Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian reports that Japan this year killed more than 300 whales, for “research” purposes. Australia and New Zealand are criticised for not attempting to prevent whaling in the Australian whale sanctuary. But the whale slaughter has hardly raised a flicker of attention in Australia. Aussie green groups are obsessed with CO2.
According to The Guardian;
Japan admits to killing more than 300 whales in Southern Ocean
…
Four ships were sent to the Antarctic region over a period of 115 days from 1 December last year and killed 333 minke whales.
…
The Australian government in December described Japan’s decision to resume whaling over the summer as “deeply disappointing” and insisted it raised concerns at the highest level of the Japanese government.
It had said it would consider sending a customs patrol vessel to the Southern Ocean and explore options for legal action.
But the conservation group Sea Shepherd in February said the Japanese fleet had faced little or no scrutiny over the summer and Australia and New Zealand seemed unwilling to send a ship to intercept them.
Sea Shepherd Australia’s managing director, Jeff Hansen, said: “Once again false promises from the Australian and New Zealand governments have resulted in whales being killed illegally in the Australian Whale Sanctuary.
“The majority of Australians wanted the Australian government to send a vessel to oppose the slaughter. They did not.”
The Australian Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson said the government had turned its back on Japan’s “sickening” illegal activity.
“Not in 40 years has an Australian government done so little to prevent whaling on our watch and in our waters,” he said.
The Australian government recently provided a billion dollars for renewables startups, but Australia can’t or won’t provide a few million dollars, to outfit an official expedition to the Antarctic Ocean, to prevent thinly disguised commercial whale hunting in the Australian controlled whale “sanctuary”.
If greens focussed on real issues, like preventing the outrageous ongoing slaughter of these gentle giants, instead of frittering away their time and capital, trying to reduce emissions of a harmless trace gas, there might be a lot less whale blood in the world’s oceans.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Janice, you speak, and more passionately and eloquently than I can manage , for me and I suspect most people on the subject of this abominable practice by the Japanese.
Not the least disturbing aspect of this debate is the total lack of concern or empathy expressed by the Greens and warmists who underplay and actually seem to encourage this unjustified slaughter (please someone quote refs for the scientific articles resulting from these killings if they exist otherwise they are as scientific as Mengele’s expts in the camps).
However the indifference or acquiescence of the Greens is part of the package which tolerates the killing of birds and bats by machines of solar and windpower and the destruction (in UK anyway ) of increasingly rare peatland moor environment.
The argument you see is
” it is a small price to pay for a carbon free future”.
What such people fail to appreciate is that the same can be said by Big Oil when there are oils spills like Exxon Valdez or Torrey Canyon or the one in Brittany :
” the occasional oil spill is a small price to pay for prosperity , jobs , cheap food , energy, clothing and transportation”.
The 2 arguments are logically equivalent , IMO, and perhaps equally indefensible – but then I am just an ordinary person and not a professional environmentalist.
Whale meat is so expensive. Greater availability would make it cheaper. I have to try me some.
We’ve got a free-trade agreement with Japan now so maybe we’ll get whale trade, I meant, joint whale research initiatives, going soon?
“Throw another whale on the barbie!”
Whale meat is high in mercury, which if consumed will cause brain damage.
[snip . . c’mon . . mod]
Why are you surprised? Big corporate and Big government bought Big Green with donations. They are just another marketing arm of them these days, there to keep the dimhippies onside.
I remain a vegetariantarian.
I remain an omnivorevore
I remain a carnivore, with a small but tasteful vegetable garnish. And I am assured that no plants suffered unduly, in the production of the garnish.
Go catch your own Whales so, update us on how you get on 😛
Y’all ever had a bowl o’ red beans and rice and a heapin’ helpin’ o’ turnip and collard greens with a big piece o’ cornbread to go with your slab of ham? And maybe some grits and fried squash and a piece of sweet potato pie? Or just go all in on a big ol’ chicken fried steak and mashed potatoes , or a slab o ribs barbecued to perfection? Been to a fish fry?
omnivoracious
One man’s meat and all that… waste not want not.
All I can say about the Japanese and the whales, is that research is all well and good and food is well and good, but if their true purpose is not research, but harvest, with some meaningless research done as deceptive practice to camouflage the harvest, then just as with any other unrighteous action, they will pay a price.
Whales constitute a fisheries issue. And I’d rather argue with any number of people before I argue with the Japanese, one of Australia’s biggest trading partners for decades.
Ditto for the Faroese. Fisheries and conservation issue, sort it out as such.
Any good whale recipes? Since the kerosene industry, Big Oil, and synthetics stopped the heavy harvesting of whales we need ideas for this resource, as for all resources. (Thanks to those same innovations we no longer slaughter two million koalas in a year.) No conservation without prudent exploitation, right? Or we cease to be conservationists and become mindless greenoids.
