I have yet to meet someone (after living in Japan for 8 years) who loves whale meat so much they wish they could eat it on a regular basis.
Because they have their heads up their bum?
According to this, the Japanese government is simply TRYING to get more people to eat whale. People AREN’T eating lots of the stuff now. Don’t you think that’s wrong?
**
I’ve lived in the United States a lot longer then that and I’ve yet to meet anyone who ate pickled pigs feet on a regular basis. Uh, or an irregular basis for that matter. Yet they still sell pickled pigs feet at the local supermarket so someone must be buying the stuff. Somebody in Japan is eating whale meat. Hell, according to the link you provided they’ve got a restaurant that specializes in whale meat.
Wow, a link that says a newspaper “speculates” that the government is trying to get more people to eat whale. What a creat cite.
Marc
It’s difficult to gauge demand for whale meat because of the regulations associated with it that Japan likes to sidestep, stealthily if they can (we’ve gone over the whole “scientific whaling” dishonesty). There is demand for whale meat in Japan–at least, there is enough demand to hunt more species of whales than Japan is currently permitted to go after, including supposedly protected ones. I think it would be wrong to say that Japanese are not interested in whale meat–up until 1960 whale meat made up 30% of Japanese meat consumption. Moreover whale meat, high in protein and iron, was a popular choice to give to children, so this is not a phenomenon of an older set but also of the next generation.
Today’s young Japanese are growing up with much less of a whale meat culture. Whale meat was originally thrust into national dietary prominence in Japan by post-WWII food shortages, so that’s at least two generations. If the government does not convince young people to eat whales, however, demand will simply continue to dwindle as the whale eaters fade away over the next decades.
Oh dear. I agree that speculations are not a good source, but don’t mock a cite if you know little or nothing on the topic and are therefore not informed on the specific subject the source is discussing. I fired up Google and did a search on “whale consumption japan”. Guess what the very first result was?
Japan to import Norwegian whale
Doing a little bit of research won’t kill you Marc, but it may get in the way of your snideness.
Hold up there, fella. Sentience isn’t something you can train. An animal either is or isn’t sentient. If Shamu is sentient, then so is every wild Orca. On a simple level, sentience is about perception of eg pain. The way I’m using it, though, and the way it’s generally used, is more equivalent to “thinking being”. I believe whalesongs are a highly sophisticated communication, and I believe whale behaviour shows a high degree of intelligence. I therefore choose to think of them as sentient beings, the same way I’d think of a chimp, gorilla or human being.
Okay. Interesting thread,MrDibble,. As far as your OP, I agree, in that my answers are “no” and “no.” I think your concern for whales is noble, though I believe that your energy can be used more productively, in addressing the bigger issue.
As MGibson said “Whales are just animals and like or not many humans eat animal flesh. I fail to see why whales should be treated as sacred cows and left untouched.” And, also, as jovan said “This issue is IMHO a lot bigger than the whaling debate. I really wish so-called environmentalists would devote as much energy defending the cause of non-cute species as they do for whales and such.”
This is sad, but terribly true. While it is well and good to rally behind the beautiful, graceful whales, if you’re doing so while sucking down a Big Mac and Chicken McNuggets, you’ve got a serious contrdiction on your hands.
Yes, whaling is awful, sickening, and unnecessary. As jovan said “Now, circa 1945, it is true that whale meat was a major source of protein, but that was out of necessity.” S/he’s implying that today, eating whale meat is no longer necessary. True, but isn’t this true of the comsumption of all animal flesh? I would answer “yes.” But, back to the whales . . .
Whales live a relatively long, free, not-too-stressful life in the sea, before they grow to the size where they would be desirable to the Japanese and Norwegian whalers. They are born to their mother’s side, and are able to receive her care, love, and warmth. They have the freedom to swim where they may, and as they are social animals, enjoy the company and love of their “pods,” or family and fellow whales.
All in all, a whale’s life isn’t looking too shabby, when compared to the living hell that we know as factory farms. We know that factory fams are places filles with death and cruelty. Calves and piglets are taken away from their mothers within hours of birth. They spend the rest of their lives locked up in cages so small that they can’t even turn around. It’s horrible. Many, many people are in denial of the fact, which is understandable given the huge and decptive multi-million dollar advertising campaigns maintained by the meat and dairy industries, which we’ve all been constantly exposed to since we were children. But all of the nasty stuff you’ve heard or imagined about factory farms is more than likely true.
Now, let’s look at some informtation I found at this (admittedly somewhat slanted) cite:
*"Currently, Americans consume more than 25 billion land and sea animals every year (that’s almost four times the global human population).
