In my Topics in Marine Science class that I teach at Western Washington University, we spend a week on marine mammals and a portion of that time talking about whaling. We discuss the use of whale oil for illuminants, the 1930s as the Whaling Olympic era, the devastation of certain whale populations, and the formation of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). We examine the shift in values as a world that was largely pro-whaling became largely anti-whaling and how science (e.g., the discovery of whale song) and conservation (e.g., Greenpeace) played a role in that ethical shift.
I ask my students to examine this graph, which tells the sad story of the fate of the southern hemisphere blue whale. The maroon bars are historical whaling hunts and the blue line is an estimate of former blue whale abundance based on a population models by Line Christensen, formerly of the UBC Fisheries Centre. The current southern blue whale population is less than 5% of the population pre-whaling.
I ask the students if we can generalize from this trend. I present genetic research, such as the study in Science by Roman & Palumbi, which used mitochondrial DNA to reconstruct former population sizes and confirms that many whale populations are mere crumbs compared to times past. I show them similar graphs for North Atlantic humpback and Northwest Pacific gray whales and they quickly realize that the blue whale's fate is not unique.
Then I show my students a similar graph for North Atlantic minke whales, which have also been called the "cockroaches of the sea" by one Japanese official.
And I ask them to explain why we don't want to whale minke whales. They look at the graph and they give insightful responses such as: "maybe the minke population was much higher in the time before the start of the x-axis" (and, since we have also discussed shifting baselines, this is a plausible and intelligent explanation, but is not the reason); or, "maybe the population decrease in the 1950s and '60s made managers nervous"; or, "maybe it's because minke whales are small and it is better to catch big whales".
Actually, the minke whale population is fairly stable and appears to be a rather good example of sustainability (i.e., things stay the same). So why is the international community largely opposed to killing them? Finally, some shy student will suggest that maybe we don't think killing them is right.
Bingo.
The numbers do not justify why many people (I dare say most) are opposed to killing minke whales. The ethics do. We came to believe that minke whales have the right to live. This sentiment lies outside the boundaries of science.
I am so thankful for the minke example. And I believe my students are, too.
Some scientists are hesitant to discuss ethics (let alone promote their own). As one top scientist recently wrote to me when I proposed to work on a new policy paper together:
I have a very firm personal policy not to put my name on papers or editorials that promote or favour any particular set of values or preferences, and your outline clearly is an attempt to promote conservation values and risk averse policies.
I understand how one's beliefs can endanger one's science (take, for instance, the fortunately now unpopular field of eugenics) and how ethical lines can be hazy (as can be the case in the eradication of invasive species). But I also believe in teaching my students about how ethics can trump science in the same way that corrupt politics or corporate greed can.
And I believe the wider one's ethical umbrella, the better (even if I can also occasionally find vegans who espouse all their particularities annoying).
Eventually, I hope an ethical principle similar to the one for whales can extend to other members of the marine world, as does Carl Safina with his promotion of a sea ethic. And I look forward to the day when we think about fish as more than simply seafood, just as we came to respect the lives of whales--even those considered to be the cockroaches of the sea.
As Daniel Pauly and I wrote in our first paper together:
When whales were on the brink of extinction, the primary avenue of protection was not a campaign in opposition to using whale oil or against eating whales. Whaling ceased after the emergence and wide public acceptance of a 'whale mythology', which de-commodified them. The moratorium on whaling, ratified by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), was a direct result of the revulsion toward whaling felt through most of the Western world. It is only when a similar revulsion is felt by the public about the wholesale destruction of fish populations and marine ecosystems that we can hope to save them from our management and our appetite.
- Log in to post comments
I hope that a similar ethical phenomenon will be established soon to protect blue fin tuna.
Whopping good post. The Pauly quote is particularly valuable, I'll use it in teaching. Undergrads in biology, who of course receive an overdose of "value-neutral" basic science, respond very positively to my lectures combining social with basic science. Don Strong
Your ethics determine only your actions.
However your ethics do not, and can not, determine the actions of other people, unless you believe that your ethics trump the human rights of others.
So long as you keep this in mind, I don't find what you have said here to be troubling.
Thanks for a great posting. Dr Pauly's work has been inspiring, - in simply forcing us to take a different view of conservation issues, rather than accept the norms of current debate. I.e. Japanese Government estimates of present and previous populations of minkes.
