|
One thing people have to realize is that most species have gone, and go extinct without our involvement. You cannot help it. In this case: we can. Another thing you have to realize is that as much I, and many others hate people killing animals, sometimes it has to be done.
A gross hypocrisy I see is that we literally have certain living things that we label as "pests" and "insects" etc, and we actually go out of our way to kill, not all of us, but a lot do. What makes whales more sacred than an ant? They're both alive, regardless of intelligence they live like we do, and die like we do. Ending life is never good, but sometimes I guess there must be justification.
Will hunting that specific breed of whale in SK sovereign waters endanger the species? I doubt it, but I don't know; that's just a guess. Personally I despise anyone who kills animals, but Humans come first, and our priorities > whale priorities. If the whales are endangering the fish population, than the whales are a problem.
|
I don't understand why people are hating on humans just because some Koreans might start killing whales. Sure, it's not a great thing to do, but if they want to do it, they will and nobody can stop them. I would much rather prefer they kill whales than kill humans.
|
On July 08 2012 16:40 Lorken wrote:
I don't understand why people are hating on humans just because some Koreans might start killing whales. Sure, it's not a great thing to do, but if they want to do it, they will and nobody can stop them. I would much rather prefer they kill whales than kill humans.
The thing that people often don't realize is that animals do go extinct because of humans, and it is a big shame when this happens, here is an example of an animal that existed 70 years ago, but is no more:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Thylacine_footage_compilation.ogv
It happens when people are careless, and when it is done, it is done. Hunting animals to the point of extinction is also very dangerous, because the genetic diversity in a species becomes less, and this severely weakens the chance of survival in the long run, here is an example of what happens when genetic diversity goes down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease
Anyway, there are just too many people not giving a fuck, and that is very sad...I would have liked to see a tasmanian tiger in real life, it looks awesome. Shamefully, I can now only watch it on tape. And for our kids or their kids there will be no options but to watch many animals on tape, because many animals simply won't be around anymore at the rate we are going (for example, I don't think polar bears will exist in the wild in 60 years).
Oh, and browse this to get a sense of the mamals alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_mammals
|
On July 08 2012 13:55 v3chr0 wrote:
One thing people have to realize is that most species have gone, and go extinct without our involvement. You cannot help it. In this case: we can. Another thing you have to realize is that as much I, and many others hate people killing animals, sometimes it has to be done.
A gross hypocrisy I see is that we literally have certain living things that we label as "pests" and "insects" etc, and we actually go out of our way to kill, not all of us, but a lot do. What makes whales more sacred than an ant? They're both alive, regardless of intelligence they live like we do, and die like we do. Ending life is never good, but sometimes I guess there must be justification.
Will hunting that specific breed of whale in SK sovereign waters endanger the species? I doubt it, but I don't know; that's just a guess. Personally I despise anyone who kills animals, but Humans come first, and our priorities > whale priorities. If the whales are endangering the fish population, than the whales are a problem.
I wouldn't really choose to kill something unless it was about to kill me. The only reason things have to be killed is because we make it that way.
Dogs.. we put down thousands of them, because of overcrowding in shelters. There is overcrowding in shelters because we choose to breed more puppies, because the demand for puppies is always there. The puppies often are taken home, then at some later point the family loses the need or want for the dog and takes it to a shelter. People often don't adopt and then some people don't even neuter and spay which is crazy, if you ever work in a shelter let me know how many dogs/cats are put down a day..(all 3 of my animals are adopted)
We can survive on this planet without murdering any animals needlessly, and insects, well we could do with killing far less.. as far as I know, of course there are times where we might have too, say your in the forest after a plane crash and it's a safe food source you know about, or a bear is charging you.
To say "It has to be done" is a pretty insane statement. Ants can be repelled by mint oil, so can fruit flies. Spread mint oil near the areas where the ants are coming in.
I've killed fleas recently cause my cats got them, and one of my cats is allergic, so you can't ALWAYS avoid the taking of life, but I think avoiding it as much as possible is pretty important.
|
On July 06 2012 16:06 kaisen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 16:00 PrideNeverDie wrote:
minke whales aren't even endangered and are the most populated whales in the world at 600,000 Exactly. They are in the list of "least concerned" in the watch list. Somehow, the anti-whaling activists are claiming that it is endangered.
