On July 06 2012 02:09 Spicy_Curry wrote: Humans are the only animals that hunt for more than they need. Its disgusting.
Predators in nature waste a lot of meat each time they kill. Have you seen what happens after a lion takes down an antelope? The lion doesn't eat the entire antelope. It eats choice bites, then leaves the carcass for scavengers. A lot of scavengers have a niche because predators are wasteful.
Not just that, but there are predators besides humans who kill for 'pleasure'. Take cats, for example. There are a lot of well-fed pet cats who go after rats just because - they don't kill rats because they are hungry and need to eat; they kill them because they want to.
Yes and in nature, most species are patriarchal and rape serves as an adaption. Does that mean we should just succumb to our primal behaviour because other species do and allow it to creep back into our society?
And fyi, predators in nature waste meat because they have no form of preservation like we do. Instead of carrying around a rotting piece of meat, it serves a better purpose to just hunt another animal again. The first humans in the Americas did this when they drove many species to extinction but I can't blame them because they didn't know any better and were trying to survive. We know better now so let's show it?
Being morally 'better' than animals is a human conceit; there is nothing 'animal' about it. But being a human conceit, it is comprehensibly only to other humans and in the context of our societies/cultures/ideologies. The statement that humans are 'evil' / 'disgusting' because we hunt whales has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with our social conceptions, which are not necessarily shared by other societies/cultures/ideologies.
My bringing this into this thread is to remind people how socially constructed their world views are. Animals never think about whether they're wasting food / driving prey into extinction / hunting for meat instead of pleasure / etc. People, living in modern, first world societies, who have been educated under the doctrines of environmentalism, and who are disconnected from the act of hunting and killing prey because all they experience is grocery store->kitchen->table, do.
Skip the moral blanketing about humans being bad, and talk about how SK is trying to violate an international treaty via a loophole, and we're better off for discussions. I don't see how pontificating about how bad humans are because we won't follow each other's socially constructed moral standards is going to help.
Don't try and create strawman arguments with me because I never once touched on the topics of evil and morality. Leave your college classes on ethics and morality at the door please.
As a species with an advanced form of cognition, we have the ability to make our society a better one (which ultimately is for our own "selfish" purposes and a topic of another discussion). Instead of condoning some of the things we do because it's natural and seen in nature (such as your comparison of human wasting to animals), we can try and curtail it a bit to better help us all.
But you did. You said that we need to act 'better' than animals because we are humans. This is a fundamentally moral argument, because what is 'better' is contingent on social/cultural/ideological forces and you have shown no different. You have never explained what makes preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them, and short of that you are a product of the environmentalist social mores that are conditioned into people in the West these days. Thus, you are making a moral argument, not a logical one.
I ask again - why is preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them? Is it not natural for species that are unable to adapt to their environment to perish? Isn't that the entire process of selection and evolution?
Did some more reading about this topic. It is an interesting and complicated topic. Proponents of whaling claim that the consumption of whale meat is deeply embedded in Japanese and (presumably) SK culture. Attempts to limit their "right to whale" are essentially considered an attack on their culture, history etc. What makes it sad is that the consumption of whale meat in Japan has decreased to the point where large stockpiles have been built up and whale meat is actually being served as school lunch in some areas ( http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/japan/100407/japan-whale-meat ).
According to a 2008 survey conducted by the Nippon Research Center 95% of Japanese either don't eat whale meat or eat it very rarely. Generally speaking, people get angry when they feel their culture is being attacked...maybe that is why they want to keep whaling? As a way of saying "fuck you western food nazis".
meh, if they want to hunt the whale, let them hunt the whale.
with comments like: "i hate humans" and "humans are a virus" i don't think i want to be on those people's side, so i'm gonna stick with the "i love humans and eat whales" side.
On July 06 2012 03:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: meh, if they want to hunt the whale, let them hunt the whale.
with comments like: "i hate humans" and "humans are a virus" i don't think i want to be on those people's side, so i'm gonna stick with the "i love humans and eat whales" side.
