May 21, 2008
God save the prince of whales
Iceland is to resume commercial whaling. Fisheries Minister Einar Kristinn Guðfinnsson has issued an order allowing 40 minke whales to be hunted.
Mr. Gunnar Bergmann Jonsson, head of an Icelandic minke whaling association, sees no problem. He argued that whaling was important to the Icelandic fishing community, which had been hit by quota cuts for cod and capelin. He also said: “There are around 50,000 whales in the waters surrounding Iceland now, and I don’t believe that the fishing of 40 will make any difference for the stock.”
I like that argument. Let’s modulate on this theme: “There are about 300,000 people in Iceland now, and I don’t believe the culling of 40 of them will make any difference for the stock”.
Commercial whaling by some of the richest countries in the world (Japan, Iceland, Norway) is an obscenity, only slightly less repugnant than disguising commercial whaling as scientific research. Even aboriginal permit whaling is little more than pandering to the guilt feelings of the affluent (post-) industrial world about the destruction of the traditional lifestyles and livelihoods of native peoples. I have no patience with folkloristic nostalgia for lifestyles we never knew, probably don’t understand and would be desperate to abandon if we found ourselves lumbered with them.
Whales are highly intelligent, social mammals with elaborate family and kinship structures, sophisticated and rich communication and intricate rituals. They ought not to be treated as fodder when alternative sources of equivalent nutrition are readily available. The arrogance of the human race really knows no bounds, if we believe that the rest of creation is there just for our convenience, and that other creatures live or die at our pleasure.
I am aware that the unavoidable logic of this argument points to a vegetarian, even a vegan lifestyle, and that I am unwilling/unable as yet to give up on animal foods and other products. But I recognise that the Jain hold the moral high ground, I and will try to starve the beast.
In the meantime, I will follow my wife and make a contribution to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. With a bit of luck they will be able to harass whale murderers everywhere to the point that whaling is abandoned and the search for alternative socially productive employment for the unemployed harpoonists can begin. They could probably become professional dart players.
One final idea. Iceland’s central bank has recently arranged swap arrangements with the three Scandinavian central banks to allow it to defend its currency and its commercial banks more effectively in the current financial crisis. Maybe there should be a loans-for-whales swap (euro loans or contingent credit lines in exchange for a suspension of whale hunting for the duration of the facility). At least the whales would represent solid collateral.
Why are the ethics of whale hunting of concern to this blog? Has the FT changed to ET? As far as I can tell from looking around, we don’t live in Ethical Times.
So, then, what are the economics of whale hunting? If it’s just state-sponsored behavioral therapy for fishermen who long for the olden days, it should be scrapped just like any agricultural subsidy. If there is a market for whale meat, sell it. (I had whale carpaccio in Oslo two years back, and it was truly divine, an experience I wouldn’t trade for much.)
Andreas
Posted by: docandreas | May 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm | Report this commentAre you all aware that the economic downturn has resulted in a big increase in abandoned dogs, turned out of their owners’ homes? Acc. to The
Independent online.
In Switzerland one now has to attend 15 hours of lessons on how to care for a dog, in order to get permission to buy a dog. Of course, the knock-on effect is dog-smuggling, like the Hungarian who locked a dog in the trunk of his car, and drove to Switzerland to sell it and make money. The dog was nearly dead when the border police discovered it.
Posted by: J.J. | May 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Report this commentMr Buitler,
It is ironic that the more attention people give to whaling, the more determined (and well-funded!) its supporters become.
Japanese friends have told me that were it not for the international media frenzy surrounding whaling, the industry would have long become commercially unviable. It is highly unprofitable. Whale is an expensive delicacy at best, unpopular and relatively rare in Japan.
Pushing for a ban just encourages the Japanese and Icelandic governments to dig their heels in more as they are backed into a corner.
Some Japanese are fed up of being told what to do by other countries, so it helps the whalers´ agenda by stirring up nationalistic sentiment. Just imagine the reaction if countries in Asia had sent out taskforces to disrupt fox-hunting in the UK. “Mind your own business!” we would have said.
Most of the statistics seem to suggest that the population itself is not under serious threat, but that is not really the issue here.
It seems this bashing of whaling is now a fashionable pastime in the West. What exactly makes a whale any different from a cow or a sheep? The methods used to kill are equally barbaric.
Let me be clear. I am no supporter of whaling.
I fail to see, however, why these people should be called “whale murderers” if other forms of meat are considered OK. You admit this yourself, but I wonder why you are so passionate about whales in particular. Subjective cuteness should not be a criterion for international policy.
Posted by: Rohan Hartley | May 21st, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Report this comment“Whales are highly intelligent, social mammals with elaborate family and kinship structures, sophisticated and rich communication and intricate rituals. They ought not to be treated as fodder when alternative sources of equivalent nutrition are readily available.”
No-one is treating them as fodder - they are not killing them for kicks, you know.
The comparison between killing a human and a whale is absurd. This is typical of the bambi-ish attitude we take to the animal world nowadays.
Iceland is right - killing 40 whales will make a tiny impact on the vast whale population.
I fully understand the vegan or vegetarian logic. Yours, however, is deeply flawed, naive and based entirely on wimpish emotions.
Posted by: Will Heaven | May 21st, 2008 at 11:14 pm | Report this commentMr Buiter,
There is a huge paradox here: The continuation of this economically doubtful practice is assured by those who oppose it – like yourself - on moral but scientifically ignorant grounds.