Kaisen you confuse me. One day you're creating threads shitting on the Chinese about letting Americans hunt "endangered" species on their land which are actually under '"Least Concerned" and the next day you're accusing the anti-whaling activists of mislabeling endangered status .
|
It's about time us smart humans showed those damn whales who's boss, swimming around in the ocean like they don't care. Good thing we have Japan and SK to make them aware of our existence and superiority as a race, just so they don't get any crazy ideas.
|
On July 08 2012 07:46 Masamune wrote:
Being mammals, the circumvention of these whales' extinction has more benefits to humans than just biodiversity. There are so many things you could research with them that it makes it a no-brainer for some South Koreans and Japanese to find another delicacy, at least until the whale numbers stabilize.
From a phylogenetics and evolutionary standpoint, the sorting out of whales and their placement on the tree of life is an important one. Looking at one nature article they actually found SINEs in whales challenging the view of the time that Artiodactyla were monophyletic.
Looking from an evolutionary development standpoint, whale communication could help shed light on the process communication with genetic analysis helping to identify things such as conserved genes shared amongst us.
From and environmental point of view relevant to humans, the minke whales in question have actually been used as bio indicators of certain levels of pollutants (PCBs, DDTs, CHLs, HCHs, HCBs) in the oceans
From a medical standpoint, although not practical at this point in time, given the sheer size of whales, if stem cells are able to be cultivated and used in humans from closely related species, what better a source than the largest mammals?
I'm sure there are many other examples one could thing of.
It's easy to say that none of these benefits are all that important, except to the handful of scientists who care about the topics in question. The last one is a grasp at straws, to use a phrase of yours - the best source of stem cells outside of humans is primates, followed by other species of that phylum. It's a great stretch to say that whales are a candidate at all, given the difficulty of extracting stem cells from them.
I'm not sure if you realize this but an endangered species as large as a whale cannot be brought back to stable population levels in captivity... Besides that, it's not even relevant to what we're arguing because it has been centered around the protection of an endangered species (or so we thought, the verdict is still out I suppose...) through cutting down its overconsumption by South Korea.
Why do we care about bringing them back to stable population levels? Providing, for a moment, that what you said about the scientific benefits of keeping whales around is pragmatic - why do we need large, stable populations of them to conduct the research?
I'm not advocating outlawing whale hunting. I'm advocating outlawing the hunting of endangered and vulnerable whale populations. Big difference.
Too bad, because whale hunting - and not just the hunting of endangered whale populations - is outlawed. The countries attempting to subvert the bans in question aren't doing so to hunt endangered whales, but to hunt whales of least concern status.
If you're honestly equating the prohibition of hunting endangered whale species to any form of tyranny or infringement on freedom, then there really isn't any point in arguing with you further. It's a weak point and demonstrates that now, you're really grasping at straws.
I don't think you understand the gravity of infringing on other countries' sovereignty and freedom to do what they want in their own territory - world wars have been started for less.
You have to do a lot better than you did in the beginning of this reply to show that whales are not just marginally useful in scientific research, but immensely useful to humans across the world. Very few people give a damn about where whales fall in the taxonomic tree. A huge amount of people do care, however, about their own country's freedoms being infringed upon - for example, the Japanese people's outrage and opposition towards the ban on whaling. Japan - and now South Korea - are prepared to subvert international law to continue whaling. What are the people who oppose whaling prepared to do in response?
|
I dunno if this is a good idea, because according to star trek the voyage home-humans will need whales *songs* to save the earth, and we havent yet created or learned enough about going back in time to get the specific songs required to stop the alien probe from attacking!
|
leave the poor whales alone you b******s!!!!!
|
On July 09 2012 16:55 SlayerOfYou wrote:
I dunno if this is a good idea, because according to star trek the voyage home-humans will need whales *songs* to save the earth, and we havent yet created or learned enough about going back in time to get the specific songs required to stop the alien probe from attacking!
No worries. In Doctor Who, the UK eventually becomes a space colony on the back of a giant space whale. We will learn the whale songs there.
|
On July 06 2012 00:07 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 00:00 SnipedSoul wrote:
What do you even do with a whale after you catch it? Nothing you cannot do with other stuff. But hey, please stop human greediness if you can. Tho past studies shown that whales (might) posses high level cognitive capabilities, we still slaughter them. We are to them what nazi were to jews :S So sad....