I’m told that soaking whale steaks in milk prior to battering and frying is good.
but the meat is so expensive
And the population of Britain that had to eat it during WW2 were not impressed:
-“During World War II the British Minister of Food introduced food rationing but allowed whale meat to be distributed ‘off ration’. It was not popular because of the smell whilst cooking was deemed ‘unpleasant’, and the taste was considered ‘bland’ even when spiced [39]
Toxicity “-
Also it comes with a health warning :
-“Tests have revealed that in whale meat sold in the Faroe Islands and Japan, high levels of mercury and other toxins are present. A research study was conducted by Tetsuya Endo, Koichi Haraguchi and Masakatsu Sakata at the University of Hokkaido found high levels of mercury in the organs of whales, particularly the liver. They stated that “Acute intoxication could result from a single ingestion” of liver. The study found that liver samples for sale in Japan contained, on average, 370 micrograms of mercury per gram of meat, 900 times the government’s limit. Levels detected in kidneys and lungs were approximately 100 times higher than the limit.[40] The effect is due to the animal’s trophic level, however, rather than its size. This means that there is a significant difference between the mercury levels in toothed whales and baleen whales, the former having a much higher concentration.”-
(from Wiki of course , as well as the reminiscences of my parents about the war and the problems of finding sufficient edible food for 2 small, ever hungry, boys)
mikewaite March 27, 2016 at 2:08 am
___
That doesn’t mean much, I grew up eating food from English Recipe books and it was pretty bland fare most of the time. Asians really know how to cook some great nosh.
What often gets forgotten in these discussions about what westerners consider non meat animals is that there is a reason we have developed taboos for eating animals other than herbivores. Toxins, both environmental like mercury, and more exotic like prions, are concentrated as you work up the food chain. Of course all primitive humans knew was that people who ate higher order animals, or other humans, tended to die of nasty wasting diseases more often than otherwise. Clear evidence that the gods didn’t approve. ^¿^
On the gripping hand, marine mammals are a fairly recent addition to these taboos, and seem to be more connected to the ‘friendly’ and ‘intelligent’ reputation they have been given. Personally, as I’ve never had a conversation with one, I’ll have to reserve judgement on their alleged wisdom and kindness.
@schitzree
Actually, in some cultures this taboo has been around for quite a while:
“Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales … you are to regard as unclean. And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat.”
From the Law of Moses, about 1280 B.C.
Wow, some pretty crazy and contorted arguments on here for/against killing of animals/whales etc. We do get ourselves in quite a moral dilemma when trying to justify our lifestyles and our ‘preferences’ for certain intelligent species.
Firstly, I agree with the basic premise here that CO2 mania has swallowed vast amounts of money and focus which could be saving lives right now and protecting species all over the world from commercial exploitation. But as someone pointed out above, Greens are not interested in conservation; they only want to save the world from Thermageddon.
Secondly, on the industrial scale which our demand for meat requires, there is no way to humanely raise animals and kill them. It just is not possible. There will always be suffering involved, often very significant. That is a fact which, if you eat commercially produced meat, you either ignore or come to terms with within our own moral universe.
Thirdly, there is no way to kill Minke whales in the open ocean that does not involve extreme and prolonged suffering. That alone requires that we should not allow them to be hunted. It is also a fact that cetaceans generally are such exceptionally intelligent, highly evolved social mammals, that the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ blurs slightly, especially as we learn more about their lives and their behaviour. It is highly dubious that we should be viewing them as a ‘resource’ to be harvested. So protecting whales and dolphins from commercial exploitation and extremely cruel killing practices would be a very good place to start if we wish to develop a deeper respect for ALL non-human life on the planet (including pigs, cows, chickens, dogs etc.)
Cutting the heads off wheatfields. I can hear them screaming as I eat a sandwich. The humanity.
Oh the Humanity..
As god is my witness I thought turkeys could fly.
“… if we wish to develop a deeper respect for ALL non-human life on the planet (including pigs, cows, chickens, dogs etc.) …”
____
Wow … will I have to wear sandals? Where does one get such aspirations?
I love and respect dogs, they’re great animals, very personable and I’ve had a couple as pets. But I would not hesitate eat one if I knew someone who really knew how to cook dog properly. We all have to go some time, and getting eaten by other stuff is the traditional method.
This is not a foreign concept.
What I do find amusing though is the alluded subjective ranking of edible and non edible animals based on whatever thought-bubble floats in your transom.
“This is not a foreign concept.”
Most obviously, cultivating within your transom a genuine respect for living creatures who just happen to be non-human (or maybe that includes human, I’m not sure) IS a foreign concept.
What “alluded subjective ranking of edible and non edible animals”? You’re just making stuff up.
“I love and respect dogs, they’re great animals, very personable and I’ve had a couple as pets. But I would not hesitate eat one if I knew someone who really knew how to cook dog properly.”
Meaningless bluster. You can cook a dog’s leg in the oven just as easily as a lamb’s leg. So go and kill someone’s dog (or your own) and eat it if that’s how you feel – or would you prefer somebody else to do the killing for you?
Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 4:31 am
“Most obviously, cultivating within your transom a genuine respect for living creatures who just happen to be non-human (or maybe that includes human, I’m not sure) IS a foreign concept.”
If I go swimming in a local river will the 4 to 5 m saltwater crocs respect me, love me, and feel well disposed to me, protect me? Or will they tear off a limb, bleed me out, drown me, then eat my carcass?
Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 4:31 am
“What “alluded subjective ranking of edible and non edible animals”? You’re just making stuff up.”
The implied fantasy that whales are superior to other edible animals and therefore sacrosanct from human diet via decree of Greenpeace and associated vegan Swamis at large.
Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 4:31 am
“… “I love and respect dogs, they’re great animals, very personable and I’ve had a couple as pets. But I would not hesitate eat one if I knew someone who really knew how to cook dog properly.” Meaningless bluster. You can cook a dog’s leg in the oven just as easily as a lamb’s leg. So go and kill someone’s dog (or your own) and eat it if that’s how you feel – or would you prefer somebody else to do the killing for you? … ”
Oh don’t worry about that part, I didn’t grow up in a city, I’ve killed and eaten all sorts of animals and fish since I was a boy. It was commonplace to do that. Never needed to eat a dog, but have killed and eaten many sorts of animals, some are much tastier than others, but I’ve heard dogs are really delicious. Cheap prejudices doesn’t matter, you’re welcome to believe anything you like, but I’m under no obligation to accept it, I’ve my own experiences to call on that supersede anything you can say.
But getting back to whales, I’d love to try a couple of professionally cooked whale dishes to see what all the fuss is about as there’s so much sectarian disinformation and zealotry around the whole topic, I’d prefer to test it myself and make up my own mind thanks Jamie.
“If I go swimming in a local river will the 4 to 5 m saltwater crocs respect me, love me, and feel well disposed to me, protect me? Or will they tear off a limb, bleed me out, drown me, then eat my carcass?”
They’ll make a value judgment about whether you are an intelligent species who is likely to suffer unduly in the process of being killed and eaten, whether you are in fact good to eat, and probably whether they need to eat you. I jest of course. Only the last applies. if they’re hungry, they will eat you, because that’s what crocs do. We as human pride ourselves on being so much more, do we not? We have the choice. We can decide whether making an animal suffer for our consumptive habits is ‘necessary’ or not. The degree of suffering of that animal will be directly related to how we chose to kill it (or indeed rear it prior to killing), its intelligence/awareness and how developed its central nervous system is. We can make these assessments because we are no longer simply ‘predators’. Of course, if you argue that we are just biological predators sitting at or near the top of the food chain, then there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be eaten or eat each other. Just cos we got ‘civilised’ and ‘cultured’ and we got an iPad and book of poems doesn’t mean we shouldn’t eat one another, eh? I bet you know lots of ‘personable’ people who are just biological mammals who would cook just as well as dog and probably taste quite similar to pork. You could add them to your long list of consumed species.
“The implied fantasy that whales are superior to other edible animals and therefore sacrosanct from human diet via decree of Greenpeace and associated vegan Swamis at large.”
No, I didn’t say or imply that. You’re making stuff up again. I pointed out the fact that cetaceans were very highly developed marine mammals whose behaviour we are still learning about, whose social structures and intelligence in many ways mimic our own, and if we were going to start somewhere in developing a deeper respect for non-human species, ending the commercial exploitation of these particular animals would be a good place to start.
Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 6:05 am
“We can decide whether making an animal suffer for our consumptive habits is ‘necessary’ or not. …”
I said approximately that in reply to Janice above, that finding quicker and better ways to inflict a mortal wound on a whale is desirable to reduce suffering. But if you’re trying to say we should chose not to kill whales in particular, at all, I do not agree. We could harvest 10,000 a year right now with out undermining their continued build of numbers. I see no reason to treat them differently to a camel or cow, or any other harmless grazing animal.
Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 6:05 am
“I bet you know lots of ‘personable’ people who are just biological mammals who would cook just as well as dog and probably taste quite similar to pork. You could add them to your long list of consumed species.”
OK, you want to keep pressing that silly button, don’t you? I’ve never eaten a dog because I’ve never needed to eat a dog, but if I went to a restaurant and professionally prepared and cooked dog was on the menu, I’d eat Lassie – yes I would! lol Humans are not on the menu, but if I was, say air crashed in the Andes, and it was a matter of survival, yeah, I’d eat a dead human. Is that what you want to hear? Guess what Jamie, I’m not the only one who sees humans as edible in that case.
Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 6:05 am
“… “The implied fantasy that whales are superior to other edible animals and therefore sacrosanct from human diet via decree of Greenpeace and associated vegan Swamis at large.”
No, I didn’t say or imply that. You’re making stuff up again. I pointed out the fact that cetaceans were very highly developed marine mammals whose behaviour we are still learning about, whose social structures and intelligence in many ways mimic our own, and if we were going to start somewhere in developing a deeper respect for non-human species, ending the commercial exploitation of these particular animals would be a good place to start. …”
What? There you go again, no, I’m not making anything up in either that reply, or the prior. The general claim you’re making is that whales are superior and should not be killed or eaten by humans. Right?
That’s effectively exactly what you’re saying otherwise you would not be arguing-the-toss about my being quite OK with killing and eating whales, and discounting the alleged immorality of doing that. But you’re simply denying (twice now) that this is your basic case, and are saying its about something else. Really? OK then, if your basic objection is not about humans killing and eating whales, then you won’t mind if we do? Right? Come off it Jamie, denial is not an argument.
But more interestingly, I find your remark, “… if we were going to start somewhere in developing a deeper respect for non-human species, ending the commercial exploitation of these particular animals would be a good place to start. …”, quite outlandish. It’s someone’s extended ideological construction jutting out into plain sight. It looks to me freaking kooky but is a construct you’ve clearly bought into fully. OK, whatever that’s about, I don’t concur with those sentiments or ‘objectives’, in any way, so please don’t proselytize to me again for such a kooky cause.
However, this talk of eating whales has made me famished, you’ve really got me thinking about trying some.