Unless you truly believe that whales are holy cows, there is no scientific basis for opposing commercial whaling on the abundant minke whale resources hunted by countries such as Iceland and Norway. Yet, at the same time there is no commercial basis for the whaling industry. Whale meat is not a particularly interesting culinary experience and what little demand there is for whale produce is mostly driven by nostalgia and nationalistic fervour brought on by the world’s insistence that they can’t have it – i.e. a classic case of enjoyment of what others say you can’t have. Few Norwegians and Icelanders actually eat whale meat and whaling only survives due to government subsidies. The paradox is that the indignation over the world’s ignorance of scientific facts has made it politically impossible to oppose the continued waste of tax payer’s money on this environmentally sustainable, but fiscally unsound practice. As a Norwegian tax payer, it is this latter aspect that worries me.
The rational way out of this whole nonsense would be as follows:
Posted by: Andreas Emblem | May 22nd, 2008 at 9:51 am | Report this comment1) The world – including formidable FT columnists - stops taking an interest in the hunting on well managed and sustainable stocks, instead focussing its firepower on that part of the whaling industry that is praying on endangered species - and beyond that the abundance of real environmental problems in this world.
2) The absence of outside interest will make the whaling industries of Norway and Iceland look like what they are: Not totems of scientific reason and nationalistic fervour, but a few shabby, old unprofitable boats hunting a produce that hardly anybody really wants to eat, all at a ridiculous cost to tax payers.
3) This might just make it possible to argue the case for closing the tap on this particular drain on public finances, even if the current abundance of oil money in Norway and (until recently) cheap credit in Iceland probably feeds traditional insistence on throwing bad money after bad money.
Mr Buiter,
I agree with you on every point you make.
Posted by: CBB | May 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm | Report this commentTo those who say there are plenty of whales in the sea and losing a few won’t make a difference, I would say, there used to be a lot of cod in the sea but losing a few made a huge difference. The same applies to all plants and animals that have been hunted to extinction by ignorant humans.
I take issue with the idea that whale has no culinary interest. I ate whale in Norway a year or so back and found it delicious - like something in between a rare beef steak and tuna. The Japanese - expert as they are with seafood of every kind - no doubt do very tasty things with whale. The fishery is vanishingly small compared with that of other species, many of which display very impressive and complex social behavior in their own right. Tuna routinely crisscross the Atlantic, swim faster than 60 km/h, and can grow as large as 4.5 meters in length and 650kg in weight. Amazing! Yet the bulk of the world catch of this great creature ends up consumed without a second thought in the dubious company of mayonnaise and fluffy white bread. Personally, I think it’s a marvel that eels travel thousands of miles to the Sargasso Sea to mate. But does this imply I should stop eating them? As is often noted, any attempt to justify or exclude the consumption of certain species based on perceived intelligence or sophistication is a slippery slope with the implication that it is morally preferable to eat the slow and the dumb. Finally, from a regional sovereignty perspective I think that anyone who has spent their life outside of coastal Europe has a lot of nerve imposing their value system on isolated and poorly endowed fishing communities. I do not agree with a lot of what passes for business in the City of London. I don’t think much of the vegan lifestyle either. But these are just personal opinions.
The IWC has declared that Minke whales are not at present anywhere close to being endangered. To reduce animal cruelty we would do better to focus on the world of livestock commodity production. It is no secret that the vast majority of restaurants and retailers in the US and Europe source their meats from large commodity wholesalers. The toll of suffering resulting from the consumption of industrially reared meats makes whaling look saintly in comparison.
Posted by: Charlie | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm | Report this commentIt seems that you have watched one Disney movie too many. In principle there’s little difference between whales and cows, considering that minke whales are not in danger of extinction. Cute animals are no more worthy of protection than non-cute animals.
Posted by: toao | May 23rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm | Report this commentWillem B. falls for charismatic megafauna! The old sentimentalist.
At least WB admits there’s no principled reason for it, given his other moral choices. Maybe the Icelanders are making their little gestures towards the Jains’ high ground in other issue-areas or products?
Posted by: otto | May 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am | Report this commentSo much for our planned visit to Iceland.
Posted by: Norbert | May 26th, 2008 at 8:06 pm | Report this commentSo, killing whales is wrong because killing whales is wrong? God save us from unjustified self-righteousness.
There are plenty of rational arguments that can be made against the hunting of whales in specific circumstances. Unfortunately, none are made in this blog post.
There may even be rational arguments to support the idea that killing any whale at any time is also unacceptable. However, I am yet to encounter any.
Posted by: Andrei Timoshenko | May 27th, 2008 at 11:10 am | Report this commentAndrei says that “There are plenty of rational arguments that can be made against the hunting of whales in specific circumstances. Unfortunately, none are made in this blog post.”
I don’t think that blog posts necessarily need to be carefully weighted and evidenced articles. Sometimes I think it’s perfectly okay to point out that something is a bit whiffy - and hunting whales really stinks…
If you’re interested in reasoned arguments you could always check out the WSPA website, of course
Posted by: Peter Dunkley | May 27th, 2008 at 7:22 pm | Report this commentDear Sir,
I think we should instead eat human beings. They’re very nutritious you know. And a lot of them seem to be more idiotic than other animal species. Some academic, considering most of them don’t do anything, should devise a ‘consumable’ test for humans, all humans that pass the test are legally eatable by other humans. I’m quite sure a lot of folks would love to nibble on ‘George Bush’ fillet.
Save the Whale,
Franz K
Posted by: Franz K | June 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 pm | Report this comment