Forum menu
Whales are possibly as clever as us(
Out of interest, what scientific research has Japan produced when using it as an excuse for hunting whales? I know it's bollocks, just wondered if they were legally obliged to actually produce a scientific paper, and if so what it said?
"It has been scientifically established that whales are not fish."
(Preamble to Japanese Scientific Paper)
I think I saw it in Nature - something like 'Testing the relative deliciousness of whale species: A randomised controlled trial'. Seemed legit.
And obviously there is that cove that the japs drive all the dolphins in to kill :
[img] https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4iTi3q5_gkiG6CN77ZD-nFnfCGUH1InEpC3xm17VVVmcMYLc7 [/img]
if that scene instead had a dead fisherman replacing each dolphin I am not sure I would be too fussed...
I think I saw it in Nature - something like 'Testing the relative deliciousness of whale species: A randomised controlled trial'. Seemed legit.
I found minki a bit tasteless, humpback too fatty, blue was ok, but Omura was simply devine.
I don;t know what sort of dogs I ate, medium sized, maybe retrievers.
I found minki a bit tasteless,
Is this your Minki? 😀
[img] https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkBvn1GNq_I2ZCTsWAQqIbun7ZJrf-8qrQfsmoRAExvecoRr5ZTg [/img]
Whales are possibly as clever as us(
Indeed. Some whale facts you may not be aware of - Whales emerged as a species after evolving around 150,000 years ago from a Homo Sapien tribe indigenous to the south sea islands. These islanders it is now known were adept at swimming in the rough seas to catch fish. Natural selection over a few thousand years put evolutionary pressure on the facial position of the nose and also the buoyancy of the individuals. Over time these south sea islanders became larger and more buoyant whilst there nose migrated from the more traditional "middle of the face" position first to the forehead, then the top of the head and eventually to the back of the head. Ridiculed and subject to relentless surprise "punching in the nose from behind" from other tribes meant that they vowed to eke out a living in the sea rather than land and the rest is common knowledge.
[quote=neil the wheel ]It's not about the cuteness or otherwise of the animal being eaten, it's purely about the number of lives taken. Bigger animal = fewer individuals killed for the same amount of dinner. Therefore, chicken is more cruel then beef. (Or whale).
On that basis, chicken is more cruel than human - humans are also rather easier to catch than whales. I presume you're arguing that no other criteria should be used other than number of lives taken?
Over time these south sea islanders became larger and more buoyant whilst there nose migrated from the more traditional "middle of the face" position first to the forehead, then the top of the head and eventually to the back of the head.
Shirley. if yer nose migrated over your forehead to the back of your head as described, you would drown the first time it rained as your nostrils would be pointing upwards?
I'm not sure this theory is 100% correct 😉
The rest of the theory seems perfectly reasonable though
The rest of the theory seems perfectly reasonable though
No doubt. If I saw someone with a nose on the back of their head I'd definitely "surprise punch" it. Who wouldn't?
I've eaten minke whale, it was nice. And, you know, free range
Snort
So whales are as intelligent as us, and whales eat other whales, so its ok to eat whale.
As it is, we, as a species, have designated certain animals for food i.e. cows, sheep chickens etc. Animals that are easy to breed and provide the necessary nutrients.As the population of this planet continues to grow, the protection of “protected” species is going to become increasingly important. The likes of Japan who blatantly flout this ethic should be severely punished
leaving aside all discussions about whether we should 'designate certain animals for food' the problem here is that as a society the Japanese have a different view and include whales in their list of 'acceptable to eat'
your ethic =/= their ethic and therein lies the problem.
But other people also don't agree with the ethics of eating chickens and cows, so now it's just a case of who is 'wronger' in whoever's eyes you're looking from.
As a disclaimer - I'm against Whale hunting/eating, but I recognise the difficulty in getting another culture/society to bow to your ideas when you have different points of view on which tasty creatures you're allowed to eat and which you aren't.
