https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/31/iceland-allows-whaling-to-resume-in-massive-step-backwards
Activists say that whales will still suffer agonising deaths despite new regulations and monitoring
Minke has a minimum population estimate of 17000, so you are a bit off there. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-08/Com%20Minke%20Whale-Can%20E%20Coast%20Stock_SAR%202021.pdf
Why do you guys keep talking about Minke whales?
Read the fucking article. They're hunting fin whales, which are considered Vulnerable.
No we can not. This is fucked up. It's one rich guy's hobby:
Im Icelandic and I can confirm this. This massive asshole (Kristjan Loftson) has plenty of money and one hobby, killing whales. He as lost aprox. 20m€ on whaling in the years he has been hunting them.
...kill him?
I mean, or watch hundreds, thousands of whales die.
Just one dude, man. I dunno, not Icelandic so it isn't really an opportunity I'd have but, um. If all else fails, right?
that's not right
The train's gonna hit something. Pull the lever.
He will probably kill 10-20 finback whales so we are not talking about very large numbers. Also it would not be good for Icelandic politics if someone would kill him, he could become somekind if whale killer martyr and Iceland would continue to kill whales after his death.
he could become somekind if whale killer martyr
Well that's just as easily solved by more killing. There can't be more than like 20 people in the country that have a massive boner for murdering whales.
The rise of far right politicians and fascists is directly related to the dramatic drop in assassinations of political figures.
The solution? Start murdering fascist and far right politicians that exploit the working class and the environment to add to their already endless coffers. This is the only viable answer.
Change my mind.
Would it be more whales? Less?
There's a minimum whale population before genetic defects start having impact between mates..
I'm not advocating direct violence, but mixing sand into the hunting boat's engine oil and other more peaceful methods should be considered if the government won't listen to reason by its people.
Whatw as that expression again.. "an eye for an eye... Is a really great idea"?
Then someone should kill them for their stupidity. Cancer doesn't go away unless you cut it all out.
If he's doing this for profit, there has to be a consumer... Who are the consumers and what are they buying?
Sadly, there is whale meat in our supermarkets and restaurants. The only reason they can sell it is because some of the whale is "necessary" for "research", and the meat is a "byproduct".
Why are you government or judges so shady when it comes to this? Like, what is the actual reasson, that this is not forbidden and nobody is in jail? You have a democracy in iceland, right?
I'm not Icelandic nor am I a lawyer, but i bet he would stop if his car were harpooned enough times.
I'm pretty sure he would stop if he were harpooned once. Harpoons don't just grow on trees y'know, gotta be thrifty.
So it's not some indigenous thing like in the Americas and is just pure evil capitalism? Ugh!
And here is the asshole making a whole nation look bad yet again;
How many battery chickens do you need to unalive to feed the same number of people as one minke whale?
Chickens aren't at risk of extinction due to human consumption.
We don't have whale ranches.
Which would be great if they were hunting Minke whales, but they're hunting fin whales, which are endangered.
Billions of living things forced to experience short brutal painful existences inside of concentration camps
Farming livestock is industrialised animal cruelty. Animals are kept in squalid conditions. Whales have a good life followed by a quick death (unless it dies in the Faroe Islands). Dynamite tipped harpoon will get the job done right.
What makes you assume the person you replied to is a "hypocrite" (i.e. eats factory chicken)?
I would highly recommend the recent Freakonomics Radio series about whaling. It's Episodes 549-551 and the bonus episode from 2023-08-06. If you're firmly against killing any living creature (or at least sentient creatures), I highly doubt it will change your mind (and I don't think that it should or that it tries to), but I also think it is really fascinating learning about the history of the whaling industry and hearing the perspective of a modern whaler in the bonus episode. Putting aside the obvious ethical issues with killing sentient creatures, it's interesting to consider things like whether there's a sustainable level of whaling, what a sustainable quota would look like, and how much we're in competition with certain whale species for harvesting fish as food for our own species. I personally appreciated how unbiased Freakonomics tried to be in their discussion of the topic.
Idk man. Whales are literally sentient, have culture, families, and fucking language with grammar.
I'm all for eating fish and cows and most animals. But whales are basically people that happen to live in the water. I can't get on board with that.
Whales are literally sentient, have culture, families, and fucking language with grammar.
