Mass Killing of Dolphins (Kindly Watch This)

[brownprose]

^so the real issue then is preservation, not the manner of killing.

Yes. When the goal is to terminate life, no matter how "gentle" the methods we employ, it is still inhumane. In fact, to kill whales by harpoon bears no difference using a hook line and sinker to catch a catfish. So, what I'm trying to say is -- the call to save the whales on the account of their dastardly killing will only fall on deaf ears.

We save the whales not because they have been brutally treated. We save them because we need them to help keep the whole marine ecosystem dynamic.

is there really a 'humane' way of killing animals for food?

Since the Animal Welfare Act in most countries, slaughtering of livestock have been made "humane" by definition. Electrocution or stunning is widely employed in public and private abattoirs nowadays although "natural" slaughtering (strangulation) is still common in the provinces.

I'm all the more drawn to the idea of picking ripe fruits off a tree or uprooting tubers from the ground.

Maayo pa sis. The Good Book has it that man's original diet was supposed to be Grains, Fruits, Nuts and Herbs until man tried animal flesh. The findings of anthropologist/archaeologists also suggest that the diet of early humans were basically vegetarian until they invented tools.

Maayo tingali magpamembro nalang kaha ta sa Hare Krishna ani. Also reminds me too of that yoga center sa Banilad...Ananda Marga ba to?

[b|tcH_g0dd3sS]

*this topic caught my attention.. bookmarked*

Me too! great exchange eh?

[rodsky]

The findings of anthropologist/archaeologists also suggest that the diet of early humans were basically vegetarian until they invented tools.

This statement somehow erroneously suggests that tools made man a meat-eater, and made him a "killer". The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey seems to hint at this point as well. But it's worth considering that, later on, humans acquired the ability to farm and grow crops and domesticate and raise animals in such farms, a feat that humans owe to the development of a larger brain, that perhaps, was actually the product of him eating animal meat, and developing yet more advanced tools, for his development and progress.

-RODION

[The_Child]

evidence enough in evolution theory, says my professor, is the development of our teeth which is clearly vegetarian.

[kamote_kid]

yes, i do....i think na no matter how "monstrous" a creature may look like, all has its worth and purpose...

That's really it but I'm sure that we won't see the volume of replies and reactions if sharks and crocs are being killed brutally instead of dolphins and whales.

Just for a good read for everybody: Roughly 26-73 million sharks aree being killed by people all over the world every year for either commercial or recreational purposes, that's approximately a lot more than slain dolphins and whales. Sharks are served as seafood in several parts of the world and in India, baby sharks are sold in local markets. They are cooked in a very hot oil and because their bones aren't highly developed yet, they are edible. In Iceland, Greenland sharks are fished to produce hakarl or fermented shark and is regarded as a national dish.

Now a lot worse, there's this well known shark's fin soup. Some here might have already tried this dish but did you know how do they get those fins? They don't kill the shark instead, upon capturing, they rip off it's fin with a hot metal and release the finless shark back into the water. Imagine the kind of pain that is for the shark and it's safe to say that the shark is left for dead in the water.

And this, sharks are killed for their cartilage because people believe that it is effective against cancer and osteoarthritis because of the belief that sharks are immune to cancer and that taking it will also make them immune to cancer. (Now we kill for the wrong beliefs)

And crocodiles? We know why, crocodile leather is one of the best in the world. Aside from that, crocs are also served as food. Crocodile oil is also used for centuries as a natural healing balm.

We kill sharks and crocs for many reasons, may that be for food, for medicinal purposes, for status symbol, or just for vanity's sake and even for the wrong beliefs, that makes dolphins and whales no different. They are serving a good purpose. If most are stressing here that it is a result of a mere tradition I think it is more than that. Those dead dolphins and whales are not left to rot after they are killed, they serve a lot of uses.

This is just a result of our emotions bringing us too far.

[brownprose]

not necessarily, good sir, because ethics is not purely theoretical. it is practical. what is useful or utilitarian is not necessarily long term, useful, or that it is the best system applicable in policy-making. i admit that it is philosophical, but the thread leads inevitably there: questions on ethics. if your telling me that policy-making is totally ignorant of ethical issues in their perspective field, then i believe, that your wrong.

You didn't prove me wrong The_Child. And you're getting the whole picture wrong. Is wildlife preservation a question of PURELY ETHICS (being compassionate you say about the whales) alone or largely an issue of the EXIGENCY OF OUR LONG TERM SURVIVAL?

