If this fishing is truly sustainable and doesn’t threaten the whales with extinction there shouldn’t be a problem. Why should whales get protection that pigs, cows, and other animals don’t?
If you compared it to hunting deer and moose and elephants and lions and whatnot that would be more of a comparison. Still the difference there is individuals are getting hunting licenses as opposed to an entire country.
You can compare tuna fishing and crabbing and that would probably be the best comparison, and depending on what you read even those have sustainability issues.
I think it is quite silly to hunt some species almost to extinction and ban it for awhile just to repeat the events of the past (lather, rinse, repeat i guess). But i am not Japanese and would not enjoy eating whale meat.
That's just an artificial distinction. They didn't began their lives as "farm raised animals for the purpose of slaughter".
they did though, cows were domesticated from aurochs and pigs from wild boars for the express purpose of making them easier to slaughter as livestock rather than having to hunt them. Same for chickens. Is it humane? I don't know but they they wouldn't exist in their present form if not for humans domesticating and breeding them for their current characteristics
Why not?
You’re right that this is a case of hunting wild animals vs farmed animals for the species I listed, but I don’t see farming animals as inherently more moral. Hunting is definitely problematic if it places a species in danger of extinction, but the article claims the minke whales aren’t anywhere close to endangered and my own internet searches seem to back this up.
The question is, do we totally ban whaling in light of their endangered status, or do we allow limited whaling as long as it's sustainable?
Another moral question is in play, though. Whales are widely believed to be sentient, as intelligent as human beings. If that is true, is it ethical to hunt them at all?
This is not true. They are considered smart animals but not as smart as humans (obviously). I think a pig is supposed to have similar levels of intelligence.
For the record I oppose whaling, but I don't think making hyperbolic statements is going to help anything.
EDIT: If anyone would like to post some information showing that whales are as smart as humans I'd love to see it.
Why obviously?
Most westerners do not consume whale meat, so there's no cognitive dissonance to prevent them from firmly opposing whaling.
Supposedly this isn’t the case for the species of whale being hunted and the fishing is actually sustainable, according to other information posted here and on Wikipedia stating there’s a population of 500,000 minke whales and they are on a “least concern” list.
One aspect of this particular cognitive dissonance has always baffled me: you can, for example, see lots of pictures in reddit's "r/aww" subreddit of adorable pigs and cows, and in many cases the draw is the way these animals show behaviors analagous to humans, e.g. cuddling, or playing a game, or enjoying a pet by a human. And folks could coo over these adorable pictures while eating bacon or a burger.
And similarly people have no problem eating pork or beef, but express sheer disgust at the thought of eating horse or dog meat. At some point you realize that these distinctions are arbitrary.
This is certainly a very unpopular opinion in the population at large, but I've always been interested in how cultures can look back at earlier versions of themselves and be amazed at how wrong humans previously were, e.g. with slavery, treatment of women, colonialism, attitudes toward homosexuality, etc. I think that in the future societies will look back at our consumption of meat, especially factory farming methods, and wonder why it took us so long to change our attitudes on this issue.
How would future societies propose we feed ourselves if we don't eat meat?
if everybody eats plants we would also need a huge amount of water/field sizes to feed everybody. guess the best thing is a healthy mix of everything.
Keeping non-human animals for the purpose of eating their flesh requires even huger amounts of water/field sizes; so much in fact that half of the world's crops are fed to non-human animals[0].
[0]: https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/half-of-world-crop-is-...
> The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.
I know I was responding to a specific comment about land usage, but I probably wouldn't read that book as I also believe that we should prevent unnecessary pain and suffering, e.g. even if we hypothetically found out that the smoke from the ovens in concentration camps didn't contribute significantly to air pollution, they still wouldn't be a good idea, so of course I object to a book that describes ongoing mass killings as "benign".
But if you have the specific numbers from the book handy, I'd still like to give them a look.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
And there are lots of plant sources that are missing or insufficient in essential amino acids. Beans, for example, are lacking in methionine, which is why corn and beans are eaten together in some traditional diets.
Besides, you probably don't want a lot of methionine in your diet (it's linked to feeding cancer) [1..7].
Further, you're recycling the tired myth that "protein comibing" is necessary. Our body maintains pools of free amino acids by dumping protein into the digestive tract, which are broken down and reassembled, i.e. it does the protein combining for us, it's not necessary to explicitly do it through meals if you're otherwise eating a varied diet that sufficient in calories.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22171665 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789600 [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15955547 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18252204 [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342103 [6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11603655 [7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14585259
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2017/12/1...