They (cows) possess substantial problem-solving skills, enabling them to interact effectively with their environment. This intelligence isn't confined to the tangible realm; it also extends profoundly into the emotional sphere. Cows form intricate social relationships within their herd
As a meat eater the argument that we shouldn't eat "intelligent" animals is bull. The livestock we eat all display a higher/equal level of intelligence as your pets. Ultimately we don't eat certain animals because we like them and that's it.
Personally if you're going to eat meat you can't pick and choose which animal is ok to eat and which one isn't. It's either they all are or none of them are
This is fairly bad logic it presumes we must either do no evil whatsoever or do however much evil we like because we refuse to do no evil. You could trivially extend it to eating people after all why are we picking which animal its OK to eat? Back in reality we should probable stop eating animals but a world where we do less harm is still better than one where we do more and most of us would race to stop the consumption of 3 children before we would endeavor to save 3 million chickens. The argument goes that the whales are closer to the children than the chickens. Even if you don't think this is fair or reasonable nobody is going to save the chickens and there is political and moral will to save the whales so perhaps be happy with the good that we can do instead of insisting on all or none.
I see your point- and you are right, a world where we do less harm is better. It's all grey areas though. Extending your example, if it was a choice between the death of 3 million chickens or 3 million whales, personally I would choose the chickens. 3 million cows or 3 million whales, however, has different implications. Even more interesting is smaller numbers- 300 cows or 300 whales? Considering how you get so much more resources for the same amount of harm in whales, I would probably choose whales.
My point had nothing to do with harm but with logic. The idea that some animals are more worthy than others when it comes to consumption makes no sense. If your argument is about harm reduction then the only issue with killing Whales would be killing so many it has food chain ramifications. Other then that there is no harm. If your argument is about its wrong to eat sentient beings you can't kill any animal.
The only argument you can have against killing a chicken instead of a whale is we've always killed chickens which isn't an argument. As for saving a baby instead of chicken were biologically programed to care for a baby to keep the humanity going and eating one is harmful to our health
You actually feel like killing chickens and killing people have equal moral weight? Ya you aren't worth talking with any longer.
If you actually read my comment you'd see I said we are biologically programmed not to kill or eat human babies. Which is why logically we have no reason to resort to cannibalism.
I argued theres no moral argument to claim its better to eat chickens instead of whales. If you weren't so focused on just arguing you'd see that
Whales appear to have a higher degree of understanding of the universe I and others feel it is more akin to eating humans than chickens. If you don't agree with that premise you probably wont agree with anything else.
Wolves too. They have their own cultures, wars, families, even special techniques like having one wolf chase goats up gullies on glaciers, while other wolves ski down the chutes to intercept the goats.
And humans mowed down the entire pack from helicopter. Recently, Montana massacred their packs in a similar way, killing over 100 wolves. It's stomach churning. I've read a couple books on wolves, and some are so sad because the wolves are way too human when you give them more than a passing glance.
They are....unsettlingly smart. Which makes it all the more tragic when someone traps one and shoots it while trapped, and the wolf knows what's going to happen, and calls out one final low goodbye as the human raises the gun. Jesus. I had to put that book down.
I couldn't agree more. It is a excellent overview of whaling. I highly recommend the series to anyone who feels strongly about whales.
Recently listened to it. Appreciate them looking at the various angles. The history bits are excellent, once again I learned things about people of colour which I wouldn't have otherwise.
I've actually been to Iceland several times, and once I took the chance to try whale after much assurance from a local that when it comes to ethics, it's fine and within quota. That said, I wish I had the willpower to be a vegetarian. It would be ideal to me if we no longer needed any animals to sustain ourselves. But some foods are just too good and don't have perfect replacements yet. I hope that with lab grown meats whale will also become an option. So that they can live free and full lives. Unless the one guy on the show was right about overpopulation. I didn't feel he was the best source. But wildlife management is a thing, especially since we're meddling in nature, so now we're responsible too. It's a tough and emotionally changed subject.
There's a sustainable level of eating dogs, cats and drink human blood too. Should we open dog farms to create more jobs?
There is no inherent difference whatsoever from eating cats and dogs to eating cows or horses or sheep. Meat is meat.
Eating predators is supposedly less healthy than plant eating animals for a few reasons. As I understand it, carnivores have a notably higher level of parasites, they share diseases with other carnivores more readily than herbivores, and they’re more lean and the meat is more tough/stringy.