Sorry, spare us your philosophical annotations -- if you're telling me that ethics is the practical way to see the whole whale killing story then you are reading only one side of the whole issue in which it is the least of the concerns of policy-makers, biologists/environmentalists at this point.

And i disagree that the utilitarian view is the best way to appreciate the view, simple,perhaps, but the best view? i beg to differ. The idea of taking animals, in this case, dolphins and whales having rights that is inherent in them and not just taking them as purely utilitarian is shared not only in the discipline of philosophy, but also in professional ethics: Bioethics, applied ethics, environmental ethics, etc... if you ask a tree-hugger, why he wants to hug trees and save their barks, it either boils down to two, granting that he is not a nutcase; utilitarian/teleological which most of you folks here try to look at, or internal/deontological.

That is your view The_Child. Unfortunately, that is not how I see it and those who are directly involved with the issue. Suggest you tell those policy-makers and environmentalists your side of the story and hope they find time to entertain such ideas.

take "my" philosophical path, please i dont deserve to be labeled with the ownership of that. FYI, the idea of utilitarian ethics in policy, political science, jurisprudence, is quite obsolete.

all though there are usual recurrent of it, it has never been the same after 1950. the idea of distributive justice brought about in 1950 truncated the notion that justice is for what is most useful in society - this is of course in response to your saying that the philosophical or humane way does not motivate policy-making, because it is the very opposite of it. policy-making is based on principles, principles that are formulated in philosophy.

That just sweeps me away. I wish to disagree with you at length The_Child but I don't wish to carry on with the discussion about the whales or dolphins at the theoretical level.

this is one often is being misconstrued, that philosophy is purely detach from the world, which is not so, rather, it is philosophy that makes the world go round. same goes here, when you seem to imply that the philosophical path is akin to BS when it comes to policy-making, which if i may give a very fervent "no" that is not so.

I'm sorry but it is BS. The whale issue is, for the most part, the domain of environmental science -- of the ecosystem and the consequence of our long term survival and NOT PHILOSOPHY. In other words, you don't call a philosopher but a scientist to tell us what's gonna be like without the whales then make a decision. There is little room for scientists to make a stand pertaining to the whales and dolphins based on their philosophical beliefs. In Bertrand Russell's words : Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't. Does that figure now?

so see, how important philosophy is, in policy-making. i hope you do not look at philosophy as purely plato-aristotle-socrates kinda stereotype they teach in local or even the universities in the country, because most of the anglo-saxon world looks at philosophy very differently.

Whatever that is you think The_Child you can go ahead with it. I just hope that one day, one brilliant philosopher from your ranks will come out amongst the scientist to avert the massive killings of the whales

[brownprose]

This statement somehow erroneously suggests that tools made man a meat-eater, and made him a "killer". The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey seems to hint at this point as well. But it's worth considering that, later on, humans acquired the ability to farm and grow crops and domesticate and raise animals in such farms, a feat that humans owe to the development of a larger brain, that perhaps, was actually the product of him eating animal meat, and developing yet more advanced tools, for his development and progress.

-RODION

This is what science tells us..."While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors is still debated, there is consensus that the Pleistocene diet consisted overwhelmingly of vegetable material. The dietary shift (to animal flesh) ranging all the way from the recent past of 10,000-20,000 years ago...skeletal remains are found in conjunction with stone tools and animal bones that have cut marks on them. These cut marks indicate the flesh was scraped away from the bone with human-made tools, and could not have been made in any other way. You also find distinctively smashed bones occurring in conjunction with hammerstones that clearly show they were used to get at the marrow for its fatty material. (Sources: Blumenschine, Robert J. (1992) "Hominid carnivory and foraging strategies, and the socio-economic function of early archaeological sites." In: Whiten A. and Widdowson E.M. (editors/organizers), Foraging Strategies and Natural Diet of Monkeys, Apes, and Humans: Proceedings of a Royal Society Discussion Meeting held on 30 and 31 May, 1991. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. (pp. 51-61); 1993 Milton, Katherine. "Diet and Primate Evolution," Scientific American, pp. 86-93.)

[The_Child]

You didn't prove me wrong The_Child. And you're getting the whole picture wrong. Is wildlife preservation a question of PURELY ETHICS (being compassionate you say about the whales) alone or largely an issue of the EXIGENCY OF OUR LONG TERM SURVIVAL?

Sorry, spare us your philosophical annotations -- if you're telling me that ethics is the practical way to see the whole whale killing story then you are reading only one side of the whole issue in which it is the least of the concerns of policy-makers, biologists/environmentalists at this point.



