Why don't we exploit whales commercially?

[Boerseun]

Haven't you ever been to Sea World or seen the movie Free Willie?

Haven't been to Sea World, but I did see the movie. Banal exploitation of humans' propensity for anything antropocentric. Involving human-like emotions and so-called intelligence, it is frowned upon to say anything negative about this particular flick, although it might be wise to go and check out the amount of Oscars it won. Blatant, banal flick for superficial and shallow emotion-junkies. My score: 0/10

Whales are not just intelligent, they also have the ability to communicate.

What do you base their purported intelligence on? The fact that they can jump through hoops or do any other Pavlovian tricks? It's mighty hard to get an orca to do tricks if you don't give it a fish afterwards. Cows, sheep, even chickens also communicate - and they taste grrrrrreat! The fact that we are impressed with the whales' singing and whistling in their communications, just goes to show that anything antropocentric will get our attention. Mighty unscientific, though.

They even seem to display some of the same emotions as humans.

So what? Antropocentricity alert... Science isn't about feeling sorry for the animals we can relate to, it's about understanding the whole web and interactions from the simplest bacteria up all the way to the most advanced multicellular animal. And to understand the flow of energy through all the different biomes. And that's where the great whales come in - being the consumers of the largest biological mass on the planet (plankton) they are handy containers of protein, as close to the pyramid's base as possible. We can then get a heck of a lot of protein with minimum waste through the chain.

We still have much to learn about them, and they are of greater scientific value alive.

Certainly. And putting a ban on hunting them, dissecting them, studying them, and eating them, isn't helping at all.

Wild whales may also become more fearful of humans from hearing the cries and moans of the captave whales, who can't be kept too far from the sea, becoming more difficult for marine biologists to study.

So the poor bastards are gonna live in fear, right? Ever been to a slaughterhouse? Ever seen the look in a cow's face when they start to smell the blood? Exactly. If that's an issue, then we'll have to stop slaughtering any all animals right now. If we want consistency, that is.

And after all, it was not elephant farming which ensured the survival of the wild African elephant, it was a ban on ivory.

Interesting issue, this. I happen to live in South Africa, home of the fabled Kruger NAtional Park. And in the park, elephant culling was done on a scientific basis ever since the park was founded. And in the early '90's, the tree-huggers won their battle to stop elephant culling, using very much the same line of reasoning that your have been using (intelligence, emotions, communication skills, etc.). Basically antropocentrism won over common sense and science. Now - the Kruger National Park is about twice the size of Israel. And they used to maintain an elephant population of about 7,000 individual animals. And everybody was happy. After the early '90's, though, the population have surged to more than 15,000 elephants. Now - before you shout "Go Elephants!", keep the consequences in mind. The park can't sustain 15,000 elephants, simply by virtue of them being extremely destructive. The park is being destroyed, and all animals are suffering for it. The Greens say that the animals should be moved to parks that need elephants. Problem is - elephants are very territorial. You move them to another park, and they will trample every fence in their way to get back to their old haunts. You can't move elephants. They are, from your perspective, too intelligent for that. Besides, it's very expensive to move an individual. In the old days, the management of the elephant programme was paid for by the sale of elephant products - the controlled sale of ivory, elephant meat products, hides, etc. Today, they have to beg for money to maintian the park, 'cause the Greens in all their wisdom have cut off one of the Park's main sources of income.

Now that the ivory trade is banned, poaching has increased, 'cause the price on the black market have surged. The controlled culling of elephants and the controlled sale of the products is not beneficial only to the elephant population, but to the whole park.

The Greenies have shown themselves to have their hearts in the right places, but sometimes it seems as if they don't think an issue through. Or they simply don't understand the emotionless science behind it. Or they are just too subjective. Or plain stupid.

[Boerseun]

...and there's no such story as the African Elephant being endangered. Quite the opposite, actually. This is just another example of the bleeding hearts telling everybody how the elephants are suffering, to get donations, to make money. If there's a central place where you have to make your deposit, I suppose they could call it an "Exploitation Donation Station". Now THAT was extremely weak...

 

Any case - the ban on ivory trade will have a temporary spike in the population levels as a result, and then, when their numbers have increased beyond what the ecosystem can carry, there MUST be a population crash. All the way past the sustainable figures of the early '90's. THEN they will be in real danger of extinction. Thanks to the ban on ivory trade.

 

Like I said - the Green's hearts are in the right places - but their brains seem to be up their collective rectums.

