Video evidence and putting distractions behind us | Home | Another day without whaling

The simplest way to save whales from extinction would be to farm them. I believe a Japanese company is already investigating the policy.

Think of the advantages: with large-scale commercial farming there'd be little economic sense in hunting wild whales, and there'd be an incentive to keep a healthy wild population alive to provide fresh breeding stock to prevent a farmed population from becoming in-bred.

Hi Andrew,
Melbourne Indymedia (http://melbourne.indymedia.org) has been trying to cover the campaign against Whaling in the Southern Ocean, from reports from Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd and other sources. Coverage has included posting a feature on the global Indymedia news site (http://www.indymedia.org).

Keep up the good work, and know that there are many of us following your campaign and trying to further publicise it in Australia, and round the world.

Takver

-----

Andrew replies

Thanks for the link and the good news that the word is getting out. To all the folks there at Indymedia, keep up the good work yourselves.

-- Andrew (onboard the Esperanza)

Do you know what the other ships are doing?
I mean the whalers! Do you know where they are?

you go guys!

the way you are dealing with these farts and the situation in the southern ocean is such an inspiration to the world; a war can be won without violence! last time i was touched like this was when i watched the gandhi movie in year 5. thank you again for being out there doing what you are doing so beautifully. p xxx

the campagne in french:
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/dolphinus/messages

/group/obsfr/messages

Here writes a young Portuguese Biologist now working in Uruguay…
Hello everyone (in Esperanza, Artic Sunrise, Farley Mowat, Nisshin Maru and Catchers, and of course all web audience).
Firstly I would like to say that I find quite pathetic some comments I've seen regarding the fact that now sea shepherd being on the whaling grounds a lot will change. I hope it brings comes more strength of the anti-whaling block working on the southern ocean! But I think we should focus on the whaling issue instead of arguing between us who’s the best or the meanest. Maybe we have different courses of action, we might agree with them or not, but I feel it is quite positive we have a few “dinghies” down there working to stop the JARPA II program.
Secondly, I must say that I have a high regard for both crews (Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd alike), and I want to pay my respect to you folks!
Maybe you know about this but anyway (bad news first) … Nicaragua (a country bought by Japan) said that they will vote aside its buyer (Japan) next IWC meeting scheduled for May 2006. The interesting bit I find it that when Milko Schvartzman (Greenpeace International) was in Nicaragua trying to convince the government not to attend the upcoming IWC meeting (i.e one less vote to Japan) Miguel Marenco the Nicaragua IWC Commissioner was in a diplomatic visit to (guess what) … Japan! After he came back, with his wise-use movement talk and the lesson learned, he defended the JARPA II program and said that Nicaragua will vote with Japan… because they defend the implementation of ecosystem management programs (i.e. a euphemism for the introduction of predator control programmes, and has anti-environmentalist countries such as Nicaragua and Japan sometimes argue, the ecosystem should be the unit of concern in conservation; in other words it means that if we lose a few species along the way due to things such as the commercial consumptive use and free trade, such losses are not so problematic because the ecosystems (well some ecosystem better saying) will still persist. Well in between other dress ups he defended the commercial consumptive use and accelerated economic growth, basically meaning ecological unsustainable development.
Anyway, I’m working in a campaign (together with OCC and Greenpeace) to get Uruguay back in the IWC and vote next to the conservation block. We have been doing a few roundups with ministries and media and the result has been positive, however, it will only be effective if Uruguay gets to the meeting in May with a fat vote on the conservation side supporting some resolutions respecting the future of whales of this planet.
Keep struggling!!
Peace out!
Your dear, dear friend:

Francisco (sorry about the size of the thing...)

Mahatma Gandhi correctly noted that: "the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated". It's not only the Japanese that stand condemned at this point in history. Its so true keep up the good work.

When I arrived in Japan 5 years ago, the sight of whale meat in supermarkets was relatively rare. However, now it is common to see cuts of fresh whale and packs of whale bacon in the local supermarkets, along with a drawing of a very cute, smiling whale. Also there is a chain restaurant boasting 5 different ways to enjoy our big friends of the deep on their menu. Ask the locals their views and their answers are usually, "It's our culture" or "The whales eat too much so it's better for the other fish populations". Maybe there should be a big push for reeducating the consumers.

Duncan, Your suggestion to farm whales to "save them from extinction" makes me feel ill. Surely some creatures on this planet deserve immunity from the human appetite and to be considered sacred. As we all know there is no humane to kill a whale, they're not designed to be destroyed by anything, they are masters of the sea. It is only our (so-called) intelligence that allows us to kill this beautiful creature which, in the normal course of events would be indestructible.

