MetaChat - Old whale.

I hear the whale was swimming alongside a giant pink bunny.

posted by arse_hat 13 June | 11:38

Yup.

posted by mrmoonpie 13 June | 11:52

Wow, I had no idea whales lived so long.

posted by Orange Swan 13 June | 11:53

I am wondering if the whale thought, "oh shit, not this again."

posted by danf 13 June | 12:05

Was: 115-130 year old whale.

Is: Carcass.

Ain't human life grand.

posted by shane 13 June | 12:05

The whale thought:

BEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeOwoooooOOGH! GRRRRRROOOOOOooooooNNnNNNNNnnNnnnNNNNNG, Neep NEEP PEEEEEOooooooooooWooooooWOOOOOOOOOGH!

posted by Hugh Janus 13 June | 12:23

Why the !@#$%&* are we still allowing this?

posted by scarabic 13 June | 12:25

Because it is they way these people feed thier families and have been for a 1000 years.

posted by arse_hat 13 June | 12:28

Because far north indigenous peoples following traditional lifeways still think whale tastes good.

posted by Hugh Janus 13 June | 12:30

Oops, shoulda viewed on preview. I was rubbing my eye. Excuses, excuses.

posted by Hugh Janus 13 June | 12:31

Why the !@#$%&* are we still allowing this?

There are International laws against whaling, but laws are easily flouted in International waters.

Luckily, that makes it easy to sink or cripple whale ships too. Sea Shepherd does it all the time. Their motto:

"Don't rock the boat. Sink the fucker."

Capt. Paul Watson is my hero. Inresting: one of his heroes is a civil war ship captain who also rammed and sank whaling ships.

posted by shane 13 June | 12:31

Because it is they way these people feed thier families and have been for a 1000 years.
posted by arse_hat 13 June | 12:28

NOPE!!

Most whaling operations are high-tech, big money operations, mostly Japanese. It takes a damn big ship with a sort of ramp that extends into the sea to drag the whale onboard to be "processed," and other smaller ships to do the killing.

Whalers aren't usually indigenous people looking for food and blubber for their lamps. They're big-money assholes.

I highly recommend Watson's books before making assumptions.

posted by shane 13 June | 12:36

Here's who to complain to. Or rather, complain to our government, who will complain to them.

posted by Miko 13 June | 12:38

(THIS WHALE might have been killed by "traditional Alaskans," but I doubt they live in tents and needed the food for survival. And most whaling is a profit game, not survival.)

posted by shane 13 June | 12:38

No shane, "A hunting quota for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission was recently renewed, allowing 255 whales to be harvested by 10 Alaskan villages over five years." It was killed for personal use.

posted by arse_hat 13 June | 12:39

Sorry to lecture. This just pisses me off to no end.

posted by shane 13 June | 12:39

I just doubt this was a "survival" thing, arse_hat. Native Alaskans are very much a part of economics and modern society.

I'll bow out here before I step on toes or froth at the mouth.

posted by shane 13 June | 12:42

I do think it is a matter of survival. The Inupiaq. Having spent a little time in the far north I can say that villages that still hunt for most of thier food are good places to live. Those that have given up the old ways are horrid places beaten down by drugs and alcohol.

posted by arse_hat 13 June | 13:01

A few things. First, I give the Inuit and other tribes much more moral leeway than the Japanese "research whaling", which seems to be about researching how they taste in expensive restaurants.

Personally I find whaling very distasteful, I have an emotional reaction to that, perhaps instilled in me by books and movies and seeing, "A Whale for the Killing" as a child, but they were and are a food animal, so people will eat them for sustenance, for tradition, or just because other countries tell them they can't.

Whales seem to have become this sacred totem animal that we can all get righteously angry about in conversations held over domestic turkey, veal parmigiana, and pate. Is it somehow more vile to harpoon a whale than to lock a baby cow in small cage so it can't develop muscle tone? Sure a whale has a bigger brain, but how much difference does that, or should that make? It's easy for us to dictate moral policy to a people about how they should behave in a situation that we have no practical understanding of, but do we have any right to?

posted by King of Prontopia 13 June | 13:04

It's part about survival, and part about preserving lifeways. Sure, those backwards Esquimeaux could get with the program and eat tuna out of a can or Big Macs out of a bag, but it's important to them to preserve their heritage; it may create an uncomfortable conflict in our interests to "let" them, but we really wouldn't have it any other way, would we? Is there a line to be drawn? Because some use snowmobiles and trade with whites, they all have to abandon all their traditions? Far Northern hunting traditions make hunting into an encounter between the hunter and the animal's spirit, there's a lot more involved than just an explosive harpoon and filthy lucre. Far North peoples' whale-hunting won't render whales extinct, but the moral whimsy of the white man will render these folk lifeways extinct. Over the centuries, missionaries have done most of that job. Is it now up to Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd to finish them off?