[Fishteacher73]

...and there's no such story as the African Elephant being endangered. Quite the opposite, actually. This is just another example of the bleeding hearts telling everybody how the elephants are suffering, to get donations, to make money. If there's a central place where you have to make your deposit, I suppose they could call it an "Exploitation Donation Station". Now THAT was extremely weak...

 

Any case - the ban on ivory trade will have a temporary spike in the population levels as a result, and then, when their numbers have increased beyond what the ecosystem can carry, there MUST be a population crash. All the way past the sustainable figures of the early '90's. THEN they will be in real danger of extinction. Thanks to the ban on ivory trade.

 

Like I said - the Green's hearts are in the right places - but their brains seem to be up their collective rectums.

 

The biggest problem with the elephant is habitat distruction and fragmentation. Quite simply the problem with most ecological issues is that there are just too damn many of us.

[Boerseun]

The biggest problem with the elephant is habitat distruction and fragmentation. Quite simply the problem with most ecological issues is that there are just too damn many of us.

 

Too true, too true. So - in order for us to save the world, shouldn't we be looking into something like the Chinese 1-child policy? If we automate manufacturing on an even larger scale than in the last 100-odd years, we won't need labourers as badly. Every skilled worker will be working in the Services and Knowledge sectors, with all unskilled labour largely sitting unemployed at home. So - promote the idea of single-child families, then families can use all their resources to ensure the single child an advanced education, which will be beneficial to the ecosystem. Heck - they might even get a taste for whalemeat!

[Fishteacher73]

I am personally for mandatory infant vasectomies. You would have to apply to get it reversed. A pre-emptive eugenics.

[bumab]

Not a bad idea fish... take care of the adoption problem as well.

[Boerseun]

I think we're getting slightly off-topic here.

However - I was listening to the radio today, and they had an interesting program on where they said that people were always complaining about stuff - now they had to phone in, lay their complaint, and propose a possible solution.

So - how about it? Let's start a discussion based on environmental problems, like the above couple of postings, but you can't state an issue (like overpopulation) without giving a possible (realistic also, of course - not shipping everybody off to Mars or such) solution to the issue.

Anything goes - overpopulation, global warming, etc. - as long as it's a scientifically relevant issue. No complaints about the Jehova's witnesses, or stuff like that.

How about it, Tormod?

[Queso]

speaking as a moderator underneath tormod i gotta say you should just start a thread with that discussion. no need for permission, just go for it. we'll all get a kick out of it eventually!

[Kukucan]

Haven't been to Sea World, but I did see the movie. Banal exploitation of humans' propensity for anything antropocentric. Involving human-like emotions and so-called intelligence, it is frowned upon to say anything negative about this particular flick, although it might be wise to go and check out the amount of Oscars it won. Blatant, banal flick for superficial and shallow emotion-junkies. My score: 0/10

 

What do you base their purported intelligence on? The fact that they can jump through hoops or do any other Pavlovian tricks? It's mighty hard to get an orca to do tricks if you don't give it a fish afterwards. Cows, sheep, even chickens also communicate - and they taste grrrrrreat! The fact that we are impressed with the whales' singing and whistling in their communications, just goes to show that anything antropocentric will get our attention. Mighty unscientific, though.

 

So what? Antropocentricity alert... Science isn't about feeling sorry for the animals we can relate to, it's about understanding the whole web and interactions from the simplest bacteria up all the way to the most advanced multicellular animal. And to understand the flow of energy through all the different biomes. And that's where the great whales come in - being the consumers of the largest biological mass on the planet (plankton) they are handy containers of protein, as close to the pyramid's base as possible. We can then get a heck of a lot of protein with minimum waste through the chain.

 

Certainly. And putting a ban on hunting them, dissecting them, studying them, and eating them, isn't helping at all.

 

So the poor bastards are gonna live in fear, right? Ever been to a slaughterhouse? Ever seen the look in a cow's face when they start to smell the blood? Exactly. If that's an issue, then we'll have to stop slaughtering any all animals right now. If we want consistency, that is.