On July 06 2012 03:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: meh, if they want to hunt the whale, let them hunt the whale.
with comments like: "i hate humans" and "humans are a virus" i don't think i want to be on those people's side, so i'm gonna stick with the "i love humans and eat whales" side.
that's what im saying, it's the friggen bad guy that says stuff like "humans are a virus" and "i want all humans to just die for attacking the poor whales"
Hm perhaps one day far in the future children will laugh at our current civilization because we are so primitive i mean the writings right there "Endangered species" yet we still choose to hunt them. I mean if we let people hunt anything they wanted with no restrictions, i am almost positive there would only be about 10 species of animal and those are the ones who taste bad and have no fur.
On July 06 2012 03:22 xjoehammerx wrote: Did some more reading about this topic. It is an interesting and complicated topic. Proponents of whaling claim that the consumption of whale meat is deeply embedded in Japanese and (presumably) SK culture. Attempts to limit their "right to whale" are essentially considered an attack on their culture, history etc. What makes it sad is that the consumption of whale meat in Japan has decreased to the point where large stockpiles have been built up and whale meat is actually being served as school lunch in some areas ( http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/japan/100407/japan-whale-meat ).
According to a 2008 survey conducted by the Nippon Research Center 95% of Japanese either don't eat whale meat or eat it very rarely. Generally speaking, people get angry when they feel their culture is being attacked...maybe that is why they want to keep whaling? As a way of saying "fuck you western food nazis".
I know I would be pretty pissed if India started giving us shit for eating cows. I say treat whales like any other fish (whatever, mammals, we eat them too).
There are a lot of laymen here on this thread, and while I commend your proactiveness in taking some action, I would like to just add a perspective.
DON'T: Force your ideas down the throats of people who don't agree with you. DON'T: take ANYTHING at face value. DON'T: Reject evidence just because it doesn't match your beliefs
DO: Be the global citizen and make an informed decision. DO: Take action if you think it is right. Not taking action is the same as taking their side.
I'll give you some food for thought.
Did you know? Canadians hunt 200 bowhead whales (endangered) a year to satisfy the 'cultural needs' of their Inuit population.
Did you know?While whaling is receiving huge international reaction, restaurants in rural Vietnam are serving monkey brains which include killing the monkey in front of the customers at the table.
Did you know?While we're told not to hunt whales because they're incredibly intelligent, Pigs, smarter than dogs, are in the top 10 smartest animals in the world. We still eat them without any guilty conscience every day though.
Did you know? That the official political stance of the 88 member nations in the International Whaling Commission is Pro-Whaling:Against-Whaling ratio is only 7:10. Did you expect more countries to be against whaling?
Did you know? Historically in Japan, whale meat delicacies were not mainstream. It was only until the 1940s, when General McArthur Douglas, in charge of occupation of Japan post WW2 TOLD the Japanese to eat whales to account for the shortage in food.
Did you know? With the current spearing technology for hunting whales, Iceland reported in the 1990's a 75%+ instant kill rate with an average of 14 minutes from impact of spear to death of whale? That inconsistent with this, the Japanese reported a 40%+ instant kill rate and an average of 35 minutes from impact of spear to death of whale? Who really is telling the truth here?
Did you know? The exceptions for whaling (non commercial) are for research purposes, and the Japanese adamantly believe only lethal research will produce effective results? Japan had not conducted a research party for whales for four years since 2008, until May 2012, when they set out to do lethal research on 50 Minke Whales. Also, between 2005-2008, during the period they were conducting the JARPA II research (given an annual quota of 950 Minke Whales, 50 Fin Whales, 50 Humpback whales), they only killed half their given quota for this period (2005-2008).
Did you know? If Japan stopped importing food, they would only be able to feed 40% of their population annually?
Did you know?The Japanese Government has a NOT FOR SALE stock of 5000 tonnes of whale meat? Whale meat is more expensive than beef in Japan, and really, doesn't taste as good.
Did you know?There are pirate whaling operations which operate in the 'black market' of Japan's fisheries. There are only 5 operational whaling boats for commercial whaling shared among 8 remaining companies.
Did you know?Whales only give birth once every few years.
Did you know? At the rate of overfishing we are doing, we will have no fish in the seas by 2049.
Did you know?The international terrorist organisation Sea Shepherds founder was a former Greenpeace board member? Did you know that he established the sea shepherds due to an experience in which he felt like his life was spared by a dying whale?