Godwin's Law on page 4, this thread needs saving.
|
I think we should save the whales and thereby save a piece of of humanity. What is the extermination worth in the grand scheme of things? Our coming generations won't appreciate the fact that our thirst for blood was greater than our compassion for other species.
|
On July 09 2012 16:37 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 07:46 Masamune wrote:
Being mammals, the circumvention of these whales' extinction has more benefits to humans than just biodiversity. There are so many things you could research with them that it makes it a no-brainer for some South Koreans and Japanese to find another delicacy, at least until the whale numbers stabilize.
From a phylogenetics and evolutionary standpoint, the sorting out of whales and their placement on the tree of life is an important one. Looking at one nature article they actually found SINEs in whales challenging the view of the time that Artiodactyla were monophyletic.
Looking from an evolutionary development standpoint, whale communication could help shed light on the process communication with genetic analysis helping to identify things such as conserved genes shared amongst us.
From and environmental point of view relevant to humans, the minke whales in question have actually been used as bio indicators of certain levels of pollutants (PCBs, DDTs, CHLs, HCHs, HCBs) in the oceans
From a medical standpoint, although not practical at this point in time, given the sheer size of whales, if stem cells are able to be cultivated and used in humans from closely related species, what better a source than the largest mammals?
I'm sure there are many other examples one could thing of. It's easy to say that none of these benefits are all that important, except to the handful of scientists who care about the topics in question. The last one is a grasp at straws, to use a phrase of yours - the best source of stem cells outside of humans is primates, followed by other species of that phylum. It's a great stretch to say that whales are a candidate at all, given the difficulty of extracting stem cells from them. Show nested quote +
I'm not sure if you realize this but an endangered species as large as a whale cannot be brought back to stable population levels in captivity... Besides that, it's not even relevant to what we're arguing because it has been centered around the protection of an endangered species (or so we thought, the verdict is still out I suppose...) through cutting down its overconsumption by South Korea.
Why do we care about bringing them back to stable population levels? Providing, for a moment, that what you said about the scientific benefits of keeping whales around is pragmatic - why do we need large, stable populations of them to conduct the research? Show nested quote +I'm not advocating outlawing whale hunting. I'm advocating outlawing the hunting of endangered and vulnerable whale populations. Big difference. Too bad, because whale hunting - and not just the hunting of endangered whale populations - is outlawed. The countries attempting to subvert the bans in question aren't doing so to hunt endangered whales, but to hunt whales of least concern status. Show nested quote +If you're honestly equating the prohibition of hunting endangered whale species to any form of tyranny or infringement on freedom, then there really isn't any point in arguing with you further. It's a weak point and demonstrates that now, you're really grasping at straws. I don't think you understand the gravity of infringing on other countries' sovereignty and freedom to do what they want in their own territory - world wars have been started for less. You have to do a lot better than you did in the beginning of this reply to show that whales are not just marginally useful in scientific research, but immensely useful to humans across the world. Very few people give a damn about where whales fall in the taxonomic tree. A huge amount of people do care, however, about their own country's freedoms being infringed upon - for example, the Japanese people's outrage and opposition towards the ban on whaling. Japan - and now South Korea - are prepared to subvert international law to continue whaling. What are the people who oppose whaling prepared to do in response?
Again with the strawman arguments. First you asked me what was the logic behind saving whales and I gave the answer of biodiversity and scientific research (in a logical argument with proofs, even), given how important whales are to marine biology. Then you asked me how that scientific research could benefit humans and I replied with yet another answer. Now you're focusing on the importance of my research examples to humanity and trying to spin that as a flaw in my reasoning? Give me a break.
Why do we care about bringing them back to stable population levels? Providing, for a moment, that what you said about the scientific benefits of keeping whales around is pragmatic - why do we need large, stable populations of them to conduct the research?
What kind of a dumb question is this? Obviously, if you're going to be doing research with any animal, you want to make sure you have a sufficient sample from a stable source and that your test subjects are not the last remaining of a soon-to-be extinct species. (How would you replicate an experimental design to validate a study's findings if the test subject's species went extinct??)