 

Interesting issue, this. I happen to live in South Africa, home of the fabled Kruger NAtional Park. And in the park, elephant culling was done on a scientific basis ever since the park was founded. And in the early '90's, the tree-huggers won their battle to stop elephant culling, using very much the same line of reasoning that your have been using (intelligence, emotions, communication skills, etc.). Basically antropocentrism won over common sense and science. Now - the Kruger National Park is about twice the size of Israel. And they used to maintain an elephant population of about 7,000 individual animals. And everybody was happy. After the early '90's, though, the population have surged to more than 15,000 elephants. Now - before you shout "Go Elephants!", keep the consequences in mind. The park can't sustain 15,000 elephants, simply by virtue of them being extremely destructive. The park is being destroyed, and all animals are suffering for it. The Greens say that the animals should be moved to parks that need elephants. Problem is - elephants are very territorial. You move them to another park, and they will trample every fence in their way to get back to their old haunts. You can't move elephants. They are, from your perspective, too intelligent for that. Besides, it's very expensive to move an individual. In the old days, the management of the elephant programme was paid for by the sale of elephant products - the controlled sale of ivory, elephant meat products, hides, etc. Today, they have to beg for money to maintian the park, 'cause the Greens in all their wisdom have cut off one of the Park's main sources of income.

Now that the ivory trade is banned, poaching has increased, 'cause the price on the black market have surged. The controlled culling of elephants and the controlled sale of the products is not beneficial only to the elephant population, but to the whole park.

The Greenies have shown themselves to have their hearts in the right places, but sometimes it seems as if they don't think an issue through. Or they simply don't understand the emotionless science behind it. Or they are just too subjective. Or plain stupid.

Antropocentric?

 

Do you mean anthropocentric? If so, it would be quite ironic seeing how the definition of anthropocentric (with an "h") is "regarding man as the central fact or final aim of the universe".

 

Anthropomorphic would seem to fit more correctly to your argument.

 

If your knowledge of whale intelligence is limited to dolphins and orcas doing tricks, it is not dissimilar to the creationists lack of knowledge about geology. There is scientific documentation on this subject.

 

Aditionally, your idea for commercial whale exploitation falls short of being convincing for practical reasons. For example the great whales such as the blue whale, how will they be fed and bred, and where will they be kept? After all, they are not only the largest animal alive today but the largest animal that has ever lived, up to 30 m in length, even bigger than dinosaurs.

 

"New Agers", "tree-huggers", "Greenies"...

Like I said - the Green's hearts are in the right places - but their brains seem to be up their collective rectums.

Sounds like those cable news shows where they shout at each other.

[Boerseun]

Antropocentric?

 

Do you mean anthropocentric? If so, it would be quite ironic seeing how the definition of anthropocentric (with an "h") is "regarding man as the central fact or final aim of the universe".

Yes. I stand corrected. Antropocentric is actually spelt with an 'h'. Although I don't quite see the relevance of a spell-check in this specific thread. This thread is about the viability of exploiting whales commercially.

 

Anthropomorphic would seem to fit more correctly to your argument.

No. Anthropocentric is the word.

 

If your knowledge of whale intelligence is limited to dolphins and orcas doing tricks, it is not dissimilar to the creationists lack of knowledge about geology. There is scientific documentation on this subject.

My knowledge of whale intelligence is not limited to the above. However, seeing as this is a forum, for the sake of brevity, the above examples which are well-known, was selected to illustrate my point. I fail to see the point you're making with the above regarding Creationists and Geology.

 

Aditionally, your idea for commercial whale exploitation falls short of being convincing for practical reasons. For example the great whales such as the blue whale, how will they be fed and bred, and where will they be kept? After all, they are not only the largest animal alive today but the largest animal that has ever lived, up to 30 m in length, even bigger than dinosaurs.

I see you have failed to read the thread. I have mentioned on several occasions that there are huge logistical issues and considerations, but, if agriculture over the last couple of centuries is anything to go by, once there's a price on their heads, someone will figure out a way to overcome these obstacles. The Profit Motive will provide...

A couple 'o thousand years ago, people would've told you you're mad if you told them you're gonna fence in a couple of bulls. Since then, we have, through selective breeding, removed almost all signs of agression out of these beasts, we have invented barbed wire, etc.

 

"New Agers", "tree-huggers", "Greenies"...

 

Sounds like those cable news shows where they shout at each other.

No. You have missed my point completely.

This thread is about the viability of exploiting a resource that's swamped in controversy, the issue being clouded with mass media coining it on human emotions in shameless, banal flicks like 'Free Willy', etc. I am looking for sober comments pro as well as con, not spellchecks and semantics.

[Chacmool]

Antropocentric?

 

If your knowledge of whale intelligence is limited to dolphins and orcas doing tricks, it is not dissimilar to the creationists lack of knowledge about geology. There is scientific documentation on this subject.

