Whale Wars - Activists or Terrorists

Remove all ads!

Actually, I'm in agreement on a lot of this -- particulary the part about tastiness! I mean, in all honesty if I were in the position Japan is in I'd pursue other options. But I'm not in their position.

The thing that I disagree on is the controversial argument -- I am of the belief that unless an entity's actions are directly and obviously harming a person, that person should mind his / her own business. When it comes to international affairs this is especially true. If a certain group of people (I'll call them Exxians) don't want to engage in a particular activity, more power to them. But if Yians do want to engage in that behaviour, they should be able to go right ahead as ong as the Exxians aren's injured or inconvenienced by the behaviour. The Exxians may tell the Yians that they are idiots, that they don't respect them or accept them, and that's great, but they shouldn't be out there minding the Yians business. I see the Exxians in this example (the conservationists) as being grandstanders, plain and simple. if they really cared about animal life they'd be campaigning for other species. but those species don't get them the air time on television or the attention that they so pathetically crave. And despite all their green nonsense, whales are not humans and never will be, so their cries of "we're saving our aquatic brothers and sisters" fall flat with me.

 

So... This means both of you have tasted whale before? Interesting.

Ah, but so much harm can be done indirectly. I mean, we Europeans pretty much wiped the Native Americans out through mostly indirect attacks (disease, alcohol, killing buffalo, those were the big ones). Considering the potential harm that can be caused by this, the harm that has been caused by similar acts in the past, and the level of understanding we now have about such things, ignoring them on the claim of "it does me no harm" is irrisponsible.

 

First of all, I don't believe that the Japanese or any other nation that advocates whaling is out to exterminate the species. Secondly, even if they did, I do not believe that the world's ecosystem would suddenly collapse. There's lots of other species out there that need protection more and are more vital to the world's well being. Whales are just an easy target for these self-appointed activists.

Don't get me wrong, I am not an advocate of killing all the whales or the extermination of any species -- I just don't think it is likely at the present time and I also don't think that the beliefs of the protesters give them the right to take vigilante (read that -- criminal) action.

 

So because we aren't being directly harmed, protesters are out of line when they try to protect the whale? I agree that there are more important species to preserve in the oceans, tunafish are definitely a keystone species, and the harm that Japan does by overfishing them will definitely alter the ecosystem for the worse. The problem is, that fishing for tuna is a legitimate bio-industry (practical but not sustainable), most countries engage in it, and the only difference is the disproportionate amount that Japan fishes.
But removing whales from the ecological balance (total extinction isn't even necessary) is highly likely to have a similar detrimental effect. Due to the complexities of the food web, and population dynamics, it's hard to make predictions or draw conclusions. We simply don't know much about these creatures yet, and no, japanese 'research' isn't telling us anything more. Just bacause we can't predict the negative effects with certainty, doesn't mean we should keep hunting until we can predict this somehow. An analogy: If your door is unlocked, robbers will probably empty your house while you're gone, and that's probably a bad thing. But you can't be certain about this. Would you lock your door anyway?

The international waters are inherently lawless, and the International Whaling Commision is impotent when it comes to enforcing their moratorium. Vigilantes have a moral right to interfere to a certain extent, because the ecological balance is at stake. I can think of numerous analogies where most would agree that there is a right for us to interfere. Even from a utilitarian, religious perspective, whaling should be objectionable, because God created animals to feed and be admired by us all. Whaling countries are stealing our birthright, and risk destroying one of God's creations.

I have never claimed that activists aren't criminals when they engage in acts of aggression against whalers, but I can't accept terms like 'pirates' or 'terrorists' to describe them. 'Vandals' and 'vigilantes' would be OK, though. Whalers are always breaking higher moral and ethical rules when they hunt in the lawless international waters, and that's why the activists' unlawful behaviour should be seen in perspective. Illegal isn't always wrong. Breaking the law will put you at a disadvantage in the courts, but not necessarily in hearts and minds.

No, I haven't tasted whale meat. I said other things probably taste better, and I'm not interested in how whale meat tastes.

 

No coin you see, even the IWC's own scientific committee says that their are sufficient to resume whaling. Now just because some bleeding hearts think of whales as our aquatic brothers doesn't change the fact that the IWC has bnot done the job they were set up to do.
Your vigilantes(who BTW we have already established meet the lawful criteria & definiation as pirates) may have a moral right to try to stop whaling but the whalers have the LEGAL right to toss these dumb@asses off their boats into the water(which is what they should have done to the 2 boarders).

