13
votes
Bolsonaro was ridiculed on social media after criticising Norway for whaling techniques which the country does not use
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Bolsonaro takes on Norway for whaling, but bungles it
- Published
- Aug 19 2019
- Word count
- 508 words
Bolaonaro is a moron alright. But how can European countries still hunt whales? His ignorance is about methods, not the practical itself.
Let us pretend, for a moment, that it's not self-evidently wrong to hunt whales in any way, shape or form. What is your concern? Do you believe it to be unsustainable? Inhumane? Both?
The common minke whale, the only whale hunted in Norway, is listed as "Least Concern" on the IUCN Red List. Since they don't have a "no concern whatsoever" classification, that is the most sustainable classification there is.
As for inhumane, it's big game hunting. Like deer or boar or moose. The animal will most likely die, or at least fall unconscious instantly. But no matter how good of a shot you are, no matter which animal you're targeting, you cannot guarantee with 100% certainty that your shot will be an immediate kill shot. Do you share the same concerns about hunting other large, land-based mammals like moose or deer?
Yeah, sorry. I do consider it inhumane and morally wrong. We don't need to kill whales. It causes a living creature needless harm. Making this about the preservation of species or game hunting is exceedingly insouciant.
Do you also think it's inhumane to kill cows for food? Here's a thought experiment for you:
Consider a farm that raises a small quantity of animals in a really ethical way. They feed the animals properly, give them tons of room to roam around, and let them hang out with other animal friends. When it comes time to eat the animal, they only use completely painless, trauma-free slaughtering methods.
Effectively, this cow led a net-positive life on the pleasure/pain scale, and if the cow were conscious, it would have chosen to live that life instead of not existing at all.
If that cow only existed because there was demand for its meat, wouldn't it actually be more ethical to eat meat, given that otherwise the farmer wouldn't have a job and the cow would have never existed?
This isn't necessarily true of whales (which we don't raise), and it's certainly not true of factory farming (which I am completely against - we purchase our meat nearly exclusively from farmer's markets), but is true of many of the animals we eat, and the inhumane argument is really nowhere near as black and white as is often presented.
I don't really have to engage in this thought experiment at all because I don't even consider that we need to ensure the same morality for farming whatsoever. We don't have to apply a 'standard' and check my morals are 'consistent' here, because like you say, there's nuance to this discussion that makes your point moot.
There are practices in place to ensure cows can be killed in a humane and ethical manner—the same cannot be said for whales. We effectively stab them multiple times until they die of exhaustion trying to escape our grasp. It's torturous, drawn out, painful, and exceedingly cruel.
Beef forms a large part of the human diet, unlike whales which are a niche source of resources at best. It's certainly not on the same scale. Killing whales could feasibly be phased out tomorrow with very little downsides, if any. The utility of whales is so low that I don't consider it a worthwhile outcome for the (very real) pain we cause the animal.
We'll eventually get around to not having to kill cows for food either, thanks to lab grown meat. But in the meantime, providing the best possible environment coupled with humane slaughter is an acceptable tradeoff to me.
Killing whales is not.
A large part of the modern American diet. The argument that I'm perceiving is that cows = certain whales for certain communities. These arguments need to be taken with context.
I'm not an American. I'm a New Zealander. Western society consumes a lot of beef. So do a lot of Asian countries too—China is the second largest consumer of beef in the world.
As a species, I think we can do without killing whales. If you don't like that because you consume whale in your diet, tough luck.
It makes me wonder how you feel about killing cats for food in Vietnam. Is that an acceptable animal to slaughter? It raises lots of questions about moral relativism, but I can certainly be of the opinion that killing cats and whales is wrong—and have assertions that in my view bring that opinion closer towards fact.
So what? Many Indians (namely Hindu people) would argue that eating cows is wrong. Same arguments for pork etc.
Many progressives would consider this racist or at the very least narrow-minded, as with the above quote/reply.
Again, you're ignoring the context. What about horses? And seals? This does not concern moral relativism, which I mostly disagree with. In this specific case, according to my moral principles, the quality or life and suffering should be the currency of moral decisions. I do not think death is inherently bad, but I think it is wrong to kill animals or plants needlessly. I think the slaughter of mega fauna is morally acceptable as long as suffering is not above baseline (in the wild; this means industrial farming is a no-go). Cultural and geological context sets the boundaries of how humans survive, that is the only dimension for relativity. If you want to rank-order the value or capacity to suffer of different animals, that's a whole other discussion with approximate answers at best.
I'm interested to hear these assertions.
To add - there is a gigantic difference between murder and euthanasia. Despite both involving intentional human death.
In this hypothetical utilitarian argument you would probably have to consider what other things the matter making up the cow could be doing instead of being a cow. Could that matter be occupied in something else that would bring about an even large net-positive on the pleasure/pain scale?
We don't need to kill almost any of the animals we kill.
First of all, preservation of species is the major argument that caused whaling to be banned in most countries. Secondly, it is game hunting. Elsewhere in the thread, you say the utility of whales is very low. This is ridiculous. Whales are an excellent source of healthy meat. It's relatively lean, rich in omega 3 and in vitamin D, which is especially in high demand in the Arctic and near-Arctic areas where whales were traditionally hunted. Nutritionally speaking, whale is in most ways a superior form of meat to cattle.
We do not need to eat meat at all. We could drastically reduce our killing of animals if we so choose without collapsing as a society. But all over this thread, there is an astonishing exceptionalism asserted as fact. I would expect the bleeding heart to come from a vegan or vegetarian. At least it would be a consistent moral framework. I can respect that. I simply cannot comprehend how someone can, with a straight face, defend both traditional land-based hunting of big mammals and modern factory farming but insist that hunting a few whales is on a whole other level of moral depravity. The arguments used against it apply equally well to most forms of hunting, and/or apply to a much larger degree to modern farming (cattle, chicken etc).
Well, carry on. There's no changing minds on this issue. Even the person who seemingly agreed that they could find no flaw with the practice, no meaningful distinction between it and practices they condoned, came back and said it was indefensible, as if the previous exchange had never taken place. I've never seen the like on this site before, this agreeing every step of the way in a discussion, even agreeing with the conclusion, only to come back and deny that very same conclusion because it fails to conform to preconceived opinions. Or coming in and declaring that discussing the reason a practice was banned in the first place is "exceedingly insouciant". But I would sincerely ask that people examine their own assumptions before judging others harshly for making different choices.
I’d expect it to be of zero concern to condone such practice. IDK about moose but deer are virtually endemic in some regions.
Ok. But you didn't answer my question. What makes whales different?
Nothing. The preservation of diversity is a major concern in these matters. This is not specific to whales.
Then I don't understand what the question "how can European countries still hunt whales?" was about. Since, if I read you right, you do not oppose hunting animals such as deer, and you don't think whales are substantially different. But your first comment sounded very much like it opposed whaling.
The mention of European is because I believe whale hunting, and hunting of endangered large animals in general, is not as common in Europe. I usually have Europe in high regard when it comes to such matters.
Well, this article was about Norwegian whaling, and the kind of whale Norway hunts is not considered endangered.
Like @emdash said: "we don't need to kill whales." And it's not even something you can defend as a sport.
What do we need to kill, exactly?
I’m sorry but I believe this line of questioning has run its course.