You’re really not seeing where I’m coming from and there seems little point in trying to pursue the conversation further. What is obvious is that you have some quaint biblical notion that ‘animals’ (as distinct from humans) are there for us to eat as we see fit, according to our tastes, and not according to necessity. You appear to make no allowance at all for the fact that some species (maybe even the majority, I don’t know) are intelligent, social, thinking. feeling creatures just like us. The fact that you would happily eat dog meat if it was served up in some restaurant (in Asia most likely) tells me that you really don’t give a damn (or you can’t be bothered to actually question) how much suffering is involved in getting meat to your plate; you’ll just eat it because it tastes good.
“The general claim you’re making is that whales are superior and should not be killed or eaten by humans. Right?”
I’ll try this once more and then give up. I’m arguing for a greater respect for all living creatures, especially those we look upon as ‘resources’, in particular those we eat. I’m saying that it appears that cetaceans are a lot more intelligent and far more complex than your average starfish or mollusc; in fact, they’re a lot more similar to humans in that respect than your average starfish or mollusc. So IF (and you obviously strongly disagree) we should try to treat animals with a lot more compassion and respect generally, stopping slaughtering whales and dolphins would be a damn good place to start. But you reckon that’s just a “kooky cause”.
Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 8:01 am
“You’re really not seeing where I’m coming from and there seems little point in trying to pursue the conversation further. What is obvious is that you have some quaint biblical notion that ‘animals’ (as distinct from humans) are there for us to eat as we see fit, according to our tastes, and not according to necessity. You appear to make no allowance at all for the fact that some species (maybe even the majority, I don’t know) are intelligent, social, thinking. feeling creatures just like us. The fact that you would happily eat dog meat if it was served up in some restaurant (in Asia most likely) tells me that you really don’t give a damn (or you can’t be bothered to actually question) how much suffering is involved in getting meat to your plate; you’ll just eat it because it tastes good.”
Jaime, Jaime, dear-dear, first, apologies for spelling your name incorrectly prior, but no, I don’t hold to biblical sentiments, and there’s not some external ideological edifice coloring my thoughts here. This is how I see it from life experiences. I have no prejudices about dogs or eating dogs nor entertain prejudice against Asian food or Asia, as you apparently do. A dog can be dispatched with zero suffering with one cleaver stroke. You’re exaggerating wildly about suffering. All life knows it prefers not to die, much of living animals are very aware and attentive, smart even, but this does not change the fact they’re delicious, and it does not put me off eating them, one jot. The vast majority of humanity are actually fine with eating yummy cute charismatic animals. If you’re trying to make me feel guilty it’s not going to work. That’s your domain, you may feel bad on my behalf if that suits you. And when it’s my turn to be eaten, I’ll be up for it if I’m already dead. If I’m dead I won’t be concerned at all about being eaten.
I understand it would be best that animals are also dispatched with similar consideration as quickly and painlessly as technically possible. And whales or dogs that are dead, do not care at all if they are then eaten. No matter what happens a dead fleshy body will be eaten. If not by me, by something else, by birds, lizards, bacteria, whatever. Now if you accept that dead things are ALWAYS eaten, with no exceptions, then your only objection remaining can be to animals being killed. Right?
That’s the ‘moral’ dilemma you feel. For you it’s a dilemma but not for me. That dissonance and guilt is in your head, not mine, as my life-experience from an early age meant I’ve adjusted and adapted to how his works and you haven’t. You wallow in guilt and pity about the animal being killed, and do not adjust.
So that’s your issue, the mortality and dispatching of sentient things. And I can’t help you there, as I’ll be having meat with at least a third of my meals for the rest of my life and have no problems with eating a Lassie burger. Whether I eat a dead dog, or horse, or whale, or crab is immaterial if it’s already dead. For something is always going to consume it, and live via that consumption, as that’s what life does. And as I’ve already said I have no problem at all killing land or marine animals, and cleaning, cooking and eating them. Been doing it all my life, will certainly do it again, thousands of times.
If you have a problem with that process it’s you who has to come to terms with it, not another person.
Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 8:29 am
“The general claim you’re making is that whales are superior and should not be killed or eaten by humans. Right?”
I’ll try this once more and then give up. I’m arguing for a greater respect for all living creatures, especially those we look upon as ‘resources’, in particular those we eat. I’m saying that it appears that cetaceans are a lot more intelligent and far more complex than your average starfish or mollusc; in fact, they’re a lot more similar to humans in that respect than your average starfish or mollusc. So IF (and you obviously strongly disagree) we should try to treat animals with a lot more compassion and respect generally, stopping slaughtering whales and dolphins would be a damn good place to start. But you reckon that’s just a “kooky cause”. …”
But animals are a resource, they are food on legs, wings and fins, and about the most nutrition laden energy food it is possible to obtain. I love eating fresh flesh. I don’t intend to passively accept judgmental prejudices about food or faux ‘morality’ on this. Those are your issues, for me there’s no struggle, I love a lamb roast, and if the lamb’s dead it doesn’t matter to the lamb if I roast it and eat it. I wouldn’t just do what a wolf does, and eat it raw and alive, what do you take me for, a monster? lol
I’m all for dispatching animals I eat, quickly, with no warning and little or no time for suffering or pain if at all possible. But sometimes it’s not possible, so you do your best for them to go quickly.