 

Whether you believe that whales are important to the ocean's ecosystems or not, is of little importance. Nobody's beliefs will change the ecological impact of whaling. Once whale numbers are diminished, they will reach a point of no return. When population density is very low, they will either go extinct inevitably, or reach a new, lower balance. This sub-optimal peak will be the new maximum of whale populations. There will be no going back from this, because whale numbers will never reach high enough density to return to the original balance. We've seen it with many fish stocks, and whales can be hunted to extincton easily too. The first extinction happened over a century ago, when mainly the british whalers were responsible for the disappearance of the Bowhead whale. Populations of many freshwater dolphins are now so low, that we'd only know of their extinction when we haven't sighted them for a few years.
These 'researchers' at the IWC, who claim to know enough about whale populations, are not scientists. They cannot guarantee that whaling is safe, because we don't know what the point of no return is. They take liberties with their positions, take bribes, and give us false assurances about safe whaling.

"Your whaling pirates (who BTW we have already established meet the lawful criteria & definiation as pirates) may have a legal right to hunt & kill whales but the activists have the MORAL right to toss these dumb@asses off their boats into the water(which is what they should have done to the more than 2 whaling boats)." Right back at ya!
Personally I'd like to see their harpooning gear destroyed, and have them escorted out of whale sanctuaries. And tracked via satellite as repeat-offenders.

 

Really coin? thats funny as wiki lists the present day population of bowhead whales at over 24,000. Pretty good for an extinct species.

Were you possibly thinking of the gray whale? parts of which species were eliminated as early as 1645.

Again the whalers are engaged in a LEGAL activity, so attacking their ships automatically makes you the criminal.

 

I was talking about a local extinction. The bowhead whale population went extinct in the eastern arctic due to excessive whaling. It's not in wikipedia, but if you google 'bowhead extinction', you'll find numerous articles telling how the british and dutch hunted them to extinction. They were replaced after a long time by populations elsewhere, but the genetic diversity of the species has been permanently reduced. With modern technology, and growing human populations worldwide, the world has become a much smaller place. When we face extinction nowadays, we're talking about worldwide extinction, and there will be no crawling back from that.

 

Read up, martaug. Even three post above your last one. No one is arguing that what the protesters are doing is legally wrong. What is been argued is that what they are doing is morally correct. It's a completely different coin here. There's little point in preaching to the choir (to use that saying).

 

Yes rotku, you(not you, but you as a protester) may think it is morally correct but does that give you the right to do something about it?

Do those that oppose abortions on morale grounds have the equivalent right to disable doctors cars, or throw caustic chemicals on them or accost the women going into these clinics or try to try to arrest them for murder because what "they" are doing is wrong to the protester?

Do those that oppose the death penalty on morale grounds have the right to break condemned people out of prison or hurt the prison officials for carring out the sentence?

What about those who find religion morally offensive, do they have the right to go tear down churches or harm preachers(priests, imans, fathers, etc.) or try to condemn others for believing in a religion.

See my point, rotku?

 

Well if you start thinking like that, then it gets philisophical. The law is just an extention of our arbitrary human morality. So by that reasoning neither can be trusted, because there is no right and wrong.

Another way to look at it, is that if the majority of people feel a certain way, then that becomes what's right. I'm not too fond of this line of thought: it can go horribly wrong, because people's conflicting self-interest causes more problems. It's certainly democratic, and it would put activists in the right, because most of the world supports their actions.

Let's just put right & wrong aside for a moment, and think practically. What would be in our best interest? Allowing pirate countries to continue whaling would avoid diplomatic tension, perhaps even avoid conflict. We are largely in the dark about the actual consequences of hunting whales, but we are aware of the risks of disturbing the food web. It is certain that nothing good will come from a disrupted food web. Biomass and biodiversity go hand in hand.
So do we allow pirate whalers to mess around with the food web, because it's their right, and we don't want trouble? Hell no! We shouldn't let them screw around with the world we all live in unnecessarily.

I've heard these right-wing opinions about activistm which go something like: "Send those moaning pussies to a totalitarian country, maybe then they'll learn to shut the <bleep> up!" But I just don't understand them: Aren't you an inhabitant of the same planet as me? Don't you depend on a healthy, functioning planet to sustain you? Why don't you agree that this is in our own best interest?
Even if I'm wrong, and the extinction of all whales doesn't influence biodiversity much, isn't it better to not take that chance? We'll only have missed out on a bit of whale meat in our markets, big deal. Better to be safe than sorry.

 

I'm not sure where you're coming from Coin... I didn't see martaug say that he thinks the extinction of whales is good, or that he wouldn't protest it. All he's saying is, the law (the U.S.'s) applies to U.S. citizens. And actions taken by United States' citizens reflect the actions of the United States as a whole. If we have rogue groups throwing chemical bombs at other country's fishing vessels... what is that saying about the U.S. as a whole? That we support belligerent vandals!

