Why is whaling undesirable? When is whaling acceptable?

[ZombieHorde]

I generally don't like anyone killing whales because whales seem to be highly intelligent animals.

I will answer my own questions...

Why is whaling undesirable?

Because whales are being killed.

When is whaling acceptable?

Whaling is acceptable if whales are the only available nonhuman food source. As far as I know, this has never happened.

How would you answer these questions?

edit to add: I ask these questions because I have read some posts which suggest some whaling is more acceptable than other whaling. The most common reason offered involves the ethnicity of the human whaler.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Pretty simple really.

Nothing left to say.

[Travis_0004]

2. Why is killing a cow acceptable? Why is dog not?

We have customs, so what is strange to us, may not be strange to others. As far as I'm concerned, if whaling is done at sustainable levels, I see nothing wrong with it.

[wtmusic]

3. It pretty much parallels cognitive ability

Cetaceans (and dogs) are widely perceived as more intelligent than cows.

[TriMera]

4. We breed cattle for meat.

Cows are not going to be extinct anytime soon. Most species of whales mate for life and the period between births is years, not months and the births are normally single births. That makes it very difficult to "sustain" the population. We no longer have a need for whale oil or whale meat, so what is the point?

[ladjf]

8. Good post. Similar to mine below but better. Thanks. nt

[ladjf]

6. I've heard this argument for whaling many, many times, i.e. why

then is it OK to kill cattle?

Cattle are breed and raised totally at the expense of the grower.

Whales don't belong to anyone, they are not highly prolific, they are long lived and are involved intimately with their families and relatives. Whalers are stealing these animals from Nature.

What about fishing on the high seas? Those fish don't belong to anyone either. But, most fish are prolific and could be maintained at reasonable levels indefinitely. For that reason, it isn't as destructive to nature to harvest some of the wild fish population. However, the human race isn't being reasonable in this endeavor and we are within a few years of reducing the wild fish population to almost zero.

Humans are too dumb and greedy to be trusted with balancing Nature. In fact, that are probably going
to cause their own extinction within a few thousand years. Note: homo sapiens have only existed for
around 250,000 years, as opposed to 250,000,000 span for whales. If we are wiped out within a few years, we will go down in history as the shortest existence span of any known species.

[TriMera]

9. Actually...

and, quite sadly, your last paragraph pretty much says it all. IMHO.:toast:

[ladjf]

10. It doesn't have to end like that. It wouldn't take "rocket science"

to turn it around. It would require some serious "growing up" and objective thinking.

You might be amused by something I read 15 years ago in the New Orleans Times Picayune. At the time, the local fishermen were very upset that they were being required to use "turtle excluder devices" in their shrimp nets to allow turtles to escape but not the shrimp. The fishermen felt that they were losing money by following this regulation. (which they probably were)

Anyway, the comment by a fisherman in a letter to the editor said something to the effect "Species come and go and if the turtles can't hack it, then they should go".

The fisherman probably wasn't aware that turtles had been "hacking it" for over 200,000,000 years
while humans may have been here for 200,000 to 300,000 years. Indeed he was correct, "species come and go". But, he might not have realized that it is humans who were likely candidates for extinction.

[Nihil]

14. Sums up the misnaming of our species really doesn't it?

> "Species come and go and if the turtles can't hack it, then they should go".
>
> The fisherman probably wasn't aware that turtles had been "hacking it" for
> over 200,000,000 years while humans may have been here for 200,000 to 300,000
> years.

Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man").

That was a pretentious name from the start but with people like that around,
it really is time to rename ourselves. What's Latin for "shit-stupid"?

[ladjf]

16. Good point. I've had that same thought. "unwise man". nt

[OnlinePoker]

12. Only if there is some creature that learns to write the history. n/t

[ladjf]

13. "HIstory" is the story and if humans become extinct, the story will

have been created. And, regardless of whether there are any beings capable of comprehending our demise, the record will be there "written in stone" , i.e. geological record. But, after about 500,000,000 years, the Sun will have transformed the Earth into a molten ball.

[ladjf]

7. Re: Dogs: My guess is that throughout much of the history of

human-dog relationship, dogs were far too valuable to eat. They were hunters, guards, companions,
and workers.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

15. To me, it's not acceptable.

Which is why I am a vegetarian.

The killing of a creature of high intelligence is disgusting. A pig has the intelligence of the average 5 year old child. Dolphins, elephants, primates, whales -- all have shown human levels of intelligence, and some have shown self-awareness.

[ladjf]

5. +1 nt

[petronius]

11. My answer would be that I view whaling the same as any other hunting:

it is acceptable when the target species can be harvested sustainably and the killing is done humanely...