To be honest, after seeing both sides of the argument and picking apart both, I'd rather just be a vegetarian.
There´s an astonishing amount of hypocrisy in this thread. Thank you to elliminist for providing some much needed perspective.
IMO, if you have no qualms about eating cattle, pork etc. you have no business criticizing Koreans for eating whale. If you have moral problems with killing and eating animals, that´s cool. In fact, I´d commend you for that. However, saying we shouldnt kill whales while chowing down on a nice porterhouse steak just strikes me as wrong.
(This is all provided the hunted whales aren´t endangered, of course.)
If its not your culture and its not harming humans then why are you concerned -.- There are much larger issues which exist within every individuals environment that I am often amazed that people can become so passionate about such matters.
I am wrong many times a day and so is everyone else, so perhaps these individuals should appreciate or at least respect the values and views of others (provided they do not interfere directly with the rights and lives of other humans).
On July 05 2012 22:40 Chewbacca. wrote: Why do we think we need to stop every single species from dying out? Species have been going extinct long before humans ever came along.
This is how I feel. Why exactly are we going to such great lengths to save whales? I'm against actively trying to kill off animals just to make them go extinct but if it's just a byproduct of what we do.. What do whales even contribute to human society? Aren't bees also struggling? I'd be more concerned about them.
On July 05 2012 23:22 Valentine wrote: What sort of difference is there from "scientific whaling" and whaling for other purposes, such as using their products in the market. Not only should we consider the moral issues regarding whaling in general, but also for what benefit is it to kill whales for scientific reasons.
Whatever scientific whaling is, it's probably more useful than whatever whales are doing for us as is.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want whales to cook meal for you or make you breakfast?
Hypothetically speaking, if killing off whales can help with cancer research, they're better off being hunted for that than having them swim about minding their own business. This is what he means.
Also, while I do get the whole "killing stuff is bad" thing, how is this any different than all the other animals we're slaughtering daily. So they're endangered, big whoop, cows and chicken would be endangered too if we wouldn't breed them for food.
It's no different. Eating a burger will seriously impact your credibility if you're chanting "save the whales". XD
Cuz they don't have to worry about finding food and stuff anymore!
Just kidding, I meant we're better off if they're being hunted, as long as it helps us. If they'd just be hunted for fun we would not be better off, but in the interest of science, it's somewhat understandable.
On July 05 2012 22:40 Chewbacca. wrote: Why do we think we need to stop every single species from dying out? Species have been going extinct long before humans ever came along.
This is how I feel. Why exactly are we going to such great lengths to save whales? I'm against actively trying to kill off animals just to make them go extinct but if it's just a byproduct of what we do.. What do whales even contribute to human society? Aren't bees also struggling? I'd be more concerned about them.
On July 05 2012 23:22 Valentine wrote: What sort of difference is there from "scientific whaling" and whaling for other purposes, such as using their products in the market. Not only should we consider the moral issues regarding whaling in general, but also for what benefit is it to kill whales for scientific reasons.
Whatever scientific whaling is, it's probably more useful than whatever whales are doing for us as is.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want whales to cook meal for you or make you breakfast?
Hypothetically speaking, if killing off whales can help with cancer research, they're better off being hunted for that than having them swim about minding their own business. This is what he means.
they're better off being hunted
How on earth is a whale better of being hunted rather than swimming around minding their own business?
Also, while I do get the whole "killing stuff is bad" thing, how is this any different than all the other animals we're slaughtering daily. So they're endangered, big whoop, cows and chicken would be endangered too if we wouldn't breed them for food.
It's no different. Eating a burger will seriously impact your credibility if you're chanting "save the whales". XD
Cuz they don't have to worry about finding food and stuff anymore!
Just kidding, I meant we're better off if they're being hunted, as long as it helps us. If they'd just be hunted for fun we would not be better off, but in the interest of science, it's somewhat understandable.
Be careful with this logic, the idea that the best good is what is good for man (or in this case science which in turn serves man) is what lead us to our current environmental state (we must be short-sighted).
Its kinda funny if you think about it, many years ago various religions provided us the same message science seems to now.
On July 06 2012 02:09 Spicy_Curry wrote: Humans are the only animals that hunt for more than they need. Its disgusting.