As to your comment on India, no one is arguing that meat doesn't taste good or that most people don't like to eat it. But whether the number is 300 million or 500 million, clearly meat isn't necessary for a balanced diet, and no one seriously disputes this.
> no one is arguing that meat doesn't taste good or that most people don't like to eat it.
That's pretty much the final word on the subject. People will never stop eating meat. It's part of being human (yes some humans don't do it, but we are omnivores).
Why? It seems you are exactly proving my point: you've compartmentalized one as "ok cause we like it and do it now" and the other as "evil because it's bad and we don't do it anymore", but provide no argument as to why they are logically so incomparable. And your "final word on the subject" is apparently "meat tastes good and people like it." Forgive me if I'm not pursuaded by your "logic".
Because it's a non-sequitur. Slavery and diet have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You could pick any good or bad example of something and strap it to your argument, but it doesn't make it convincing.
> And your "final word on the subject" is apparently "meat tastes good and people like it." Forgive me if I'm not pursuaded by your "logic".
Yep, that's why people will continue to eat meat; it tastes great. Do you honestly think people will ever stop? I know I never would and I'm sure I'm not alone.
No one is talking about diet. The part where you eat the animal isn't relevant morally. The part where the animal's freedom is restricted and is treated as an object purely for the pleasure of humans is.
What you're experiencing is cognitive dissonance. You're not a bad person for being raised in a culture that encourages you to not think about these things. You should try to look into where your food comes from even though our cultural biases that will make us try to avoid doing so or justify the atrocities when we do see them.
So, while it's certainly likely that people alive today will always eat meat, generational turn-over could result in a world without meat eaters.
(I eat meat but do not eat mammals.)
Prefacing an argument with "surely" doesn't make it a stronger argument. I don't see why it follows at all that raising animals for eggs or milk could not be done humanely.
That's not my argument, so I'll try to explain my personal reasoning. To me, the main real reason we have for not killing or hurting other creatures is that we believe they have some level of emotional life, and are capable of things like happiness, love (at least in some form), sadness, fear, and suffering beyond just physical pain. We love our dogs, cats, etc. because we believe at some level they are capable of loving us back (perhaps a stretch for cats I know).
Thus, for me personally I draw the line at mammals because I believe they possess all of these qualities. I will eat poultry, fish and shellfish because I don't believe they have the same capacity of "emotional sentience" as humans, though I'm fully open to the idea that my ideas about poultry are wrong.
Thus, while I "wouldn't enslave humans" I also believe it's possible to keep hens and cows for eggs and dairy in a manner where the animal does not suffer, and I don't see this as any kind of "enslavement".
Ultimately I think humans are just selfish by nature and they only do things to ensure the continuation of humans as a spices. Everything else is sugar-coating it. So really, there is no morality to be discussed, it is just natural instinct.
My unpopular thoughts on global warming:
https://paradite.com/2018/11/06/extinction-is-natural-so-is-...
Of course the reason we should fight global warming is that it will have huge deleterious effects on humans that are avoidable. Yes, I agree, "the planet" will continue with or without us, but most people would prefer the "with us" option.
Finally, you end with "All we are doing is making the earth more suitable for humans to live, that’s it." What?? Tell that to the billions of people that live along the coast, or say anyone that lives in Bangladesh.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of that sentence. I mean "the effort to counter global warming" is to make the earth more suitable for humans to live, not the lack of effort.
Most of that is social construct.
Our biological imperative is too simple for most people to fathom-- if you concern yourself only with the welfare of yourself and your family, you're doing your part for the species by expanding it with viable offspring.
If ensuring the survival of you and yours means paying tribute to the local warlord or toeing a party line, then concern for the neighborhood or country will follow.
But make no mistake, it's not in your interests for the species to thrive. It's in your interests for your own offspring to thrive. Nature can't maintain its balance if the sick and infertile reproduce and the boundless demand for limited resources result in us driving everything else to extinction until we all run around sticking punji knives in each others' guts for lack of food anyway.
There are many reasons to why we wouldn't eat certain animals. Cats hunt rodents, dogs are protective, horses provide transportation. Cows don't do any of those things well, and they also taste wonderful.
If #2 justified animal agriculture it could also be used to justify human slavery, provided you intentionally bred humans for that purpose.