Aside from that, given the size of whales, and the type of study you're conducting, it would be hard to conduct any meaningful trials with them in captivity and not in their natural environment.
Too bad, because whale hunting - and not just the hunting of endangered whale populations - is outlawed. The countries attempting to subvert the bans in question aren't doing so to hunt endangered whales, but to hunt whales of least concern status.
Which is obviously a problem. First they're trying to sidestep the bans using loopholes, and in the process of trying to hunt whales of "least concern", they're hunting whales that have vulnerable populations.
I don't think you understand the gravity of infringing on other countries' sovereignty and freedom to do what they want in their own territory - world wars have been started for less.
So in essence, what you're telling me is that the West prohibiting Japan and South Korea from hunting vulnerable whale populations is a more severe form of tyrannical + Show Spoiler +On July 07 2012 00:31 Azarkon wrote:
To outlaw whale hunting internationally is a perilous step towards the tyranny of conformity, which stifles the freedom of individuals and the sovereignty of countries.
You have to do a lot better than you did in the beginning of this reply to show that whales are not just marginally useful in scientific research, but immensely useful to humans across the world. Very few people give a damn about where whales fall in the taxonomic tree. A huge amount of people do care, however, about their own country's freedoms being infringed upon - for example, the Japanese people's outrage and opposition towards the ban on whaling. Japan - and now South Korea - are prepared to subvert international law to continue whaling. What are the people who oppose whaling prepared to do in response?
I don't have to prove how whales are immensely useful to humans across the world because Japan and South Korea killing them is definitely not useful to humans across the world, either. All I have argued is that the "triviality" of saving endangered whales species trumps the triviality of wanting to eat delicacies (as well as answering your question).
It's also funny how the new crux of your argument revolves around the West "stifling" Japan and Korea's sovereignty and freedom to pursue hunting endangered species (which you venture as far to state is worse than the infringements of the aggressor nations of the World Wars) when the two aforementioned nations are doing just that regarding North Korea's nuclear ambitions (whose reasons to become a nuclear power could be argued to protect its own sovereignty and freedom).
This begs the question if you really are that much in favour of South Korea's right to hunt vulnerable whale populations or if you've mistaken this thread for a social science essay gone wrong.
Either way, I think I'm finished with replying to you.
|
On July 10 2012 03:10 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 00:07 HomeWorld wrote:On July 06 2012 00:00 SnipedSoul wrote:
What do you even do with a whale after you catch it? Nothing you cannot do with other stuff. But hey, please stop human greediness if you can. Tho past studies shown that whales (might) posses high level cognitive capabilities, we still slaughter them. We are to them what nazi were to jews :S So sad.... Godwin's Law on page 4, this thread needs saving.
Page 16, too.
|
On July 05 2012 21:28 Hnnngg wrote:
Finally someone decides to take a stand against those douchebag whales.
This made me laugh really hard for a couple minutes.
|
Do you miss Wolly mammoths? maybe we will miss whales some day
|
"Scientific reasons" as in the same bullshit superstitious "health" reasons Japanese are hunting sharks for their fins? These pacific-rim countries and their outrageous level of superstition..
|
as long as it is regulated and they don't hurt the population too much, we don't need anymore endangered species
and that thylacin or w/e animal that is now extinct looks so beautiful! SK needs to be careful and monitor the populations. Maybe even start some programs to help whales reproduce.
|
On July 10 2012 08:08 Masamune wrote:
Again with the strawman arguments. First you asked me what was the logic behind saving whales and I gave the answer of biodiversity and scientific research (in a logical argument with proofs, even), given how important whales are to marine biology. Then you asked me how that scientific research could benefit humans and I replied with yet another answer. Now you're focusing on the importance of my research examples to humanity and trying to spin that as a flaw in my reasoning? Give me a break.
I don't think you understand what a strawman is.
I did ask you for the logic of saving whales, and after fiddling with moralistic analogies for a while, you finally gave two answers: biodiversity and scientific research. I then said that these answers were weak and provided their faults. This is a logical progression of the rhetoric. Did you think having an argument is equivalent to having an effective one? Of course I was going to tell you the flaws in your logic. This is not a strawman.