 

You are comparing apples and oranges. If you've read some of Boerseun's other posts, you'll know that he supports evolution theory and has ample knowledge of geology. This has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

Is whales' perceived superior intelligence the main factor that stimulates objections to their being exploited commercially (in ecologically sound ways)? When is an animal deemed intelligent enough to be protected? Koalas aren't particularly known for their brilliance, but still we protect them. And isn't an ant very intelligent for the environment he/she lives in? But we don't generally think of them as intelligent, and no one will cry if they are exploited. Maybe the ants are asking themselves right now whether they should exploit Kukucans commercially.

[Kukucan]

Yes. I stand corrected. Antropocentric is actually spelt with an 'h'. Although I don't quite see the relevance of a spell-check in this specific thread. This thread is about the viability of exploiting whales commercially.

I wasn't sure if "antropocentric" was a word I haven't heard of.

 

No. Anthropocentric is the word.

Anthropocentrism basically means human-centered, as in man has no direct moral responsibilities toward, or even that man is superior to, whales so why not exploit them them commercially for protein. I am sure you know what "egocentric" and "ethnocentric" mean... see the similarity?

 

On the other hand, anthropomorphism means "attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena".

[Kukucan]

My knowledge of whale intelligence is not limited to the above. However, seeing as this is a forum, for the sake of brevity, the above examples which are well-known, was selected to illustrate my point.

Oh, as in your 521 word brief detour about the tree-huggers, African Elephants, bleeding hearts and Greenies, and something to do with rectums...

 

...and your point conveniently lacked a single reference to any "scientific" research in the area of whale intelligence.

[Kukucan]

I see you have failed to read the thread. I have mentioned on several occasions that there are huge logistical issues and considerations, but, if agriculture over the last couple of centuries is anything to go by, once there's a price on their heads, someone will figure out a way to overcome these obstacles. The Profit Motive will provide...

A couple 'o thousand years ago, people would've told you you're mad if you told them you're gonna fence in a couple of bulls. Since then, we have, through selective breeding, removed almost all signs of agression out of these beasts, we have invented barbed wire, etc.

Now comparing whales to bulls is like comparing apples and oranges. You really don't seem to comprehend the enormity of your proposal. Not to mention the fact that protein isn't all that scarce and especially that very few people are even likely to be interested in eating whale meat. There is no profit motive without demand.

[Kukucan]

No. You have missed my point completely.

No, actually I got your point. You see, I was making a point myself about your not exactly sober debate tactics which are not unlike those seen on cable news channel shouting matches.

[Boerseun]

No, actually I got your point. You see, I was making a point myself about your not exactly sober debate tactics which are not unlike those seen on cable news channel shouting matches.

Okaaaaaaay.........................

I'll see if I can make this a bit simpler for you, in a non-cable TV format:

 

Whe don't exploit whales.

Why?

 

The above is the extent of my question.

 

Don't we exploit them 'cause they are intelligent? You attack me for not referring to scientific studies of whale intelligence. Show me some whale SAT-scores.

 

You assume there will be no market for whale products. Years of hunting whales to satisfy markets for diverse whale products from baleen for corsets to whale oil testifies otherwise.

 

You are not proven right in any way by saying that the enormity of my proposal, or question, for that matter, makes it impractical; my question has nothing to do with logistics. What I'm saying is that whoever cares to "farm" whales, should sort out the logistics - 'cause if there's a market, there will be a solution. In South Africa, we haul gold out of the Earth from mine shafts more than 4 kilometers deep. This would have been deemed impossible a few years ago, but market pressures made the development of deep mining possible, and profitable.

 

Anthropocentrism is the guitar, anthropomorphism the string. The reason they design anthropomorphic toys, like bears with human faces and smiles etc., is because it pulls our anthropocentric strings. The reason we are impressed with stupid movies like "Free Willy", is because they shamelessly assign anthropomorphic elements to a killer whale, which, of course, pulls our anthropocentric strings. It's all about "us". *Of course* animals will act like "us", they will even give up their own characteristics to be more like "us", because it's all about "us". I really don't want to discuss this with you, we can open up a thread in the Philosophy section to take it further.

 

I want to know why we aren't exploiting whales commercially, and you aren't helping me here.

 

And no, Chacmool, although I do know a fair amount of Geology, I am definitely NOT a supporter of Creationism! Thanks for the support, though...

[Chacmool]

And no, Chacmool, although I do know a fair amount of Geology, I am definitely NOT a supporter of Creationism! Thanks for the support, though...

 

I know you're not! My sincerest apologies, Boerseun! I actually meant to say completely the opposite, but I was in a rush when I typed it, my wires got crossed (must be old age or something) and it came out wrong. I realised later that I'd made a mistake, but haven't had the time to correct it until now. I hope this sets the record straight.