Marine,

Are you asserting that animals have rights? I'd argue that they don't:

"Many believe that animals have the right to be free from harm by people. In particular, they believe that animals should not be harmed in food production, clothing production, or medical research. This belief is the product of a misunderstanding of the nature of rights. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that rights are derived from the capacity to experience pain, and since animals can experience pain just as people can, animals also have the right to be free from harm. However, rights are derived from the capacity to reason, and thus people have rights and animals do not." - T.O.C. - Animal Rights

So, essentially, humans have the right to eat whatever non-sentient animal we want (given of course that we aren't infringing on other people's rights - e.g. I can't eat an animal you own without your consent).

Now, I don't like the idea of inhumane butchering. In fact, I buy free-range eggs and pork products, because I don't like battery farming.

But, that doesn't give me the right to force other people to accept my views.

I have the right to eat whale if I want, just as you have the right to (peacefully) protest your doing so. If you were to try to use force to stop me, then I could defend myself, and / or lay a complaint with the Police.

Furthermore, with regards to the 'design' of whales - are you asserting that they were designed (in which case, the designer obviously didn't think far enough ahead to consider humans), or are you asserting that they evolved to be impervious to attack (again false - consider that orcas hunt young whales, and humans hunt whatever we want)?

As for the 'sacred' bit - the only definition of sacred that I can find that might vaguely apply to whales is "Worthy of respect; venerable." I suppose then one could consider whales to be sacred - but by that definition, so could wild deer and pigs, and I eat those too.

Duncan,
You seem to have a cognitive dissonance on this issue – you don’t like inhumane butchering but you argue for some non-specific right for the butchery to continue, so that you can preserve your right. Are you arguing about inhumane butchering or rights? The common consensus in the world today is that inhumane butchering of any animal is immoral on many levels. It degrades both human and animal. Yet here we have before our very eyes, in technicolour, inhumane butchering.

If we are to be philosophical, then the existence of your “rights” confers on an opposite entity an obligation to provide the “right” otherwise the right is meaningless. You do not have any inherent rights simply because you exist.
Humans may classify themselves as a predator of whales and lots of things, but all things being equal, nature has not physically equipped us with the ability to kill a whale, hence we are not a natural predator of a whale, or of anything except perhaps a chicken, or a duck, or some other smallish thing that we can kill with our bare hands.

While you argue that you have the right to eat anything you like, regardless, I on the contrary am referring to the moral consideration in respect of the whale and whether, given the cruelty involved in the kill, it should be considered as a food source in the first place.

Given our capacity to reason which leads us to our sense of morality, then we also have the associated responsibility to exercise that reasoning and determine what is moral (outcome of reasoning) and what is not. However you do not mention morality, only “rights”, which come from the capacity to reason, you say.

When you work out where you stand morally then, let me know as so far I only know about your rights, or what you think they are.

Marine – Melbourne

Marine,

It's not cognitive dissonance, it's recognition of the fact that although I consider inhumane butchery horrible, I don't have the right to prevent people from performing it on animals they own (either through farming, or through hunting). I can certainly protest about it, and bring it to people's attention.

W.r.t. nature equipping us - we have, in fact, been equipped with a natural tool (our minds) that enables us to do just about anything we aspire to. With it we've created great works of science & art, increased our lifespan and wealth beyond anything imaginable only a few centuries ago, and developed the tools to hunt any creature imaginable. This is all perfectly natural *for us* because we are, above anything else, sentient. We think, & we create.

Briefly: morality is that which is in the rational self-interest of the individual. Rights are social rules which protect people from each other. Once can have the right to do something which is immoral: e.g., I can drink myself into a stupor every night & thereby destroy my life - it's my right to do so, no matter how immoral.

So, I would argue that harpooning whales is immoral, in the sense that it's needlessly cruel. But if someone wants to do it - I'm powerless to stop them, as they're not violating anyones rights by doing so.

Yours,
Duncan

Hello again Duncan,

Re Para 1 - Might is usually right, so if GP had the resources, they could certainly prevent the slaughter (more ships, bigger ships, the commitment of governments, aggression even). History is littered with tales of people who were prevented from exercising their "rights" by force, the Japanese for example in WW11, or slave-owners in the deep south, even dear old Charles 1. It depends on who is providing the responsibility for the right and whether the right is a right or simply an exercise in greed and acquisition. As you can see, rights are not fixed, but vary with the times. Post WW11 we are all focussed on democratic solutions. I seem to be going round in circles, what was that about Hiroshima?

Re Para 11 - we couldn't "create" a whale, and that is the point. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...(Shakespeare).