Sorry for the lecture. It's just a lot more complicated than "whaling is bad."

Commercial whaling probably disgusts us all; it certainly does me, and I've said as much over on Meffy.

posted by Hugh Janus 13 June | 13:04

Well said Hugh.

posted by arse_hat 13 June | 13:08

I'd like to take a moment to point folks towards Yuri Rythkeu's A Dream in Polar Fog, which I've recommended here before. It's very good.

posted by Hugh Janus 13 June | 13:13

Well said Hugh and KOP.

posted by Miko 13 June | 13:35

Having spent a little time in the far north I can say that villages that still hunt for most of thier food are good places to live.

Fair enough!

Sorry, I get pretty hot about issues like this.

And, yeah, one Japanese research project concluded that whales eat fish.

Is it now up to Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd to finish them off?

Naw, Greenpeace has no cojones whatsoever and is more likely to bungle into the path of an aggressive Sea Shepherd ship and thwart its goal. And Sea Shepherd ain't targeting Alaskan natives. There's no shortage of big commercial whalers out there.

posted by shane 13 June | 13:46

...we can all get righteously angry about in conversations held over domestic turkey, veal parmigiana, and pate.

Vegan is cool, healthy, and allows you to talk about whales over good food. I recommend it. It's a great way to avoid cancer too.

Veal, fois gras, and all factory farming and assembly- (disassembly-?) line slaughter is hideous, not to mention an absolutely brilliant breeding ground for e-coli, salmonella, bird flu and mad cow. If the planet is lucky, these will be the end of us someday.

posted by shane 13 June | 13:51

So let me get this straight, Sea Shepherd rams manned whaling vessels in an attempt to sink them?

How is that not hunting humans? Or is the excuse that anyone who'd kill a whale isn't human?

posted by Hugh Janus 13 June | 13:59

Sea Shepherd rams manned whaling vessels in an attempt to sink them?

The crew doesn't die (although some of us wouldn't shed a tear.)

Current Featured Sea Shepherd supporter: The Dalai Lama.

:-)

posted by shane 13 June | 14:11

I do not know enough to pass judgment on subsistence whaling. It feels to me that the cultures and whales have evolved together (over the past few thousand years) and I can't blame them for wanting to use modern weapons rather than spears and clubs, which are probably far riskier.

A tribe on the Olympic Peninsula is also in this situation, with a treaty that allows them one or two grey whales per year. They harpoon them but then finish them off with rifles.

But the Japanese, Norwegians, and Icelanders, I don't know of anyone outside those societies that is OK with how they do it.

posted by danf 13 June | 14:20

Although there is a degree of hipocrisy in deciding which mammals are okay to eat, the other question has to do with populations. Some whale populations are (relatively) healthy, while many are quite endangered. You can't say the same about foie gras geese or beef cattle.

posted by Miko 13 June | 14:23

thanks for showing me sea shepherd shane!

i have new heroes today...

posted by Schyler523 13 June | 14:24

The crew doesn't die (or get injured) because they're lucky, or because the Sea Shepherd warns them, or what? And do the rammed whaling ships sink to the bottom, or otherwise spill toxic fuel oil into the environment?

I'm no fan of whaling and whalers, and would support any ban that's imposed, but ramming whaling vessels seems just stupid, like bank robbery as a protest against the IMF. And being gleeful at the possible death of humans is, what's the word? "Hideous."

The Dalai Lama's as prone to mistakes as any person, and he supports many causes due to their political utility to the Tibetan cause: if he can rally support from the same people who support Sea Shepherd, whether he supports self-righteous adrenaline-junkie whale-savers or not, he'll send them a letter and appear in a photo-op.

Not that whaling isn't bad, or that the Dalai Lama isn't good, or that I don't like you and think this is a swell conversation, shane; I just feel skeptical of the Sea Shepherd mission and method.

posted by Hugh Janus 13 June | 14:25

Heh, Schyler, they're a trip. One of their t-shirts lists the ships they've sunk or crippled.

And a while back Watson on his ship the Farley Mowat was given trouble in port in South Africa. They disagreed with his classification of Farley as a "yacht."

The authorities said something like "Yachts are small white boats you drink on."

Watson replied, "All these years after Apartheid you'd think there'd be room for one black yacht in South Africa."

posted by shane 13 June | 14:32

Vegan is cool, healthy, and allows you to talk about whales over good food. I recommend it. It's a great way to avoid cancer too.

Sorry, a practicing omnivore here. Vegan is trendy, I don't concede that it is cool. Vegan is only healthy if you are very careful about balancing what you eat, not to mention that it is only at all practical in industrialized countries, anywhere else you don't have enough access/variety and run the risk of malnutrition. "Good Food" is up to individual taste, so I'll give you that one.