What kind of a dumb question is this? Obviously, if you're going to be doing research with any animal, you want to make sure you have a sufficient sample from a stable source and that your test subjects are not the last remaining of a soon-to-be extinct species. (How would you replicate an experimental design to validate a study's findings if the test subject's species went extinct??)
Aside from that, given the size of whales, and the type of study you're conducting, it would be hard to conduct any meaningful trials with them in captivity and not in their natural environment.
The response was targeted towards the examples that you gave. Three of your examples had to do with extracting, testing, and using biomolecular material from whales. This sort of material is easily extracted in captivity and preserved in tissue cultures. We have the technology to sequence the entire genome of a species of whale to save genetic knowledge for posterity. We don't have to have living whales to know where they are in a taxonomic tree. We don't have to have living whales to know what genes are shared between them and us. We don't have to have living whales to replicate their stem cells - though why you want to do so is beyond me.
That leaves using minke whales to detect pollutants in the water, for which plenty of alternatives exist, including testing other organisms and the water itself. Not exactly a great series of arguments for your cause.
Which is obviously a problem. First they're trying to sidestep the bans using loopholes, and in the process of trying to hunt whales of "least concern", they're hunting whales that have vulnerable populations.
The logic in this statement is baffling. Why does the hunting of whales of least concern = the hunting of whales with vulnerable populations?
[So in essence, what you're telling me is that the West prohibiting Japan and South Korea from hunting vulnerable whale populations is a more severe form of tyrannical infringement on a nation's sovereignty than the invasion of Serbia by the Austro-Hungarian empire or Poland by Nazi Germany? You can't be serious.
You've taken what I said out of context. I said that issues of territorial sovereignty are very serious business for which countries have started world wars over, and that this falls into the umbrella of that business. That is not equivalent to saying that banning whale hunting = invading another country, because there are differences in degree. Still, culinary habits aren't the cause for why 52% of the Japanese public favor the continuation of whale hunting in lieu of international law - job benefits, perceptions of neocolonialism, and nationalism-fueled indignation towards Western demands are better factors.
To not understand the geopolitical dimensions of the issue is to not understand it at all.
I don't have to prove how whales are immensely useful to humans across the world because Japan and South Korea killing them is definitely not useful to humans across the world, either. All I have argued is that the "triviality" of saving endangered whales species trumps the triviality of wanting to eat delicacies (as well as answering your question).
But you haven't done this. You've provided a couple of arguments for why stopping whale hunting is beneficial, but they are trivial and easily bypassed. It's just that because you've attached a great deal of sentimental value to the causes in question, you are unable to see that the practical benefits you've named aren't all that valuable.
On the other hand, you haven't examined the arguments against the ban carefully enough to formulate a proper argument. For example, you have ignored the value of countries' desires to decide what happens in their own territorial boundaries, which in the context of human psychology far outstrips the trivial benefits you've given for preventing whale hunting. At the same time, you've trivialized the coercive nature of controlling other countries' behaviors which, when applied in reverse by other countries to the bad habits of - say - the US, are never going to accepted by the American people.
To this end, you are arguing a strawman - because the issue of whale hunting was never a contest between saving endangered whales species and wanting to eat delicacies. That is a case of reductio ad absurdum.
It's also funny how the new crux of your argument revolves around the West "stifling" Japan and Korea's sovereignty and freedom to pursue hunting endangered species (which you venture as far to state is worse than the infringements of the aggressor nations of the World Wars) when the two aforementioned nations are doing just that regarding North Korea's nuclear ambitions (whose reasons to become a nuclear power could be argued to protect its own sovereignty and freedom).
I dare say stopping a regime known to threaten its neighbors with the use of force from having access to weapons capable of leveling entire cities is a better cause than what you've given here for saving whales, and that's what these debates boil down to - better arguments.
|
On July 09 2012 15:14 yandere991 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 16:06 kaisen wrote:On July 06 2012 16:00 PrideNeverDie wrote:
minke whales aren't even endangered and are the most populated whales in the world at 600,000 Exactly. They are in the list of "least concerned" in the watch list. Somehow, the anti-whaling activists are claiming that it is endangered. Kaisen you confuse me. One day you're creating threads shitting on the Chinese about letting Americans hunt "endangered" species on their land which are actually under '"Least Concerned" and the next day you're accusing the anti-whaling activists of mislabeling endangered status .
...what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