That is your view The_Child. Unfortunately, that is not how I see it and those who are directly involved with the issue. Suggest you tell those policy-makers and environmentalists your side of the story and hope they find time to entertain such ideas.



That just sweeps me away. I wish to disagree with you at length The_Child but I don't wish to carry on with the discussion about the whales or dolphins at the theoretical level.



I'm sorry but it is BS. The whale issue is, for the most part, the domain of environmental science -- of the ecosystem and the consequence of our long term survival and NOT PHILOSOPHY. In other words, you don't call a philosopher but a scientist to tell us what's gonna be like without the whales then make a decision. There is little room for scientists to make a stand pertaining to the whales and dolphins based on their philosophical beliefs. In Bertrand Russell's words : Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't. Does that figure now?



Whatever that is you think The_Child you can go ahead with it. I just hope that one day, one brilliant philosopher from your ranks will come out amongst the scientist to avert the massive killings of the whales

interesting. i dont think i got it wrong, but correct me if i am mistaken good sir, ethics you misconstrue as purely about "compassion" because thinking about the exigency of our long term survival is in itself also an ethical justification. So you could not purely place the compassion in not killing the whales as purely ethical as opposed to long term survival as something not-ethical. Which is a misunderstand i believe, because both are subsume in ethics.

your second line again is a misunderstanding of the role of ethics which i pointed out above this statement.


your third line speaks as if there is no such thing as ethics in policy-making, which again i mentioned is not so. The very action that policy-making actuates on is based on justifications, and this is the study of ethics, or more generally axiology. True, that they dont dwell with the technical side of ethics, but in policy-making bodies they are so structured that there are departments or adjuncts the deals with ethical issues. thus as i have mentioned, professional ethics: bio-ethics, business ethics, environmental ethic ethics has always been a part of policy-making and i do not know why you state that it is the least that they want to be interested in. every actions revolves around the good, the bad, and the ugly, and this is the place of ethics, and no matter how much you deny it environmentalists and policy-makers have ethics always in the table. Saving the environment has its underpinnings, and these are ethical justifications.


yes, your choice if you do not wish to talk about the issue in theoretical sense, which is rather ironical since the purpose of the forum itself is to talk about talk (theory) practical sense is never a reality in a forum because for somethign to be practical it must be translated to the real world and not the virtual. So far we tend to coat our perspective as practical, it is still theoretical as long as it remains in the confines of this forum.



and again, there you are mistaken. you underestimate philosophy as purely a disciplines of abstractions. I think that it is still taught in most philo 101, that philosophy is that overarching disciplines that connects everything together to coherent whole. The root justification for saving our environment is always philosophical, because it revolves around meaning and values. And of course by quoting Russell im sure you are familiar that by philosophy here he was merely referring to, in protest against how the continental europeans are dealing with philosophy, and that he was not referring to philosophy as a whole. you also teach philosophy, as you said, whereas i am just a student, suffice to point out that philosophy has become a science in Russell's terms. It is the task of philosophy in clarifying terms. So, if i am not mistaken good sir, the context of russell's quote does not really go against the issue i propounded. So i do not see the virtue of the quote.


a brilliant philosopher, (not in my ranks sir, i am no one in that community, not even a professional) i would say brilliant philosophers have already engaged themselves in dialogue with the scientific community. as i have said, the emergence of environmental ethics and animal rights were established by the seminal articles of three australian philosophers and one american. most noted is Peter Singer. which made possible the rational justification of animal rights movement throughout the world.



cheers!

[mil]

Me too! great exchange eh?

*nods head* =)

[Dorothea]

evidence enough in evolution theory, says my professor, is the development of our teeth which is clearly vegetarian.

Not necessarily. Humans haven't developed the razor-sharp teeth that most other predators have, dili tungod anang rason nga vegetarians ta, but because there is simply no reason for us to grow fangs. Unlike wolves, tigers, lions etc etc...kahibaw man ta magpa humok sa baboy ug baka, we know how to cook them to make the flesh tender enough so that sharp teeth won't be necessary. Evolution happens so creatures can adapt better to their environment. There are these really weird-looking fishlike creatures who are only found in the world's most remote caves. They live thousands of feet below the ground, and they live in total and utter darkness. Over thousands of years, these fishes have evolved to adapt to their dark dwellings. They are not just merely blind, they don't have eyes at all. When you live in complete darkness, eyes have no use, thus that manner of evolution.

So kita, kamao man ta mag tinola, nilaga, kaldereta, menudo, mechado, etc etc...we can afford not to evolve into vampiric-looking creatures.

PS. Save the polar bears!