My point was that if I continue to eat meat (which I plan to) I have no right to call anyone else's kettle black. And neither do Vegans, try being a Vegan above the Arctic Circle first. Though Global Warming may make that possible before long. /grin

posted by King of Prontopia 13 June | 14:41

Vegan is trendy, I don't concede that it is cool.

Trendy, cool, who gives a flying one? It's my choice. Everyone else can make their own choices.

Gawd, I hope it's not trendy though. How can it be? Everyone treats us like freaks.
;-)

The original point was, if you're lamenting one species and eating another, you're hypocritical. So, better to be vegan if you're chatty.

Please tell me we can discuss veganism here without it devolding into shit the way it does on MeFi.

OKTKSBYE!!
:-)

posted by shane 13 June | 14:55

"devolving"

posted by shane 13 June | 15:11

As long as we can discuss non-veganism without it devolving into equally shitty shit. Or, if we can't, if we could just let it all hang out and realize that describing other people's choice of diet in insulting or disgusting terms and lumping others in with practitioners of what we consider horrible is as offensive to them as what we consider offensive to us. In short, we could not fling shit if we don't want shit flung at us.

Personally, I don't lament hypocrisy: I think it's part of the human condition. That's what makes me such a big asshole. Being a big asshole makes me a champion shit-flinger (also hanging out with bonobos).

posted by Hugh Janus 13 June | 15:17

if you're lamenting one species and eating another, you're hypocritical.

Not if your concern isn't taking life, but eradicating a population. It's quite possible to oppose whaling and still eat meat without moral inconsistency if that is your motivation.

posted by Miko 13 June | 15:17

Was this another 12 year old with a 50mm pistol?

posted by StickyCarpet 13 June | 15:19

But shane, I DO think there's a big difference between hunting for sport and consuming meat for food. If the Japanese wanted to develop a giant whale farm, where whales were raised for consumption, such that the slaughter of one whale didn't threaten the entire population...well, I'd have the same problems with eating whale that I do with eating beef. Comparing the slaughter of an endangered species to raising and consuming farmed cattle is specious.

posted by muddgirl 13 June | 15:30

Gah, I meant to mention that I'm talking specifically about international whaling operations, not about indiginous tribes that hunt less than 20 whales per season for local purposes. I've heard that in extremely cold environments, the body starts to crave fat in almost any form (I don't think someone could eat enough peanuts to survive in the arctic north).

posted by muddgirl 13 June | 15:34

I was wondering recently how many, in the past few hundred years, humpback whales have wandered upriver from SF bay. I would assume that such an event would be looked at as a blessing from above, for the pre-caucasian humans, or, for that matter, for the caucasians, up to maybe 30 years ago.

Those whales would not have seen the sea again.

posted by danf 13 June | 15:41

As long as we can discuss non-veganism without it devolving into equally shitty shit. Or, if we can't, if we could just let it all hang out and realize that describing other people's choice of diet in insulting or disgusting terms and lumping others in with practitioners of what we consider horrible is as offensive to them as what we consider offensive to us. In short, we could not fling shit if we don't want shit flung at us.

Wait, when did I do any of this? I make it a point not to.

posted by shane 14 June | 10:24

Veal, fois gras, and all factory farming and assembly- (disassembly-?) line slaughter is hideous, not to mention an absolutely brilliant breeding ground for e-coli, salmonella, bird flu and mad cow. If the planet is lucky, these will be the end of us someday.

...seems about as bad as

Vegan is trendy, I don't concede that it is cool.

Neither seems particularly bad to me, but if the latter is a trigger to "devolving into shit the way it does on MeFi," then certainly the former is.

Not that I really think either is particularly contentious, or worthy of concern, but certainly linking non-veganism with a list of diseases and hideous slaughter techniques is at least as offensive as linking veganism with trendiness.

Plus, for people who care about being labeled hypocrites, being labeled a hypocrite for both eating meat and caring about animals while the labeler preemptively cautions you not to label him, isn't quite cricket.

Me, I don't much care; I'm a hypocrite because at the same time I want to save the world, I enjoy the way blood runs down my chin when I eat rare meat. If my stomach could handle it, I'd hunt on all fours, tearing the throats out of my prey in carefully controlled environments that would give all the hunting advantages to me. What I'd like most is to eat the still-beating heart of a bison after running its herd off a cliff and breaking its neck.

But really, this is all crap, I think we agree on the substance of everything here, and the diet shit is all just posturing. My diet won't kill me; a truck bomb or diesel fire or drowning will. I'm at work so I'm pickier than usual, and I don't mean to put you on the spot.

posted by Hugh Janus 14 June | 10:53

13 June 2007