunt something else. (Whether it is one or the other is just a matter of how much money they have to corrupt policy verse hunting completely illegally like a portion of the fish industry sneaking around the coasts of poor nations.)
If they can't play by rules they don't agree with now then they aren't going to play by them when they have expanded on minke, represent a larger portion of some GDP and are looking to keep their larger fleet financed.
>My head spins about how schizophrenic the vast majority of the population is when it comes to meat consumption and love of animals.
People want cute things to live, and don't care what hell ugly creatures endure. It's a fairly consistent position, if rather vapid and aesthetist.
This case is a perfect example: Whales are cute, so we're quite cross at Japan for eating them. But blue fin tuna are ugly, and so despite being much more threatened and a much larger part of the japanese diet, no one really cares.
The reason people object to whale hunting is whales are incredibly intelligent mammals, with a psychology we identify with - social and language-oriented, with lifelong family ties and a love of play.
Isn't it possible it isn't a unified issue?
I grew up in a rural region and I've seen the production first hand both on medium-sized farms to single hunts.
I have had pets I've loved and watched them die and it made me sad. I also have an issue with the mass whaling because we know of the extinction risks and the goal when eating an animal isn't to wipe out the species.
I will confess, however, I haven't seen one of the American style factory farms. Any I've been to here in Canada haven't been so cold or apparently cruel and nowhere near the size and volume of production.
I live in the city now and I consider myself lucky for knowing where all of my food feasibly comes from.
For that reason I don't see it as schizophrenic or cognitive dissonance. I like to think it's an accepting awareness— I think we're still very much animals, but ones at least intelligent enough to maintain the planet in good order and to avoid cruelty (if we give a damn).
Clearly there are problems in how a lot of food production (not just meat) is carried out, and usually with a root cause of greed.
Pegging those problems to people essentially not all resigning to vegan eating makes my head spin a little.
Side question for anyone who carries your perspective: I might even agree that refraining from eating any animals is the morally superior option— but do you think we morally owe it to nature (or whatever end) to refrain more than any other animal?
Took me a moment to think about what you were saying. I agree with you. Maybe that's what I was roughly getting at to begin with. I agree you should think about why, I suppose I already had and take it for granted that others may not have even approached the need to question.
---
I have asked myself why.
I have a problem eating any animal that is endangered or at risk of extinction.
I might not be against eating a whale. I've never had the opportunity. But I have a problem with hunting them in their current state of risk.
I've had what I would call relationships with various animals as pets—as such I wouldn't want to eat them. Similarly, if I'd had such a relationship with any other kind of animal I might feel the same, but I can't speak to that.
And, yes, we do morally owe it to nature not to eat animals. The natural corollary is human rights. Human rights is just a philosophy. Most of us adhere to it today, but we have not for most of our existence. The default has been to kill large numbers of fellow humans, across all societies.
Do people have a natural right to life? Humanity did not think so until relatively recently, but now we see it as obvious.
Do animals have a natural right not to be killed by humans, now that we have other options? Of course, for the same reasons.
Well, why? It's equally consistent to simply say that no animal other than humans enjoys rights, whether it's a dolphin or a dog or a pig. You can certainly take the other position as your premise, but I don't see why I should follow you.
If so, where do you draw the line between, say, killing humans and killing fish? I'm not trying to suggest that the two are equivalent, but constructing a logical argument for the line being somewhere rather than elsewhere is non trivial.
I mean, what if we go the other way? Am I a murder for swatting a mosquito and killing it? OK, what makes that different from the fish? Is the fish more like a human or a mosquito? Is unintentional killing of animals the same as intentional? Surely we don't believe that stepping on a worm is equivalent to manslaughter. Well, you get the idea.
To me, the anthropocentric view seems completely natural. In a hypothetical trolley problem with a human and an animal I can't see a circumstance where I'd ever choose to save the animal and allow the human to die. From this thought experiment I appeal to intuition to say that human life is qualitatively different, and of more value, than animal life.
Btw, if you're upset at the reductio ad absurdum asking to extend rights we've decided humans have to fish also has a similar flavor to it. I for example have a logical argument that includes people but doesn't include fish: humans have consciousness, experience, and others (like children) have potential for such and this consciousness usually is and can be at a markedly higher level than most animals.
That said, and this is something I don't think everyone will agree with, I think the rights of cognizant beings are more important than for beings which aren't. For example, I'm pro-choice personally, and I find the rights of a cognizant mother more important that that of a clog of cells even if they have potential to become a cognizant being eventually. Of course, once a child is born, it becomes another issue because an infant is more aware in some sense, has viability, and greater potential for becoming a cognizant being. Another opinion I have is, for example, I have no problem with say guardians deciding to pull the plug on individuals in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. I personally, and call me all the names you want, value the rights of cognizant beings or beings with potential for cognition as more important that that of beings which aren't.