Re Para 111 - have you read Kant and his theory of the Categorical imperative? He argues that morality is inherent in the human condition. That is, everyone knows when they are acting morally and when they are acting imorally and it is not dependent on self-interest; that to act from self-interest has no moral worth. Briefly, an action has moral worth only if it expresses a good will.

Re Para IV - in fact you are not powerless, you could go now to the Southern Ocean, and put yourself between the whale and the harpoon and perhaps die in the process. However you might prevent one whale from dying a brutal death.

Finally, in terms of "rights" - considering that these are not documented anywhere and appear to fluctuate with the times, and that we seem to have regressed to some kind of Darwinian survivial of the fittest philosophy, then what about my right to sleep easy at night and think that "God's in His Heaven, All's Right With the World" (Browning)instead of worrying about whales suffering humiliation, degradation, pain, cruelty and death.

Yours

Marine - Melbourne

How do you determine the value of animal lives? Isn't that merely by our individual perception?
While arguing population is the matter, suddenly the matter is switched over to being humane or not. The issues are mixed up.
Killing pigs, cows and any sorts of animals can never satisfy both of those aspects simultaneously (having enough population and being humane or not). Even if you choose the supposedly most humane way of killing, animals such as pigs realise that they are being killed and become agitated. Media doesn't release the moment of killing pigs/cows/rabbits on TV, so most people don't even imagine them being killed, while the moment of killing whales is on air world wide. Even if the scene is not shown on TV, someone is getting their hand dirty to serve you those meats.
People disagree with whaling, simply because they adore whales, because they are so beautiful. Sharks are also endangered, but they are not mammals and they are scary killers, so people don't mind them consuming as fish and chips. Sharks are also very important part of our eco systems, though. How do we decide on the value of life?

In response to Yukiko N

(Please note this is a personal post from me and doesn't necessarily represent Greenpeace policy!)


Hi Yukiko,

In response to your post (your quotes in italics):

How do you determine the value of animal lives? Isn't that merely by our individual perception?

I don't think so. Personally, I think we should also consider the value to other people - for example, maintaining biodiversity for future generations. That is a value that might not matter to me as an individual, but should matter to any civilised society.

While arguing population is the matter, suddenly the matter is switched over to being humane or not. The issues are mixed up.

I disagree. They are not "mixed up". These are both valid reasons for people to be opposed to whaling.

Killing pigs, cows and any sorts of animals can never satisfy both of those aspects simultaneously (having enough population and being humane or not).

As far as population goes, pigs and cows are completely and utterly different to whales. Pigs and cows are bred and managed in controlled environments - admittedly, often not very nice ones. Whales are wild animals, that we have overexploited in the past, and whose populations we don't even have accurate estimates of. We don't know where some species migrate to, we don't know how many there are, we don't know how many mature breeding females we have. We also don't know how many other human factors are affecting their ecosystem such as climate change, pollution and sonar.

A cow or pig is not at risk of becoming extinct from commercial farming.

Even if you choose the supposedly most humane way of killing, animals such as pigs realise that they are being killed and become agitated. Media doesn't release the moment of killing pigs/cows/rabbits on TV, so most people don't even imagine them being killed, while the moment of killing whales is on air world wide. Even if the scene is not shown on TV, someone is getting their hand dirty to serve you those meats.

I agree with this, you're perfectly right, and this is the reason that many people are vegetarians. Although, these animals are (hopefully) in general not taking up to 30 agonizing minutes to die, being much smaller.

People disagree with whaling, simply because they adore whales, because they are so beautiful.

That is why SOME people disagree with whaling. As we explain on our campaign pages, there are many more reasons.

Sharks are also endangered, but they are not mammals and they are scary killers, so people don't mind them consuming as fish and chips. Sharks are also very important part of our eco systems, though.

Many people care about consuming them as "fish and chips"! In 2002, one of the world's most feared predators, the Great White shark, was listed as protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES), meaning it is illegal to trade in Great White products. The whale shark and the basking shark are also listed. Additionally, Greenpeace campaigns against fishing methods that promote bycatch of sharks and other animals. Last year, Disney in Hong Kong was forced to withdraw shark-fin soup from its menu after outrage from campaigners and consumers worldwide.

How do we decide on the value of life?

A difficult question, with so many implications! I guess there's no definitive answer. I think most people would agree though that all life should be respected enough that it is not extinguished unnecessarily, and I think that is what makes many people so upset about the needless killing of whales - they die in the name of a false science.

I'll keep this short and sweet people,
we have not inherited this planet from our grandparents, rather, it is on lease from our grandchildren.
Keep up the GREAT WORK GP!
gymbo:o)