I don’t share your arbitrary prejudice against starfish and mollusks! What’s with that?! Nor do I share your marine mammal prejudice, I’d eat them any time. I especially like eating saltwater crocodiles and bunny rabbits, but they can get a bit gamey in flavor at certain times of the year. I love eating meat and so does every one I know.
The only veggies I know are Buddhists and typically up-themselves about everything, they have similar prejudices and judgementalism as you, and like you that also don’t recognize it as their problem, not someone else’s. Always masking it as a superior ‘morality’ and their deep caring concerns and sensitivity, rah-rah-rah. The truth is they were pretty badly adjusted unhappy people. The funniest thing was they were always trying to get me to try the stuff they cooked and talked about it a lot, as they were always trying to make it taste like it had meat in it, and to see if I liked it. lol What’s funnier is the way you could tell they loved the smell of cooking meat, but their self-loathing would take over and they’d go stand upwind, with a pained conflicted look.
I’ll leave off here but focus on your ‘moral’ dilemma Jaime, own it, as it’s you that is the dilemma. But all the best, and thanks for the discussion
Jeez, that’s really something. You managed to accuse me of being prejudiced against molluscs and starfish and Asians and Asian food! Then you went on to say I had a moral dilemma about animals being killed and that I should ‘own it’ etc. etc. etc. Look, for the record, I don’t have ANY problem at all with somebody killing an animal to eat, quickly and humanely, whether it be wild or domesticated, as long as, if it was domesticated, it was not kept in miserable conditions prior to being killed and eaten.
Your ignorance of the suffering which happens in the meat industry here and abroad is just astounding. THAT is my issue.
” A dog can be dispatched with zero suffering with one cleaver stroke. You’re exaggerating wildly about suffering.”
It could be, but it ain’t – not anywhere NEAR – hardly EVER in Asia where dogs are routinely eaten. I could post videos or make people’s blood run cold describing how dogs in Asia are ‘prepared’ prior to being BRUTALLY killed and eaten, but I won’t because this isn’t the place. If you think that’s ‘wildly exaggerating’ their suffering, you have got serious cognition issues. Like I said, the fact that you would happily snack on dog meat in a restaurant (or a mass produced lamb chop from a supermarket or a whale steak, for that matter) speaks volumes about your own moral mire, not mine.
Hi Unmentionable,
I’m not sure where you’re commenting from, but if you can get yourself over to Iceland or Norway, you can find whale on the menu if you look; it’s not everywhere, presumably tourists aren’t totally supportive…
Coincidentally, the same day my wife and I tried first our first whale (as a starter, peppered and cooked rare with a wild berry sauce), I was tempted to buy a T-shirt which had a picture of a whale, below which a caption said “we’d eat dolphins too if we could”.
As far as recipes go, just think of any steak dish and you can replace cow with whale, just that the meat is a bit bland compared to beef, more chewy and a bit more oily.
Erny72 March 27, 2016 at 2:15 pm
I’d love to visit Norway one day and will certainly try the whale. Thanks for the recommendation, from what you say it sounds like it would go well seared on a BBQ grill.
I’d also love to try Dolphin/Porpoise Erny, I bet they’re delicious, the Japanese eat them and not sure but I think a few south sea islanders do also. I don’t know what the big deal is with dolphins, people up thread are panning killer whales, but a dolphin acts much like a smaller version of killer whale, they’re just as predatory and just as brutal to their dinner at times. Most predatory fish are delicious, why I mentioned Spanish Mackerel above, and fish of that type, all mouth watering. So I expect dolphin meat would be very tasty indeed.
Jaime,
Perhaps you would be interested in the insights and works of Temple Grandin, who has brought about great changes in slaughter techniques. There are ways to kill an animal which do not involve suffering beyond a split instant, if at all. Any argument which says that the killing of an animal for food is wrong, doesn’t reach very deep. Is the Preying Mantis, eating a butterfly alive… well, you can see where this is going.
Alan, I wasn’t arguing that killing another animal for food is wrong per se, just saying that we can make a judgement often as to whether it is necessary and whether the suffering involved justifies the acquisition of nourishment. Wild predators don’t make that judgement generally; they eat to survive. It’s not just slaughtering animals that presents a problem; it’s ensuring that, on the industrial scale required to feed nations, farmed animals do not suffer unduly from birth until the point of death. Unfortunately, the meat and farming industries are unable and in many cases unwilling to implement measures whereby animals do have a reasonable quality of life prior to slaughter. So if you eat industrially farmed animals, you choose to either ignore this suffering or accept that it is a necessary evil in order that you can include animal protein in your diet
Iowa Beef Processors, last time I was there, was running 190 cattle per hour through their machine.
One moment, the animal is walking through a chute and one second later is completely dead on the floor.
What is the suffering to which you refer? All in your mind, was it? Phantom telepathic psychological pain, was it?
Oh well, you’ve been to Iowa Beef Processors and seen animals being killed really quickly, so no suffering EVER anywhere, happens in the meat industry. It’s all in my head. Right . . . .
you delicate flower.
what part of real life did you find where there is no pain ever?
You may not realize this, but inflicting your personal agonies on others is unwelcome.
Nobody wants a sniveler at the dinner table shedding fake tears on the meat.
Jaime Jessop,
You’re tilting at the wrong windmill. The true savages are the Muslims, who practice halal, a method of excruciating torture that ends the life of the animal.