Let’s do the math: A fish dinner for four can mean a death toll in the double digits. A hungry meat-eater can knock off a whole factory-farmed chicken in a single sitting. A pig becomes maybe 200 pounds of pork, and just one cow nets about 600 pounds of meat.
Whales are big. In fact, blue whales weigh an average of 84 tons. The sperm whale averages 35 tons, and a typical gray whale weighs about 20 tons. If blue whales were the only menu choice for meat-eaters, the average total annual animal body count for blue whales to satisfy Americans’ taste for flesh would be 500,000.
If people in the U.S. ate whales instead of chickens and other animals, we could spare more than 24 billion animals a miserable life and hideous death every single year!"*
Even if the numbers aren’t perfect (though they very well might be correct,) even the cynics amoung us couldn’t deny that eating whale, rather than pork, beef, and chicken, would promote a hell of a lot less pain, death, and suffering.
Now, I’m not advocating the consumption of whale meat. What I am advocating is that we, as consumers, and as intelligent people trying to fight ignorance, have to take our blinders off and see the big picture.
First, let’s deal with the issue of hunting whales to extinction. Yes, it would be devastating if whales were once again hunted to the brink of extinction, just so a few people can live out their power-fantasies and eat the dead whale’s flesh.
When someone speaks out against whaling, they are more than likely an intelligent, caring, compassionate person, who cares about our world, the future of our world, and the beauty of biodiversity.
But, the extinction of the whale pales in both importance and size when compared to the frightful number of extinctions due to the clearing of the rainforests.
This cite claims “This breakdown of rainforest ecosystems will likely lead to the disappearance of up to 10% of the world’s species within the next 25 years unless we act to stop it.” Though “10%” may not seem like a big deal, the cite also claims that this rate is up to “1000 times faster than their natural rate of extinction.”
This is crazy. Our conflict just got a whole lot bigger. Sure, we’ve got to worry about whales. But there’s a lot more to worry about, too. Now we have to worry about the “as many as 137 species [that] disappear from the Earth each day.”
The best way for a “normal” citizen to express her/his power, and voice their discontent with the clearing of the rainforest, and the mass extinction that comes with it? Stop supporting the industries that practice these horrendous acts. Translation: Stop Eating Meat! If you don’t give them your money, they can’t use it to purchase and burn down the ancient rainforests, which in turn means that they can’t use your money promoting the extinction of different species. So, by abstaining from meat, you’re promoting biodiversity on our wonderful planet. It’s that simple.
Okay, second issue: Cruelty and sentience. Here’s a good cite that defends the viewpoint that most animals are, indeed, sentient. I’m not going to subscribe to that viewpoint, but I do consider it as a distinct possibility. Well, whales may be more intelligent, by our human standards, than pigs. But, pigs and cows and chickens and fish can feel pain just as well as you or I, or a minke whale. They may not be able to understand the pain as well as you or I, or extract “meaning” from the experience of feeling pain, but you better damn well belive that they feel pain. If you’re concerned with reducing and reversing the spread of pain, amongst animals (humans included!), the easiest and most basic way to do so is to abstain from eaing the flesh of other animals.
Abe, yes, there are guidelines that call for the minimalization of cruelty, when it comes to slaughtering animals in factory farms. However, these rules are habitually overlooked, and there is essentially no way (shy of hidden spy cams) to ensure that these rules are followed. Also, kosher guidelines require animals to be conscious at the time of slaughter. There is quite of bit of meat being sold that is kosher, though is not labeled as such. (The quality cuts get sold as kosher, but there’s still a lot of cow left over, which gets processed and sold sans the label.)
Abe also said “but causing extended pain and death to an animal for no particular reason (i.e. your survival is hardly at stake, you are doing this for pleasure) is a form of cruelty.”
Yes! Too true! But, again, isn’t this true of all meat consumption? Is our survival at stake, if we don’t consume animal flesh? Maybe a few rare cases, where people suffer from acute anemia, or conditions which people are unable to properly absorb certain vitamins or minerals. But for the average joe? Nope. Sorry. Meat isn’t necessary. Not in the slightest. (That’s a whole different thread, though. If you want to take me up on that, please start it and I will be right behind you . . .) Is it for our own pleasure? Yes, undoubtedly.
MrDibble, you said “Point 2 is that whales are more intelligent than your average chicken I, personally, would class them as sentient.” in your defense of caring a wee bit more about whales, than animals in factory farms.
So, if humans were theoretially driven to cannibalism, you would advocate eating the less intelligent people (ie children and mentally disabled) first?