@ amedias
You're right, it is difficult to get these messages across, but it has to be done, for the sake of everyone. It's the same as Brazil stopping cutting down its rainforests or the World moving away from fossil fuels: at some point you have to draw the line.
I was going to write that the difference between the whale and the chicken is that the chicken gets stunned before suffering an otherwise painful death, but the latest trends suggest that hundreds of millions of animals are now being slaughtered in Britain without being stunned first in the interests of accommodating barbaric [s]religious [/s]practices.
Having read the British Vets last report it staggers me that we are allowing around 25% of large animals that are slaughtered to effectively die by choking to death on their own blood for up to 3 minutes ( whilst in many cases standing up and concious of this) when 30 years ago this was simply not allowed.
More worryingly; when are killer whales going to decide we taste like chicken/ They evolve and learn new behaviour each year...Seals;fast and hard to catch,humans..slow and more eating on 'em
@ amediasYou're right, it is difficult to get these messages across,
I don't disagree, but I fear that we (not you and me but the collective we) are just shouting louder rather than looking at [i][b]how[/b][/i] to get the message across in a way where they come round to that way of thinking rather than us 'winning' through brute force, and them feeling hard done by/still not actually agreeing, hopefully that makes sense, I know what I'm trying to say but not sure I'm getting it across very well!
If you go in all guns blazing basically calling them inhumane monsters for not agreeing with us, it's bound to be met with a defensive attitude. It's very difficult to persuade someone to change their ways with that approach.
More worryingly; when are killer whales going to decide we taste like chicken
I shouldn't really mention this but I've seen worrying new evidence to show that the Killer whales blowhole is moving more towards the front of the face. This can only mean one thing.
Slaughtering chickens humanely is a lot easier than whales to
If you go in all guns blazing basically calling them inhumane monsters for not agreeing with us, it's bound to be met with a defensive attitude. It's very difficult to persuade someone to change their ways with that approach.
True, but I think the other, less aggressive, avenues have been exhausted.
More worryingly; when are killer whales going to decide we taste like chicken/ They evolve and learn new behaviour each year...Seals;fast and hard to catch,humans..slow and more eating on 'em
Killer whales are far too intelligent to deliberately target human beings.
They've had generations to witness what human beings can do to whales.
They don't want any of that action.
[i] the difference between the whale and the chicken is that the chicken gets stunned before suffering an otherwise painful death[/i]
And the cramped, miserable, disease-rife-therefore-pumped-full-of-antibiotics life the chicken lives first, obviously.
On that basis, chicken is more cruel than human
Well, funnily enough I was going to suggest this. If the meat volunteers is that ok?
Capybara are fish, so why not whales?
http://www.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/capybara.html
I've eaten minke whale, it was nice. And, you know, free range.
I wonder how many of the folks on here proclaiming that it's a terrible thing to eat (non-endangered) whales will happily tuck into battery-farmed chicken and eggs and intensively-reared pork...
How many of those animals are killed by having a harpoon fired into them, then have an explosive charge set off which doesn't automatically kill the animal instantly, but condemns it to a lingering, probably unbelievably painful death.
And how many are hunted by a calf being harpooned then dragged along with its cries being used to bring the rest of the pod within harpoon range.
Killing whales for food is morally indefensible.
And as for whales killing other whales, well orca aren't whales, they're large dolphins, and plenty of birds kill other birds.
Killing [s]whales[/s] animals for food is morally indefensible
[quote=neil the wheel opined]It's not about the cuteness or otherwise of the animal being eaten, it's purely about the number of lives taken. Bigger animal = fewer individuals killed for the same amount of dinner. Therefore, chicken is more cruel then beef. (Or whale).
I have to agree if i was going to start eating meat i would start with something massive as it minimises the deaths
As for the whale scenario above if you think the UK kills 2o million chickens monthly in a nice way then you are somewhat mistaken in this belief
What we need is a huge animal with the brain of a chicken. Eg brontosaurus
I wonder how many of the folks on here proclaiming that it's a terrible thing to eat (non-endangered) whales will happily tuck into battery-farmed chicken and eggs and intensively-reared pork...