Predators in nature waste a lot of meat each time they kill. Have you seen what happens after a lion takes down an antelope? The lion doesn't eat the entire antelope. It eats choice bites, then leaves the carcass for scavengers. A lot of scavengers have a niche because predators are wasteful.
Not just that, but there are predators besides humans who kill for 'pleasure'. Take cats, for example. There are a lot of well-fed pet cats who go after rats just because - they don't kill rats because they are hungry and need to eat; they kill them because they want to.
Yes and in nature, most species are patriarchal and rape serves as an adaption. Does that mean we should just succumb to our primal behaviour because other species do and allow it to creep back into our society?
And fyi, predators in nature waste meat because they have no form of preservation like we do. Instead of carrying around a rotting piece of meat, it serves a better purpose to just hunt another animal again. The first humans in the Americas did this when they drove many species to extinction but I can't blame them because they didn't know any better and were trying to survive. We know better now so let's show it?
Being morally 'better' than animals is a human conceit; there is nothing 'animal' about it. But being a human conceit, it is comprehensibly only to other humans and in the context of our societies/cultures/ideologies. The statement that humans are 'evil' / 'disgusting' because we hunt whales has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with our social conceptions, which are not necessarily shared by other societies/cultures/ideologies.
My bringing this into this thread is to remind people how socially constructed their world views are. Animals never think about whether they're wasting food / driving prey into extinction / hunting for meat instead of pleasure / etc. People, living in modern, first world societies, who have been educated under the doctrines of environmentalism, and who are disconnected from the act of hunting and killing prey because all they experience is grocery store->kitchen->table, do.
Skip the moral blanketing about humans being bad, and talk about how SK is trying to violate an international treaty via a loophole, and we're better off for discussions. I don't see how pontificating about how bad humans are because we won't follow each other's socially constructed moral standards is going to help.
Don't try and create strawman arguments with me because I never once touched on the topics of evil and morality. Leave your college classes on ethics and morality at the door please.
As a species with an advanced form of cognition, we have the ability to make our society a better one (which ultimately is for our own "selfish" purposes and a topic of another discussion). Instead of condoning some of the things we do because it's natural and seen in nature (such as your comparison of human wasting to animals), we can try and curtail it a bit to better help us all.
But you did. You said that we need to act 'better' than animals because we are humans. This is a fundamentally moral argument, because what is 'better' is contingent on social/cultural/ideological forces and you have shown no different. You have never explained what makes preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them, and short of that you are a product of the environmentalist social mores that are conditioned into people in the West these days. Thus, you are making a moral argument, not a logical one.
I ask again - why is preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them? Is it not natural for species that are unable to adapt to their environment to perish? Isn't that the entire process of selection and evolution?
lol how is it a fundamentally moral argument? It actually has nothing to do with morals and is quite logical. Once again the strawman...
Given human intelligence and our ability to reason, we have two options in regards to this situation: A) Live in apathy and let natural selection take its course. B) Make easy alterations in our lives to preserve biodiversity, which can be as asset in the future.
I'm not advocating that we take option B because of some moral obligation but because it is the option which benefits society the most. We already do many things that go against nature to benefit and progress society, so why should this be any different? Humans are generally considered a patriarchal species, but yet we employ women equality and literacy in the West and it, in turn, helps to preserve our advanced and developed society. You make the claim for allowing natural selection to take its course, so are you also saying that we should just revert back to our normal behaviour and allow civil rights to dissolve because it goes in tandem with our innateness? This is the case in other societies and transcends "social/cultural/ideological forces" but would it be a beneficial choice for ours? The same case could be made for preserving biodiversity on this Earth. South Korea may have different social and cultural codes of conduct than mine, but when it starts to potentially infringe on my life, I take issue with it. For all I care they can enslave their women, but don't touch the whales How's that for morals?
If there is any assumption to be made, it's that you are the product of internet conditioning that believes environmentalism to be a wasted effort and should be ignored completely because of a few introductory college classes. Honestly, it's getting stale.
Is it possible to farm whales? They should come up with a law that if any countries are for hunting endangered species, they must spend money on coming up with way to farm these animals.
EPT
How's that for morals?![[image loading]](http://www.mgsrvr.com/5c4632e7f75e80f6206c9d9328b10bc0.gif)