It's not wrong to be an activist, it's not wrong to stand up for what you believe, but it IS wrong to break U.S. law in a violent criminal way. Nor has anyone said that "The majority is always right." I've seen no hostility toward minority groups here (though I personally have no idea whether or not there are more people supporting whaling or against it.) And it's important to stress no one is saying that the extinction of whales is a good thing.

Why are you calling them pirate whalers?! Do you believe that these whalers are stealing the whales from.. Earth? What they're doing is the same as hunting deer in America. I'll admit there are more deer, but if a group from Japan came and starting throwing chemicals in our deer blinds... I'm sure all of our hunters would be in a riot. It's a festive past time! Men and their sons hunting, getting food for their family.

Basically what I'm getting at is - "Rome wasn't built in a day." When you have extreme activists like this, I personally believe they are counter-productive, throwing chemicals and breaking equipment isn't going to make anyone want to hear your side of the argument at all. You'll just make them angry, block their reasoning and make them all but immune to your real goal. Which isn't to harm whalers, but to help whales. And these "Sea Shepherd"s seem to want to harm whalers as much as they want to save whales. I think that is what it basically comes down to.

 

Martaug has hit it on the head -- if you say that the activists have the right to destroy equipment and risk lives because their morals tell them that they can ignore the law while following "higher moral and ethical" criteria, then you open a pandora's box for other types of activists to break the law while following their own moral compass -- like destroying abortion clinics, bombing abortion-performing doctors' cars, trashing the places of worship of people of opposing faiths, etc.

Just because an activist has a deep seated conviction doesn't give that activist the right to destroy the property of other people or put their lives at risk.

To use an analogy, coin, you know how I feel about lefties and activists. I feel very strongly about it. Your comment about the totalitarian country was good and valid -- I see your point. But if I were to go beyond merely speaking the rhetoric, break into your house, kidnap you and drop you off alone and penniless in Iran or China, would that be acceptable because I truly believe in my heart that it is the moral and ethical thing to do to teach you a lesson, and laws and respect for the rights of others be damned? Of course not. But to my way of thinking that is exactly the logic being used by the activists.

 

There have been many situations in history where people have stood up for what they morally believe in, despite it been against the law, and we now (looking back - or even at the time) consider them right in doing so. To shoot out an example there, Nelson Madella was the leader of the armed wing of the ANC - he was certainly a criminal, having committed many crimes against the South African government and army, and was found guilty of such - yet he is held by many throughout the world to be a symbol of equality and freedom.

For every example you can give, where people should follow the law even when they believe it is wrong, there is an example in history which shows otherwise.

 

Fair enough -- the American Revolution is an example of a whole whack of people deciding to go against the law. However, that does not mean that every person or group who violates the law because of their convictions is necessarily right. In any event, they can opine that the future will vindicate them, but it won't change the fact that they will likely have to pay the penalties in the present for their violation of laws. And history might just NOT vindicate them, to boot. Certainly if they violate the law and then attempt to hide behind it they lose a whackload of credibility.

 

Agreed.

Wait, does that count as a one worded post?

Let me try again.

Completely agree there, LKD. I was going to use the US Revolution as an example, as well, but decided someone may call me up on not knowing enough there

 

LKD, just how much IS a whackload?

 

A little less than a buttload.

Actually, when playing cards one day, I told my friends that I had a "whackload" of black 3s. It turned out I had 6 of them. So now they won't let me use the word the way I usually do. But they're not on the boards!

 

The past few exchanges between posters here, serves as an excellent example of how neither law nor morality is always on the right.

So I guess the primary question, whether activists should be considered pirates or terrorists, and the implication to whether the activists' moral compass is correctly aligned, is essentially a non-issue. We're asking the wrong question.

Majority sentiment can't be trusted.
Law can't really be used as an indicator of what's right.
Whatever is most practical and/or beneficial to us/mankind/the planet can't even be discerned, what with all the mixed messages researchers give us. So even the best choice can't be taken as the right one, because we don't know what's best.
And morality can so often be misguided. Whatever arbitrary moral framework you subscribe to, it doesn't matter in the end.

The right question to ask would be: Are activists doing what's best for everyone, or not?
Unfortunately nobody knows enough about the actual facts of the issue, and opinions are of no use, since they will only distract the question, and revert it to the 'are they pirates?' non-issue.

 

Which brings back to the point made before:

Isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

Take the two different possible situations:

(1) We keep whaling. Now, if it turns out that there are no bad effects, great. However, if it turns out there are, then we (and our planet) have problems and would have to make huge sacrifices.

(2) We stop whaling. If it turns out that (after more research) we can safely start whaling again, then we've had a small cost, over a short period of time. If it turns out that what coin are saying is right, then there will, onec again, be a small cost - however that small cost is nothing c ompared to the big cost that might have been paid.

Anyway, even if the Majority sentiment can't be trusted - Rotku's can