There’s also a realistic level of sustainable effort to farm raise a carnivore vs a herbivore. https://www.britannica.com/science/trophic-level
Dog meat in China is considered taboo and is something actively fought nowadays, it's mostly popular among the eldest and resented by the youngest. And even then, there is only one (1) place in China where a dog meat festival happens. Yulin.
It is also kind of dishonest to ignore South Korea which does in fact have industrial dog meat farms.
And it is very dishonest to say that China does this on an industrial scale with the government supporting this.
It unfortunately is also all over asia... Not just China. But fortunately, there is pushback from animal rights activists.
Why not? I dont think that dog farms would be that profitable considering the price of dog food, but I dont see a reason why it should be illegal.
Whaling is no different then fishing as far as sustainability goes and ethically a whale is no different then a cow. If you have no problem with killing cows, you should have no problem killing whales, assuming it is done sustainably.
That's a pretty strong statement without any underlying argument. There are countless differences between whaling and slaughtering livestock. I'm not in favor of either one per se, but to say they're ethically identical is quite the leap.
Problem is fishing is one of the biggest contributors to plastics ending up in the oceans and sea floors being destroyed. If whaling is like fishing then that's still adding to the problem.
Whaling still uses harpoons, just more modern and sophisticated ones. It's more akin to hunting than fishing.
Funny you should take for granted no one has a problem with fishing, a practice absolutely chocked full of problems, environmental and otherwise. Also do you not realize a lot of people also has issues with killing cows?
Sure. And even more people have absolutely no problem with killing cows and eating them daily. Which is why I had the qualifier that if you don't have a problem with cows you shouldn't have a problem with whales. If you do have a problem with cows, that's fine, and being against whaling is also fine.
As far as the fishing industry, it is chock full of environmental and sustainability concerns, but it can absolutely be done in an environmentally sustainable way, must like whaling could.
I get it's probably because people just aren't used to the idea of eating whale, but it's odd you're being downvoted when like that's kinda the stance I think a lot of environmentalists have here in Norway, though I think the comparison is more to like venison than cows, because venison's hunted but cows are raised. In the grand scheme of things, the beef industry does way more damage and has more ethical concerns than the strictly regulated whaling industry and we should be focusing our attention on that. I could be completely off though - I ain't from Oslo and whale is regularly available on the supermarket shelves in the season so I'm obviously somewhat biased here. I know a lot of people have ethical concerns but like, I don't get it. Pigs are smarter than a whale, but people aren't upset at pork chops.
Also idk how reliable it is because obviously it's a biased source, but according to the fishing industry pound for pound whale's actually way better for the environment than any farmed red meat because you're, y'know, not raising it.
Yea wild-hunted venison is probably a much better comparison, I'd probably agree that whale meat is better for the environment then farmed meat but ultimately you have to account for scale. It would be impossible for the world to live on whale meat alone, much like it would be impossible for the world to live on fish, or non-farmed crops. It's good to have a variety of food sources both for culinary enjoyment as well as food security and sustainability.
I'd also add to the discussion that the reason why Norway (and I think Iceland too) eat it as "tradition" isn't because it's some sacred animal or traditional or something, it's because up until very recently both countries were dirt poor and neither country is particularly great when it comes to arable land that you can grow veggies or animals on. Whale is a physically big source of red meat that lives not that far off the coast, and has tons of other uses besides food too. They're also small countries so using them as a food source isn't that damaging (hell I'm pretty sure out of the entire Norwegian fishing industry the whaling part is probably the least environmentally destructive part of it)
Also grilled whale is like, really nice. It's like if tuna was a red meat.
We have reason to believe whales are in the same ballpark as us. Also we should probably stop eating both but if we can't save both at least we may be able to keep folks from eating the whales.
Lol wut. There is no sustainable way to raise animals for slaughter in this overpopulated planet.
I've only heard about perfumes that once contained whale juices? ...What do these whales produce in terms of raw and or commercial material. or is it for sport these days? not that any of it is okay.
Yes this they used to use wheel spinal fluid as a base for perfumes. Because of course they did.
I think that practise was banned years ago mostly because it isn't remotely sustainable.
Iceland has this weird thing about wailing. You see all these whaling ships right alongside whale tour boats. It's like they sort of get it but can't quite get over the culture of whale hunting.
Which in fairness is part of their culture but they have a Costco there now as well so...
Genociding Native Americans and slavery are part of American culture too, but we mostly stopped that.