And regarding my second point somehow justifying human slavery: that's only true if your moral system somehow makes humans and animals out to be equivalent. But we don't even make different classes of humans morally equivalent to each other, so why would we make animals morally equivalent to humans?
2) whales are sentient, or pretty close to it
Sentience is a complex question, but it mostly revolves around language and symbol-making/recognition. There's substantial evidence that whales actually have language. Pigs and cattle do not.
(edit: I'm misusing the word "sentience" here. The problem is that it's not the right distinction. Cows/pigs are sentient, in that they can feel emotions. But they cannot reason. So it's not just that whales are sentient, but also that whales can reason. At any rate, whales are considered by most experts to be able to think similarly to the way humans think - language, symbolism.)
Ask yourself if dog fighting is acceptable. That is clearly animal suffering for purely entertainment purposes. If you live in a situation where you can survive and thrive without eating meat, how is eating meat any different than watching dog fighting? It’s animal suffering for enjoyment purposes.
Same with dogfighting. If we breed dogs for dogfighting that wouldn’t otherwise exist, does that make dogfighting acceptable?
Most multi-cellular life is able to feel pain, and probably pleasure too. That includes both pigs and cows (and whales for that matter). Heck -- even plants have chemical responses to damage, even though they don't have nervous systems. Individual plants can even communicate with each other and let others know of the pain it experiences. In other words: if pain to the living being that you are consuming for food is a concern, then you should stick to eating fruit and things that are already dead.
The way cows, dogs, pigs, cats, sheep and horses express pain is very similar to humans: screaming and squirming or trembling, trying to escape, sweating, increased pulse and blood pressure, etc.
Responding to damaging stimuli is not necessarily the same, and I'm therefore not convinced that plants can "feel pain"; but perhaps neither are you? Surely you'd have a harder time grabbing a red hot iron bar and poking a puppy than poking a turnip with it? (There's a reason the killing is done behind closed doors[1].)
> The Mirror Test is far from perfect, but it does demonstrate that some individuals of some species are indeed capable identifying themselves as individuals in a group, indicating at least rudimentary sentience.
What about the individuals that fail it? I expect tiny infants to be able to fail the mirror test. That wouldn't make it ok to eat them, of course? Same argument for blind people; and of course the kind of people who, when they wake up after they've been drugged and strapped firmly to a chair in front a mirror, don't consider investigating a sticker on their shoulder as a first priority (because that's how that test works, right?).
Also pigs seem to be able to understand mirrors anyway:
> They found that pigs:
> • have excellent long-term memories
> • are whizzes with mazes and other tests requiring location of objects
> • can comprehend a simple symbolic language and can learn complex combinations of symbols for actions and objects
> • love to play and engage in mock fighting with each other, similar to play in dogs and other mammals
> • live in complex social communities where they keep track of individuals and learn from one another
> • cooperate with one another
> • can manipulate a joystick to move an on-screen cursor, a capacity they share with chimpanzees
> • can use a mirror to find hidden food
> • exhibit a form of empathy when witnessing the same emotion in another individual
Source: https://www.seeker.com/iq-tests-suggest-pigs-are-smart-as-do...
> In other words: if pain to the living being that you are consuming for food is a concern, then you should stick to eating fruit and things that are already dead.
I think it should even extend beyond personal diet to preventing others from inflicting pain on the living, just like slavery was not considered a personal choice by abolitionists.
> I think it should even extend beyond personal diet to preventing others from inflicting pain on the living
If we assume a lion (or another predatorial animal) has at least a rudimentary form of counciousness, would that mean that a lion that ate a human would feel bad about it's actions?
Similarly vegans are generally also not arguing for dogs to have drivers license, or to give cows the right to vote, because they don't have the mental abilities to do so.
But really, the behavior of lions doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether we should keep pigs in factory farms, and whether it's ok for us to murder.
[0]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-self-aware-fish-raises-doub...
An adult sperm whale weighs over 100 tons and eats about a ton a day. Do you not see the practical implications of that with regards to irreversible damage?
Edit: missed the sustainable part of your post. Whaling afaik can't be sustainable because the demand in Japan is high enough that whale populations simply can't replenish fast enough. They have a very slow reproductive and nurturing cycle.
"Today, whale stocks are carefully monitored, and while many species are still endangered, others - like the minke whale that Japan primarily hunts - are not."
I always figured the Japanese stance was borne of out of politics and nationalism -- and possibly cronyism, I'm sure somebody is getting rich -- rather than driven by consumer demand.