14
votes
Sea turns blood red as more than 250 whales slaughtered in 'barbaric' hunt in Faroe Islands – environmental activist calls for boycott
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Published
- Jul 21 2020
- Word count
- 415 words
The Faroe Islands have changed their whaling based on input from environmental groups and animal rights groups.
They blocked tourists from even attending (You have to be living in the Faroes and a dude IIRC to be part in Grindadråp (which to be picky isn't "murder of" but "killing of"), while to be an onlooker or part in the side work you have to be living in the Faroes and either gender). The changes made is using a pike and a hook instead for killing the animals quickly in comparison what was done before. The meat is communally distributed through legal channels people living there. Plus should be noted that Pilot Whales, the species hunted is not on any endangered list, although that is also not very clear since the numbers of the species is unknown so far - but the indications are that they are not endangered.
The hunt is barbaric because its not industrialized, its not mechanized and its visible in comparison with the whole sale slaughter of animals done on the daily instead of a couple of times a year.
Its also not an animal many see as food in comparison with pigs, cows, chickens, etc.
What speaks against it is that now, with import being comparatively easy of other sources of meat, is that its not critical as a food source any more. Also we don't know the exact extent of Pilot Whales to be able to make a clear and definite determination of their conservation status.
I never understood why people got so self righteous about not eating whale meat when from where I am standing it seems like it should be the most “ethical” meat if you are going simply by “what meat can feed the most people for the fewest number of murders”. Whaling honestly seems way less barbaric to me than the nightmares it takes for $5 instant hamburgers to be possible. The hypocrisy is exhausting, can’t we just stop eating meat already?
I think the crux of it is that other animals can be farmed and eaten in a theoretically “humane” process (although this is of course unfortunately often not the case) without harming their wild populations or endangering the species (e.g. cattle, sheep, chickens, pigs etc.). On the other hand, it is just not possible or not feasible to farm larger creatures like whales and the manner in which they are killed is often not what is generally considered to be “humane”. Furthermore, in certain cases where the whaling is illegal, the species of whales killed are often not those which are abundant.
That said I do myself think it is a bit hypocritical with respect to the whole meat industry. More comprehensive whaling procedures and regulations that are agreed upon and enforced internationally would help a lot to alleviate some of these issues but alas, despite this issue kicking around for a long time now, little seems to change.
Cows and chicken are specifically breeded at farms for the purpose of killing. They are not thriving in any natural habitat.
Not the whales in this article.
But do you understand that whaling almost brought about the extinction of whales because it was an industrial process and was basically our primary source of petroleum products for centuries? Neither of these things is true any longer. People have been obviously sustainably whaling for thousands of years, it’s not the few people who are living traditional lifestyles that were causing the problem.
But have the whales returned back to a population level where they can be sustainably farmed like this in the first place? Sustainable pre-collapse isn't the same as sustainable post-collapse. 250 whales is a lot of whales.
Where necessity is not a factor, should extinction even be a question?
In addition, basing moral consideration on levels of intelligence is a slippery slope.
I think the folks at Sea Sheppard would say it's not a case of choosing between the lesser of two evils. It's rather a fight for the inclusion of non-human animals in our moral circle. What is the hypocrisy you're referring too? Sorry, I'm not quite following.
I only think the existence of McDonalds is a lot more morally outrageous than a rural island nation of 60 thousand people practicing a traditional lifestyle. And when people get more upset about that than the McDonalds that is literally five minutes from where they live, the hypocrisy is kind of implicit. I have no problem with the Sea Shepherd, but with the target audience of these journalistic pieces.
Do you believe that is an important distinction to be made? If so, who benefits from doing so and how? If media coverage ought to be tantamount to moral outrage, I believe the output of whaling vs fast food articles already complies to your model. If that is indeed the case, what is your issue with this article?
re "people practicing a traditional lifestyle". Should morality be dictated by history? I don't think it's reasonable to perpetuate any practice by virtue of the amount of time we have been practising it. I'll leave it to the reader's imagination but there are innumerable examples of the application of this reasoning that have horrifying repercussions.
You're basing your premise of "implicit hypocrisy" on a hasty generalisation. Who are the people you're referring to? Does a single article suggest more people are upset about this than anything else? I'd wager the majority are more concerned with what is on their doorstep, i.e McDonalds, et al (I'd be curious as to what extent this is actually true). In addition, should our proclivity to engage with an issue be dictated by distance? I fail to see how that is relevant. For a broader overview of that issue see Peter Singer’s essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”.
Who is the target audience and why are they a problem? Does engaging with this issue preclude a person from engaging with other issues closer to home?
I mean, yeah, I do think it is an important distinction to be made. I don't think anyone should eat meat, but if I am being pragmatic, I can at least be okay if the only people eating meat are those who have basically rejected almost all of the comforts of industrial civilization in exchange for remaining in closer harmony with nature. I can't make the same excuses for people in an industrial society where people are completely alienated from the horrors it takes to produce their own food, and actually will get angry with you if you simply point it out to them.
Of course not, but it really is ridiculous when the people lecturing you on morality are people who come from a culture that by and large continues to be complicit in the murder of 8 billion animals every year, who have found a way to suffer none of the awful consequences (like by getting poor immigrants to do all the dirty work, getting PTSD so you don't have to).
If people were just upset about Faroese whaling as they were about industrial slaughterhouses, McDonalds would not have made $21 billion in revenue in 2019.
Maybe what I said there wasn't fair.
No, but at the end of the day all I'm doing is trying to get people to do exactly that, and am getting friction in response.
Agreed :)
In the spirit of pragmatism, I agree, however, "remaining in closer harmony with nature" does not mean taking the lives of non-human animals where it is not absolutely necessary. I don't know enough about the import/export of the Faroe islands to say whether this would be one of those cases. My suspicion is it may, however, the edge case shouldn't set the precedent.
Agreed, in industrialised society, I see no justification for eating animals or using animal by-products.
Just so I understand, in this case, who is doing the hectoring exactly, the independent? Society at large? Whatever the case, it's perfectly logical - painful but logical - for one smoker to say to the other, "you know that stuff'll kill you right?" Why does it matter if some readers (I'm generalising here, I have no idea) are complicit in other forms of suffering, perfect should not be the enemy of good, no?
Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here, I'm arguing people care more about what is on their doorstep, i.e McDonalds. In addition you cite the revenue but do not contextualise it. To support my claim, for reference:
Kudos :) I'm right there with you. I hope you don't feel too much friction here. All in good fun :) I appreciate the conversation and think ultimately we're on a similar page.