Would you accept "ItS tHEiR cUlTuRe" if someone decides whaler hunting is part of their history?
I don't think you know what "culture" means. It's not just stuff that people did in the past, it's what traditions are based around.
How do you think Iceland traditionally got food? They're not exactly surrounded by arable land are they?
Are you seriously comparing the responsible hunting of a sustainable number of minke whales to the deliberate genocide of an indigenous population?
Believe what you want. You've already decided that you are both offended and correct, so there's nothing that anyone can say to change your mind. Just understand that not listening doesn't make you right, it makes you a zealot.
Yes, it's genocide. They're barbarians who need to be put in their place for killing whales. I support a coup on the government
And if you lived in a country that has whaling there might be some legitimacy to your coup. But as it stands you're going to have to try to bribe the CIA to intervene on your behalf. Good luck paying them more than the Norwegian government does.
Except can you really say "genociding native americans" and "slavery" are a part of American culture? Is it "customary" of Americans to kill native americans and slavery can be an American trait?
Yes, it was explicitly part of American culture, and is written into our very foundational documents.
Except can you really say “genociding native americans”
As a country, the US has spent more of its existence genociding native Americans than allowing women to vote, or having a standing army.
and “slavery” are a part of American culture?
The US currently has fully legalized privatized slavery. You, specifically you, can own a slave in the US right now. You can even treat them as if the constitution does not apply to them in any way. Simply buy a prisoner and get a judge to commit that prisoner to you for the length of their sentence. It's so ingrained in our culture, we've never stopped the practice.
If you include the period before we split from England we spent centuries taking land that didn't belong to us and building our economy at least partly on slavery. If you look at the South in that time frame slavery permeated their culture. It is as fair to say that slavery was if anything much more deeply embedded in Southern culture than whaling in Iceland.
whales have something in their brain cavity that was considered valuable at the time, can't remember what it was called or what it was used for but I think that was the equivilant thing they were going for in Avatar
Whales have been used for a number of resources in the past.
Oil from blubber was a big one, and used in everything from lamps to soap.
Ambergris was a perfume base.
Spermaceti, the substance in the head of sperm whales, was used for candles and also lamps, as it was a higher quality.
Meat. Whale is tasty. Yum yum yummy in my tum tum tummy. Not even joking. People like whale. It's a very versatile and lean meat which is very high in omega 3, iron and protein.... And mercury but never mind that. Just try it next time you're in a country that hunts them.
Unless you are a full vegan, you have no business condemning responsible whaling.
Sanction them. I love Iceland but the way I see it, sanction them and tell them to knock it off. Capitalism sucks but use whatever few means we have in that system to at least right some wrongs.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Animal rights groups and environmentalists have described as “hugely disappointing” the news that Iceland has given the green light for commercial whaling to resume, after a temporary ban introduced this year came to an end.
The Icelandic government said there will be tougher regulations in place – including better equipment, training and increased monitoring – but campaigners said these were “pointless and irrelevant” because whales will still suffer agonising deaths.
In a statement to the Guardian, Iceland’s minister of foodand agriculture, Svandís Svavarsdóttir, said: “With the expiry of the ban, the ministry is now implementing strict and detailed new requirements for hunting including equipment, methods and increased supervision.
The groups stressed that whales already face myriad threats, including pollution, entanglement in fishing nets, ship strikes and the climate crisis.
Ruud Tombrock, the European director of the Humane Society International, said: “It is inexplicable that minister Svavarsdóttir has dismissed the unequivocal scientific evidence that she herself commissioned, demonstrating the brutality and cruelty of commercial whale killing.
In June, Svavarsdóttir suspended whaling until 31 August after a government-commissioned report concluded that the hunt does not comply with Iceland’s animal welfare legislation.
The original article contains 873 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Who cares if the whales die horribly and the species goes extinct, right? Oh yeah, new "regulations" make it "good" to do the same shit somehow, so no problem.
The planet has burned to a crisp and society no longer exists, but for a very short moment we made a few shareholders slightly richer.
Saw a doc about this that said they could only eat a couple of grams/week because of mercury. What a tragedy.
I heard that India is allowing people to wack moneys over the head real good now. It used to be that you couldn't hit them little fellers. Not the cows though. You can't even eat their brain through a small straw like you are told to do to monkeys in some areas of Asia. Regardless, vegans like me can't get into the action. We just massacred a bag of pistachios and that's about as far as we go.