Halal is right up there (IMHO) as a reason to declare Islam as a world Outlaw Religion.
Outlawing ritual slaughter like that is fine with me. But I hope you’re not comparing them with Islamists. That would be like comparing civilized folks with savage, murderous barbarians.
Gnomish,
“you delicate flower.
what part of real life did you find where there is no pain ever?
You may not realize this, but inflicting your personal agonies on others is unwelcome.
Nobody wants a sniveler at the dinner table shedding fake tears on the meat.”
You’re a card aren’t you. They’re not my “personal agonies” you silly person, they are the agonies of billions of creatures caught up in the meat processing industry. Agonies which you would like to ignore, deny or falsely minimise presumably because you just love the taste of meat and the convenience of popping down to the supermarket and buying a shrink-wrapped steak without having to go through that messy business of killing it yourself, Best not think about how that animal lived or died for your culinary convenience. Bit of a ‘delicate flower’ aren’t you if you find mention of these agonies ‘unwelcome’?
I already respect all non human life. That rib-eye steak I had on the weekend was fantastic.
Jaime, when did you last dispatch a cockroach and how do you know it didn’t suffer?
Excellent substantive and reasoned reply Alex.
I put in all the thought this thread respects
Yeah, but you left out the vital words “in my opinion”.
It’s a silly thread ‘in my opinion’. Happy now Jaime?
Yep. 🙂
We would not have any of these wonderous animals if it were not for crude oil.
It is the discovery of cheap oil from the ground that saved the whales from being hunted into extinction. Crude oil was far cheaper and easier to obtain than was whale oil.
Every conservationist should thank god for crude oil. It has not only empowered mankind, liberating our lives, but has also saved these great creatures along the way.
Bingo. Richard Verney.
We can now make the case for reinventing the whaling industry.
As crude oil is evil and unsustainable in the Enviro-Nasty Industries eyes, we must return to natural sustainable oil.
Nuke the Whale.
Time to present my business case for slurping up taxpayer funds, Sustainable Oil.
With a massive grant of other peoples money, I will set up an accelerated breeding programme for Oil Bearing Whales, the High Oil, Faster Breeder Programme.
I sense an acronym lurking here in.
GMO Whale Product?
Sarcasm aside I did find this concept effective in getting through to a Greedy Greeny.
Just like all those horses we need to breed and train to replace one diesel engine.
But “horsepower” is a concept lost on the Cult members, cause maths is hard.
There is nothing “renewable” about them. Don’t be a pawn of GE/Siemens’ marketing bs.
…and whats wrong with killing whales in a managed and sustainable way? You eat meat don’t you ?..take a look in your local Halal slaughter house and see real suffering.
Hari,
Exactly. That’s just another example of why Islam delenda est.
Hi Eric,
Apologies in advance if my memory is bad and I’m wrongly attributing this view to you. However, I seem to remember you advocating that it was perfectly OK to kill sharks, and other marine life, in nets strung out in their natural environment, because humans want to play in the water. So is it OK to kill them if they get near humans, but raise a furore if they are out in deep ocean?
Them, should be marine life
It has been pointed out on numerous occasions, that Australia has no international legal right to confront the Japanese.
The whole sanctuary declared by Australia has no international legal basis.
While i would prefer that whales were not killed, starting aMaritime war with Japan is not an outcome I would like to see.
Exactly correct. Australia eschews piracy for internal idiocy.
Japan has no Navy, as such.
The “greens” won’t focus on whales, that is not where the money is ..
In Fredrick Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth’s classic SF novel, The Space Merchants, there is a giant hydroponic muscle, known as ‘Chicken Little’, from which slices of meat are carved off and distributed to the world.
As I recall, it was in Puerto Rico. It was fed with algae:
http://www.ralphmag.org/spacemerchants2.html
No sentience, not even consciousness, just muscle. Sounds like a good source of protein. However, muscle requires a blood supply, and nerves (to maintain tone, though this could probably be simulated electrically), so it might be more complicated than just a petri dish. You need fat, too, for flavor.
We’re not that far away from Chicken Little now. Then we won’t need the flesh of the kindly cows and the jolly whales. Though in the meantime, I still fancy a steak now and then.
And yes (on topic), the Aussies should go out and harass the Japanese, just for the halibut.
/Mr Lynn
“And yes (on topic), the Aussies should go out and harass the Japanese, just for the halibut.”
——————-
Oh, you!
—
OU! On to the Final Four!
“…just for the halibut.”
Or on Porpoise?
Chairman Mao thought: “Whale not as good as CO2 for reintroduction of Communism.”
The morality of what the Japanese are doing could be argued about til the cows came home. Nothing would be accomplished by that, except to cause bitterness. This does highlight a fact though, that has been made often; we skeptics/climate realists come from all walks of life, and a wide range of political, social, and religious sensibilities. That, in a way though, is a strength, not a weakness. The climate Believers continually try to put us in one box, because that makes it easier for them to attack.
However, clearly what they are doing is illegal, done under the thinly-disguised veil of “research”. The hypocrisy and idiocy of a government spending $billions on a non-problem, when they could take a tiny portion of that to prevent this from happening is obvious. It is an hypocrisy generally of all so-called “green” groups as well, who have apparently abandoned heretofore real environmental concerns for an entirely false one.