Not me. Why would that be the case just because I don't think we should be harpooning whale?
Something no one has mentioned so far is the importance of the whale in the ecosystem, something we are only beginning to understand now, as they return from being hunted to the brink.
Specifically bred, farmed animals have a much smaller (possibly negative?) impact on natural ecosystems.
What we need is a huge animal with the brain of a chicken. Eg brontosaurus
I'll have a leg please.
The methodology of actually hunting and killing whales is absolutely horrendous. Now, to be fair, chickens are often treated badly too but that's at least somewhat manageable/reducable, there's no way known to kill a whale that isn't basically horrific.
The main difference imo is literally the nature of the beast. Chickens are small brained, less complex animals. Ceteceans are [i]smart[/i]. (lumping them all together btw, some of these things we don't see all types of cetecea do) Anthropomorphising is always dangerous but we've observed them at play, living as family units, communicating, learning, working as teams in really very clever ways, and showing behaviour that looks very like mourning. They're inquisitive, they use tools, and they get bored, and irrirated. And we know they remember, and plan for the future. They seem to show self-awareness- studies suggest they recognise themselves in mirrors and videos. Do they experience life differently to chickens? I don't think many people would doubt it, and that makes taking that life a different matter.
(there's a definite possibility that some ceteceans are smarter than us; denser cortexes, and faster brain stems. Literally more processing power and bandwidth. Not to mention having access to sensory methods we lack; what new things would humans think of if we could perceive sound and space as echolocators do?)
TBF, I'd rather farm humans.
Is there a sliding scale of harm and of acceptability? imo, there is- everyone draws the line somewhere. Vegetables grown with herbicide are murder! Personally I only eat meat that I know has been cooked alive, the pain makes it tastier.
But we should be treating farmed animals better. I'm personally comfortable with murdering meat. I'm comfortable with it being basically unpleasant for the poor buggers. But I don't want it to be cruel, or needlessly unpleasant.
Specifically on the subject of japanese whaling, what's weird is that they don't even make money off it; the whaling fleet is dependent on subsidy. And the quantity of meat exceeds demand.
Northwind - Member
The methodology of actually hunting and killing whales is absolutely horrendous.
And illegal and nothing to do with real food needs.
I did a sneak edit on the actual economic side of it.
Oh, and
jam bo - Memberjapanese are killing an endagered species
except they aren't.
Sei and Fin whales are both endangered species.
I can't find a longer clip, but there's a sequence in Carl Sagan's [i]Cosmos[/i] which more-or-less treats large whale species as societies, capable of sophisticated communication over near-global distances conveying colossal amounts of information. Then of course goes on to point out that these societies have been almost wiped out and deafened by human activity. Then goes on to speculate on what people would do to any off-world alien society they encountered. It's slightly hippy-trippy stuff, and the marine biologists may have concluded since that whales are pretty dim and all that singing is just Reddit-style trash talk and dank memes, but it got me rather.
I'm not eating any whales. And if you convince me that the killing of a chicken is morally equivalent I'll probably go back to being vegetarian pretty fast. 🙂
Sei and Fin whales are both endangered species.
i didn't dispute that.
specifically on the subject of japanese whaling, what's weird is that they don't even make money off it; the whaling fleet is dependent on subsidy. And the quantity of meat exceeds demand.
Then is makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
Why spend even more money, to kill something that most of the rest of the world gets pissed off about, while pretending it's for scientific reasons.
Buggered if I can work it out.
Wow that's weird - I dunno why but for some reason I feel like going out and buying an electric scooter?
jam bo - Memberi didn't dispute that.
OK then, were you aware that in previous years when they've said they're only taking minke, they've ended up also catching sei and fin whales? Course, this year could be miraculously different but it's their SOP.