Phlosopr made a wonderful point “There is a huge difference when it comes to men on a huge iron ship with explosive tip harpoons massacring an entire hurd of minke whales to sell the blubber and meat in a market somewhere as a ‘specialty item’. And an Inuit Tribe killing one whale to support an ENTIRE family for a winter…no monetary value attached to the latter.”
This is a great insight, and much to my pleasure, it shuts up the cynics who always bring up Native Americans, when trying to make vegetarians and environmentalists feel bad about themselves. “Well the Native Americans eat meat . . .” Yadda yadda yadda. I’m so sick of that. I wish they could come up with a better argument.
Also, thank you sofaking for bringing up the hilarious notion that has been all over the news and newspapers here in Japan, that whaling is necessary due to the fact that the whales are eating all of the fish! C’mon. It’s so blatently obvious that the Japanese are undoubtely at fault for draining their own ocean. You can barely move two inches in a grocety or convience store here without hitting something that has some form of fish in the ingredients. Though it’s a relatively small island country, Japan undoubtedly consumes more fish than any other nation.
So, if you’re feeling ornery, and going to pick your fights, might as well take a swing at the biggest guy first, 'cause once he goes down, the others will line right up like dominoes.
If you’re interested in what’s being talked about in this thread, and want to help, but don’t necessarily know how, I’ll give you a nudge in the right direction.
Here is a great place, via Greenpeace, to voice your distaste about whaling.
Here, here, and here are three places where you can also find various ways to help out with the fight against whaling, cutting down the rainforests, and mistreatment of animals.
But, the best, most influential, and most direct way to keep from promoting whaling, premature extinction of different species, burning of the rainforests, and animal cruetly is to abstain from eating meat, and be as informed as possible before spending your hard-earned money. (If you’re interested, and want to learn more, please check out the books Fast Food Nation, Diet for a New America, and/or The Food Revolution.)
Best,
TGM
Lessee, I never said “Whaling is the biggest evil in the world” - that’s never been my position. You, like others before you, are assuming that because I devote some energy to voicing concern about whaling, that I’m not devoting any time to other Green pursuits. And you’d be wrong. I just happen to think a GD thread about fynbos, renosterveld, the Geometric Tortoise and Table Mountain National Park will be of limited interest.
I’m against all biodiversity threats. I’m against destruction of rainforests and other, even more threatened biomes (the rainforest is a desert in biodiversity terms compared to my native fynbos, for instance, and that’s why I care more about that). I just think we disagree on where the Bigger Issue is. You think it’s meat eating. That’s fine.
I don’t agree. I think responsible meat eating is perfectly sustainable - that’s why I eat free-range chicken and eggs, open-veld sheep and cattle etc. And I encourage others to do the same. Because for me, the Bigger Issue is humanity’s lack of empathy with the natural world, and our insistence that we are not part of a continuum with animals. I can feel empathy for my prey - and still eat him. But if my prey could talk back, perhaps not.
That’s why I have no problem with eating the chickens, cows & sheep we bred to eat, and no problem with eating the buck or fish I killed, or someone else killed. And why I do have a problem with killing whales. It’s not that the whales are being killed for meat that’s my fundamental problem here. I’d still have this problem if they were killed for their ambergris, or their ivory, or for amusement.
dalmuti, you’ve been pretty comprehensively answered on this issue in your own thread. I’d appreciate it if the meat eating debate stayed there.
You’re aware that there aren’t 500 000 Blue Whales on the planet, I hope? Not even 20 000 by most estimates. I know you’re not advocating eating whales. So what’s the point of that cite? It seems to be almost satirical.
I don’t think you grok my take on sentience - it’s a species that’s sentient, so if it’s sentient, we don’t hunt it. Any of it. OTOH, if it’s not sentient, any member of that species is fair game. Or if it is a sentient species and we decide to kill it anyway.
I find your cannibalism analogy confusing - if we are eating people, them we want to eat the older people who’ve bred, to make the whole thing sustainable (and 'cos they are bigger i.e. more meat), not the kiddies. Mentally handicapped people can still breed, too.
Of course, I’d love to see the circumstances under which we would be “theoretically” driven to cannibalism - outside of a bad “B” movie, that is.
MrDibble- you said “You, like others before you, are assuming that because I devote some energy to voicing concern about whaling, that I’m not devoting any time to other Green pursuits.”
Show me where I said/implied this, and I’ll apologize. We’re definitley on the same team, just using different tools. We both admit the presence of a Bigger Issue, and actively doing something to combat the ignorance that’s standing in the way of solving these problems.