‘clearly’
You may want to look that word up.
You may want to look up the word “pedant”.
What is “scientific” whaling for ?
http://www.rense.com/general66/whaleburgergoesonsale.htm
So the Japanese like eating whale meat. I like eating Kobe beef, red snapper and BBQ pork among a long list of other foods. They are not killing an endanger species. Nor am I. We like to say the greenies sole purpose is population control and the forcing of their beliefs upon the rest of us. Make sure you whale lovers are not doing the same.
Dear Tom,
I agree. We should not legislate morality. There is, however, imo, Higher Law, or “Natural Law.” E.g., we enforce the morality of not being cruel to dogs (and a law is needed for this ev1l, for there are “un-people,” i.e., people born with no conscience, who need threat of punishment to prevent their acting against “Natural Law.”). The “law” here, v. a v. whales, would be, “Do not torture an animal to death” (or similar wording). If the only way to kill a cow or steer was to shoot a harpoon into it and drag it around until it finally bled to death or suffocated, I would cry out against such inhumanity. While I am appalled at the killing of elephants and whales in view of their intelligence and affectionate and playful “personality,” I am not standing up for pigs which are also relatively intelligent, for their “personality” to me is disgusting. Just a personal feeling. Much of what I wrote is just my personal beliefs/feelings and I would not push them on anyone.
The best thing is to enlighten a society and teach them to love animals so that the conscience of society, not its laws, will dictate how animals are treated. For example, in many countries, familiarity with a dog’s affectionate nature, its loyalty, its intelligence, and its courage, has persuaded the culture as a whole to reject dog farms for food and like horrors. There are exceptions. For instance, there are people within those cultures whose hearts are so hard they can’t love dogs and who run puppy mills to make money and there are also the many people who look the other way and buy from them. We have to legislate against that kind of animal cruelty. But, thankfully, cultural horror of farming dogs for food is such a widely held belief that no laws are necessary.
Torture is another matter. That I would legislate against (be it pigs or chickens or whales). Thus, I am against whaling. I don’t feel good about how lobsters and salmon die, but, I would not legislate against their killing. There is a distinction, for me, with a difference, based on the intelligence of the “victim” and or given the amount of suffering and anguish involved in the death.
Thanks for the caveat. Good to be reminded to carefully think through what one is asking of others — and why.
Enjoy your weekend (what remains of it)!
Janice
Implied in your view Janice is that marine mammals don’t suffer greatly in nature and that over-population is never an issue. Not only is that untrue, but nature, apart from man is far, far more wicked when it kills then what the Japanese do to kill whales. There are many examples of mass-starvation events among mammals that reproduce until some event forces a mass cull. For what ever reason the usual amount forage is unavailable and starvation sets in. The group dynamic changes greatly when there isn’t any food. I could elaborate on the nastiness that can set in from a human point of view, but never mind that.
In my mind elephants are an equivalent comparison for whales and left to themselves elephants will reproduce until they hit the lack-of-forage wall. Is it better to cull 1,000 animals per year or let the herd grow in size for ten years and watch 20,000 animals die of starvation in the span of a month? The Japanese people have been whaling since the 1500’s and consider themselves to be the “natural” predators of whales. If it bothers you; don’t look.
On the subject of the morality of eating pigs vs dogs, I usually refer to a scene from one of my favorite movies. in which two guys name Jules and Vincent discuss such over breakfast:
“Vincent: Want some bacon?
Jules: No man, I don’t eat pork.
Vincent: Are you Jewish?
Jules: Nah, I ain’t Jewish, I just don’t dig on swine, that’s all.
Vincent: Why not?
Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don’t eat filthy animals.
Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.
Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I’d never know ’cause I wouldn’t eat the filthy m*therf*cker. Pigs sleep and root in sh!t. That’s a filthy animal. I ain’t eat nothin’ that ain’t got sense enough to disregard its own feces.
Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces.
Jules: I don’t eat dog either.
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we’d have to be talkin’ about one charming m*therf*ckin’ pig. I mean he’d have to be ten times more charmin’ than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I’m sayin’? “
For what it is worth…i sincerely doubt sewer rats taste anything at all like pumpkin pie.
And I can say that without having ever tasted either one, and be confident that I have it right.
Janice – you have to make up your mind. Are you against whale hunting because it is “inhumane” and there is some suffering on the part of the animal, or are you just against it because whales are some sort of higher being like humans?
I’m rooting for the Sea Shepard at sea and in court. I hate wind machines – bird killers. And I fondly recall a time way back, when Green Peace was regularly involved in picking moral fights with really nasty people. Now it seems GP’s fight is with all people – misanthropic idealogues IMO -and global warming is their hammer.
Some people would say one man’s ‘terrorist’ is another man’s ‘freedom fighter’ but there’s no distinction to be made if the actions are the same.
In the same manner, I don’t bother distinguishing one bunch of useless, violent, confrontational, above-the-law, ecotard, activists who didn’t grow up after their pointless arts degree and the next bunch of useless, violent, confrontational, above-the-law, ecotard, actvists who didn’t grow up after their pointless arts degree. Sea Shepherd, Greenpr!cks, PETA, they’re all slightly different flavours of the same basic scum.