Finally, regardless of logical consistency of any sense of morality, I actually think that ultimately it isn't that important as material and social context, and I personally believe that whatever we decide will always be subject to that ultimately.
I would guess that the intersection of these two groups is much smaller than it seems. The anti-whaling community and the anti-meat-eating community are often aligned in their beliefs (one is a subset of the other). Otherwise for most I'd guess (hard to know), their only issue with whaling or dolphin hunting would be based on endangerment. I doubt many actual people you talk to on this issue would have inconsistent beliefs from whales to pigs based purely on species or familiarity. If the whale is not endangered, I doubt they would see whaling as any different than pig farming (for whichever side they fall on the issue).
Whereas being against eating pigs means a substantial change in diet for many people.
That's what I'm arguing against; the average person is less hypocritical than we label them. Now whether you think their justification in the difference is valid is another point. Most of these groups tend to be squeaky wheels and I would guess (yes, lots of guessing) that the vast majority of people don't have a very strong opinion outside of general species endangerment. Your average meat eater would have no problem with whale handled/consumed in the same way as they do pig. Similarly your average anti-meat eater would have the same problems with whale handling/consumption as they do with pig.
According to these figures (apparently originally from Gallup: text here http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_pub_pall.html), only 26.3% of Americans would agree that "non-endangered whales can be killed for human food."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#Unite...
According to this page, vegetarianism is at an all-time high in the US at 3.4%.
Assuming every single vegetarian takes the anti-whaling stance that still leaves you with the other 73% looking inconsistent.
So first off, did all humans not have a natural right to life before and humanity didn't know it? "Did not think so"...what changed things?
In light of questions like these, I feel like it's easiest to go with the concept that ideas like "natural rights" are socially constructed, which I'm not sure you jive with but makes the most sense to me in light of what we know from history and how it's progressed.
That said, of course, we can decide that animals have natural rights too, as in we'd decide socially that they do. The only different thing to me is that for many animals, they will not be aware of this social construction we've placed them in, nor will they one day be aware. This is unlike women, races of people who aren't in the dominant group, children, as well as humans who are neurodivergent as well I'd say. In the case of people who are human, we ideally treat them as equals really due to their consciousness and awareness, while for most animals (although probably not all) we can say they are "equal" in some sense but they won't be.
Fireside societies tens of thousands of years ago could have formed pacifist or even vegetarian morals, depending somewhat on how thriving and reflective their days managed to be. At the same time moral ideas communicated in these modern times are not assured to improve. Here is hoping they do.
And this is coming from an omnivore. If meat were completely taken away as an option overnight, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it, in all honesty, but its ready availability and lack of the distinct association of its production makes me able to consume it without feeling the moral chaos of it.
Bang up job we're doing, too!
It doesn't matter whether in the past things were different. It doesn't matter that other animals eat animals. What matters is that each of us has a choice when buying food in a restaurant or supermarket. A choice that directly results in less or more suffering of sentient beings.
* footnote in case you're curious: supermarkets are receptive to consumption patterns -- either at per-unit level, or at threshold they buy in bulk -- so you stand a chance of being the purchase that results in dozens more animal purchases. Factory farms are similarly responsive to market consumption patterns. Economists have studied the market elasticity of animal product sales and individual decision not to purchase does translate in decrease in future production.
I otherwise wholeheartedly agree in the need for compassion, even in spite of eating meat. Thankfully for that reason I don't have as my only option meat farmed from the US, and I'm able to buy meat that is Canadian and can be sourced. I'm probably lucky in that I grew up not knowing a single farmer who would be okay with the kinds of processes you're speaking about.
Some cruel farms exist here, you can find news of them pretty easily—but it's thankfully not the norm—and typically those aren't even cases of factory farms, just sick people.
We don't owe it. But we should treat animals with compassion all the same.
Many vegans & vegetarians aren't really opposed to meat, they are opposed to suffering, and American industrial meat production involves a lot of animal suffering.
They want their food to look good enough to know it's safe, but not cute enough to trigger nurturing instincts.
I'd rather live a marvelous life and be tortured for a few hours before death, than tortured for a lifetime and then "killed with compassion".
Honestly curious, what are these options of equivalent tastiness? Do they pass in blind taste tests with any "mainstream" meats? Are they at the same (or lower) pricepoint? Do they have the same (or better) nutritional value?
A lot of people probably agree with your general premise that meat consumption is cruel, but will probably continue eating meat because of one or more of the above.
We have a symbiotic relationship with companion animals like dogs and cats, work animals like draft horses and service dogs, and farm animals like cows and chicken.
These are all beautiful examples of humans and animals evolving together to provide for each other, leading to the reproductive success of both species.
Population growth is not equivalent to symbiosis...