Now, you said “Because for me, the Bigger Issue is humanity’s lack of empathy with the natural world, and our insistence that we are not part of a continuum with animals.”
I agree that this is a huge problem, but you have to admit that this problem goes completely hand in hand with the consumption of meat products. It’s a chicken/egg argument.
I don’t think that you can deny that humanity’s habit of eating meat has a direct impact upon our “lack of empathy with the natural world,” can you? Nor can I deny the fact that our general lack of empathy for animals lends itself to people not thinking twice about consuming meat.
I have a question for you, how can we, as a society, work towards changing our viewpoint of “and our insistence that we are not part of a continuum with animals.” It sounds great. I try to do everything I can go be as “in harmony” with nature, as possible. How do you, personally, go about doing so? I’m not asking because I’m some insecure and defensive bastard who’s going to attack your opinions, because I have nothing better to do than try to ruin someone else’s day because they don’t agree with me.
To reiterate, I personally try as hard as possible to live naturally, and be as empathetic to our environment and the other creatures with which we share it. If you have any insight as to how I could do a better job at this, please share it. (It’s not a challange, I’m not saying that there’s nothing left for me to learn. I’m being 100% genuine.)
I applaud your efforts in eating “free-range” meat products, as well as with your encouraging others to do so. Why is it that you encourage others to do so? Because you’re concerned about your world, and you think that that is a good solution, or at least a good way to not be (as big of) a part of the problem. I’m completely in the same situation, though I advocate the total abandoning of meat consumption. Again, we’re on the same team.
Another question: Would you be adverse to consuming cow if cows were, in fact, nearly endangered?
The eatthewhales cite was definietly satirical. I thought it had the potential to “enlighten” someone, to open the window on the whole whale/meat/cruelty problem. If at least one person, who may or may not have been as well-informed as you are about “green issues” and environmentalism, went to that cite, and made a few connections that had never been made before, it would make my day.
Yes, my thread on vegetarianism was less than pleasant. It was an eye-opener, and at the very least, I hope it made a few people happy to finally vent all of that rage/irritation/repression and yell at the token vegan, ie me. Though, I would have to disagree with you, even if my questions were “comprehensively answered,” the debate aspect of that thread was not comprehensively debated. But, such is life.
I’ll end on one last question. You said “That’s why I have no problem with eating the chickens, cows & sheep we bred to eat, and no problem with eating the buck or fish I killed, or someone else killed. And why I do have a problem with killing whales. It’s not that the whales are being killed for meat that’s my fundamental problem here. I’d still have this problem if they were killed for their ambergris, or their ivory, or for amusement.”
But, these chickens, and cows, and whales are being killed for money. How is that different from killing something from ivory, which would then, in turn, be traded from money? In both situations, death is being made into a commodity.
Also, what’s “ambergris?”
As far as the cannibal analogy, I know analogies aren’t the best way to get a point across. But, let me try one more time. Hear me out:
You said that you would feel better about eating a cow, instead of a whale, because whales have a complex system of communication, and (as far as we can tell) are capable of much deeper “thought” than farm animals. I can understand that.
But, take that situation and apply it to a setting (maybe not too far off in the future, enter cheesy b-movie sound effects) where humans are the only mammals left alive. By using your standards which deem it more acceptable to to eat creatures which are a) less able to communicate, and b) less capable of “deeper thought,” in my pretend cannibalistic society, you would more than likely be suggesting that we eat babies. They definitely fit the two criteria you set, more than any other human demographic.
My point: it seems like possibly an even bigger crime to prey on those that are simply unable to defend themselves. Maybe our societal priorities are really messed up. Instead of appreciating cows and pigs, these terribly simplistic and peaceful creatures, we’re just using them as fuel. We should go out of our way to protect the simplicity, frailty, and innocence of these animals, just as we go out of our way to do so with babies. Today’s society allows for no appreciation of simplicity. And what’s the oldest, simplist (yet somehow amazingly enough the most complex as well), most peaceful thing there is? Our ecosystem, and the life that lives within it.
That’s what I was getting at with the wierd analogy.
Best,
Dalmuti
Well to be frank this has little to do with my point, which was about endangered whales (the cruelty part was a response to something Marc said, and I specifically advised against going into it here). I do see this as a bit of a hijack. In principle we have taken steps to minimize the pain we cause our food, but of course this is not always the case. And I am sympathetic to the plight of animals farmed under horrible conditions. But that has little impact in the world of cold reason, because frankly we evolved omnivorously and it’s only natural for us to meat–we’re at the top of the food chain (whether it’s strictly necessary in this day of meat substitutes is another question, and one that I doubt will be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction anytime soon).