The only time I was happy to see Sea Shepard in the news was the time the morons thought they could play chicken with the big boys and managed to sink their poxy bat-boat (the Ady Gil). I can’t watch video footage of that and the moonbats indignantly whining about how unfair it was too often for it not to bring tears to my eyes every time (just before my stomach starts hurting from laughing so hard).
Incidently, Ady Gil and others filed a RICO complaint against Sea Shepherd afterwards, claiming the boat they’d donated was repairable, but deliberately sunk in order to solicit donations:
https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2015/03/sea-shepherd-is-a-sinking-ship/
The leader of Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson,was kicked out of Greenpr!cks for being too radical.
…really sure you want to be ‘rooting’ for an organisation like this?
Love your work Envy!
Sort of off topic.
Sperm whale oil (for lamps etc) was at one time in great demand.
It was the introduction of much, much cheaper kerosene (and other petroleum products for the “etc”) that killed the demand for sperm whale oil.
“Big Oil” saved the whales!
PS Don’t just enjoy the day. Rejoice in what it means.
(End of my Easter sermon.8-)
^Interesting to think about!
I just returned from a trip to Antarctica, including some of the old whaling villages on South Georgia island. Here is a picture (taken by my son) of whale oil tanks in Grytviken. I too am thankful that this is no longer necessary.
http://i.imgur.com/1PvjNgr.jpg
And I can’t resist sharing this one (also by my son) of a trio of humpbacks.
http://i.imgur.com/JlrSWdm.jpg
Hi Gregory,
Thanks for the interesting pictures. A mate of mine was posted to South Georgia about a year after the Argies were escorted off the premises and his section was photographed with a similar backdrop in Gritviken.
I agree it’s thankful we aren’t having to hunt whales on industrial scale for oil anymore and it’s great that that whale watching is becoming such a common tourist drawcard (I used to work in the North West of Australia and the whale watching was a free fringe benefit, as was the daily shenannigans of dolphins teasing seagulls and stalking flying fish).
I would add though that it is worth observing the marked difference between industrial exploitation of several species (almost to extinction in some cases) for energy demand and hunting minke whales to meet a limited cullinary demand.
“which is not the point, the point is they are being needlessly slaughtered.”
Actually the point is you have established ‘needless’, or reckless, or criminal, or significant.
I think scum bags just use their fake concerns to make a point.
The only way to stop this brutal slaughter of whales is to boycott Japanese products!! Don’t buy their cars and electronic products! Hurt them in their pocket books!!!
But, I must ask, what is wrong with harvesting whales that ARE NOT ENDANGERED? These are not the North Atlantic Right Whales. There are many species of whale that are not endangered, and are thriving. The anti whale people are unable to grasp that this is another natural sustainable resource, like seals on both sides of the North Atlantic, who’s populations have exploded thanks to the MMPA. Anti whaling is nothing more than another ideological position, based on nothingness.
I agree completely. The Red List (http://www.iucnredlist.org/) puts Common Minke populations at ‘Least Concern’ with estimated numbers at over 180K. It has insufficient data on Antarctic Minkebut says:
“It is not possible at this time to estimate the abundance of B. acutorostrata in the Southern Hemisphere, because most of the available quantitative sighting data do not distinguish it from the much more numerous B. bonaerensis with which it is partially sympatric. B. acutorostrata has not been subject to significant exploitation in the Southern Hemisphere.”
I think people apply some sort of moral bias to killing whales – I can’t explain this bias because I don’t think they are significantly different from any other large warm-blooded mammal. I personally ‘slaughter’ sheep and cows every year. Friends of mine ‘slaughter’ deer and goats for sport. We aren’t advocating species extinction and, in the case of the Minke that is not even a risk. Why are some animals more equal than others?
Onyabike March 27, 2016 at 12:57 pm
“Why are some animals more equal than others?”
_____
It appears to be nothing more than irrational prejudices and shallow preference for sexy, photogenic cute animals. You can eat the non-cute mangy viscous things (except tigers, they’re waaay cute pussy cats), but the cute ones that make cute sounds are ‘special’.
The prejudices for or against certain animals is a moral neurosis which turns into ‘fan’-aticism for some. The ‘fans’ of whales and other animals become unbalanced, obsessed with them, and people identify closely with their obsessions. Teenage girls and horses, for instance (apparently Teenage girls in Kazakhstan don’t suffer that obsession).
But what’s more preposterous is the way the prejudiced fans project their arbitrary ‘morality’ and prejudiced judgements on humans, if they eat an enshrined ‘cute’ one.
Because we all know that humans are bad, really bad, so that’s a given, except the self-beatifying moral and sanctimonious ones, as they’re so ‘cute’ too.
But we’re just human, we have not self-beatified yet for we’re moral second-bananas to the self-beatified fan who self-enlightens and volunteers to abstain from masticating the devil-jerky.
Yeah … I could go a seal.
What rankles?
The blatant lies of a government of a democratic country and its disregard for the opinion of the vast majority of the people who live in the region
What we won’t do is confront ships in a manner that is outside of international law. There are better ways. We are not doing nothing. This issue does cost Japan – big time
Nevertheless, I find the connection between this and CO2 most strange
This is a rather “key” article, imo. While the msm suffer over and are distracted looking into a cooling atmosphere, claiming that its warming. Moby Dick Corp. continues hedging. Look at Bernie Sanders plan to turn U.S. energy into Gazprom and you will have all the Monopoly evidence you need.