Let's see: a breakdown between thought, emotion and behavior (claim to "love animals" and then pay people to torture them, check), ... fantasy and delusion (refusing to acknowledge the horrendous conditions on factory farms, check) ... a sense of mental fragmentation (love one, but kill the other, check).
It's not a far stretch.
People are in contact with other people who both love and eat animals (though usually not the same animals). Further, where I live (though probably in a lot of places), vegetarians are a minority, so most people are in contact with meat-eating people, including meat-eating pet owners, and see them as normal people. By comparing them to shizophrenics, you feed the viewpoint that mental problems are not real and that people can just work them out if they really want to, which is not helpful at all to those dealing with mental health problems.
It seems animal rights is a cause you care about, which I can understand. Mental health is a cause I care about, and I kindly suggest that you can continue to make your arguments without stretching the definition of any mental illness for that purpose.
EDIT: removed double 'seems' and accidental 'using'
In my regular in-person conversations I don't think I've ever used that word. I'll be more sensitive next time online too. Thank you.
As a substitute -- can you think of a word that would very swiftly capture the extreme cognitive dissonance people surely must have to engage in the behavior they currently do?
I normally use cognitive dissonance to say this, but I guess as a single word to mean an extreme version of this, perhaps Orwell's doublethink would work?
But my dog doesn't like a vegan diet, probably not healthy for him either.
I think the argument I've heard from some of my meat eating friends is "why should we be vegetarians? animals kill other animals, we are also animals. Most animals don't usually kill their own kind. We do the same. At the end nature is quite violent. The most adaptable survive. Humans are the most powerful species because we've killed other potentially powerful species in the race of evolution. Killing to win is in our nature"
In spite of this, I'm not sure I would eat it again though; while eating it, I kept getting flashbacks of a video I saw of a whale being harpooned and pulled out of the water with blood everywhere.
Rationally though, I don't know if eating whales is more immoral than eating other animals. On the plus side, if you kill a single whale, you can feed a lot of people; you could save several dozens of cows... Not to mention that you're saving the lives of millions of krill that would have been eaten by the whale that day.
So if you're a shrimp sympathizer, then you should consider whaling a good thing. Personally, I can relate to feeling small and defenseless in this world so I can sympathize with the shrimp on some level.
Endangered species should be protected, absolutely. But if we're going to rag on countries for fishing un-endangered whales, it's very much hypocritical.
"The IUCN Red List labels the common minke whale as Least Concern.[30] The Antarctic minke whale is listed as Data deficient.[31]
COSEWIC puts both species in the Not At Risk category [1]. NatureServe lists them as G5 which means the species is secure on global range [2]."
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minke_whale)
For reference, I try eat as little meat in life as I can in general, and when I do eat it, I try to as ethical as possible. I'm not perfect, but I'm always trying to be better. I try not to judge other cultures on their eating habits though, when we're systematically destroying the planet so our cheeseburgers can be $1.
For a 60 kg person, consumption of 100 g of whale meat with the highest concentration of Hg (i.e. MeHg) found in this study (0.49 mg/kg w.w.) would lead to an intake corresponding to 51% of the provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) set by JECFA (1.6 µg/kg bw) or 63% of the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) set by EFSA (1.3 µg/kg bw)
100 grams of meat is very little as far as protein and calories are concerned, but already puts you at risk. Not safe to eat in any sufficient quantity.
Japan (and most of Scandinavia) have been whaling continuously for generations. Dolphin ‘farming’ for hundreds of years without impacting yield or stocks. It’s a huge cultural activity and they protect it.
But over the 1800-1900s the US, UK and Australia overfished whales at industrial scales making populations plummet. Whaling towns in Southern Australia literally ran red with rivers of blood. So in the 1970s and 80s after we’d reaped industrial benefit and destroyed wild stock, we Westerners decided that’s whaling was in fact really bad and decided to ban it - because we f’ed it up for everyone.
There are arguments about cruelty during whale hunting, but the same can be said for all farming, but the hypocrisy that a group of people can come in decimate an animal population and then tell everyone not to participate in their culture just doesn’t sit right.
It's not all good, far from it, but it is nice to know that collectively, we manage to not mess up everything we touch every once in a while.
[1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/some-whales-are-...
But the situation is not totally hopeless, which at least feels like a large improvement from the depressing atmosphere I grew up in.
Some species recover much more quickly than others, and in the mean time, we continue to mess up their environment, be it by overfishing, global warming, noise pollution (or just plain old pollution) or ships running over whales like cars run over rabbits.
All I meant to say was that at least some species have recovered rather impressively under these conditions. Which is far from perfect. But imagine mankind had just continued hunting whales on the scale that was common sixty or seventy years ago - there probably would not be enough whales around today for Japan to kill 177 of them.