Kiyoshi sans comments are interesting if it is accepted that human rights means that we as humans can do anything we wish to other species, as long as it does not infringe on another human. Well, whaling infringes my human rights in wishing to see these species protected from such unnecessary exploitation does that mean that Icelandic, Norwegian and Japanese commercial whaling interests should cease their actions immediately?
Ms. Jacquet,
Thank you for saying this.
Two summers ago my family was visited by a mother and two child humpbacks on Stellwagen's bank in Cape Cod Bay and I got this underwater photo of one of the young humpbacks, who was about 25 feet long:
http://www.dougwatts.com
They swam under and around our boat for about 10 minutes, surfacing often, always within 5 feet of the hull and swimming very carefully so as not to hit the boat. The mother was about 55 feet long. They kept coming up to look at us. The mother could have flipped the boat over with one shove of her flukes and she knew it. But they just came to visit and say hello.
Everyone on our boat (4 adults, 4 kids) knew we were being watched/probed by animals that were as smart as we are. The feeling they gave off as they investigated our 26 foot boat was uncanny, undescribable and undeniable. I will never forget it.
We were about 1/2 way between Provincetown and Plymouth.
Cheers,
Doug Watts
Augusta, Maine
But you are not hunting minke whales.
Other people are, and some of them feel that they can be sustainably hunted, have been so for centuries, and are good to eat.
Many of them also feel that your ethical concerns are no more relevant than the millions who feel beef or pork should not be eaten.
How do you propose to resolve this difference?
Mr. Sigurdsson,
It is well established by innumerable biometric standards that whales are as or more intelligent than any of the great apes. Whales have consciousness and are self-aware. Whales possess language and use it extensively. Whales have been documented attempting to communicate with humans.
It is you, Mr. Sigurdsson, who are a failure in intelligence, language arts and ethics. By the standard that you attempt to apply to whales, it should be legal for people to have a "sustainable harvest" of you, with grenade cannons.
The best way to "resolve this difference" is for you to climb out of the early 4th century and enter the 21st century.
Good luck.
Let's try an example of that thinking:
"Your ethics do not, and can not, determine that other people may not rape, steal, or murder. That would be an infringement of those people's human rights to rape, steal, and murder."
Huh. Interesting.
"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party."
Nothing like scapegoating to establish one's credentials.
Dear Mr Watts,
I was not aware of this exceptional cetacean intelligence, my understanding is that most of the species had intelligence comparable to that of dogs.
Could you tell me which of the 70+ rather different whale species possess such exceptional intelligence? Does it include Bowhead whales hunted by the US? Or Right whales run being rammed into extinction by US cargo ships?
It is very apparent that is not just legal but actively encouraged in many supposedly civilized nations to hunt humans with "grenade cannons"[sic] - I believe that is being done right now in several places by, among others, a number of representatives of the US people - they are very good at it, when directed to do so by the US.
So, how about you get off the moral high horse and start contemplating how to deal with a real world where peoples experiences and priorities differ?
Sounds like a great topic for an ethics or a "Topics" course, but as mentioned, this is outside the realm of science. I applaud the effort to teach students that ethics have a role in society, but it also is important to educate them on the dangers of mixing ethics and scientific research, as you mention. So many times I have seen possibly good science looked down upon because of the clearly biased views of the author. Sure, scientists can have strong opinions, but your science better be much more solid since it will come under even more scrutiny. Your conclusions will be taken with a healthy grain of salt. "Is she speaking as a scientist or an advocate," they will ask.
I've never read this blog before (and may/may not stumble to it in the future). I'm appalled by Mr. Watts' comments towards Steinn. Holy cow, dude, lay off with the name calling. Excellent example how your personal opinion discredits your earlier thoughts and leaves me indifferent to your statements. Keep it clean. Steinn raised some important questions... Is it right to assign animal rights based on perceived intelligence? Pigs are smart, too. Where do we draw the line, and wherever we do, are we going to expect the whole world to agree to our standards? That's a slippery slope towards promoting that the whole world turn vegan, and we'll become viewed as pretentious snobs. Unfortunately for all the non-primate, non-cetacean animals of the world, charisma hasn't played a role in natural selection until now.
If being capable of experiencing pain and awareness of one's own life isn't enough to justify rights, then not even humans have rights.
Marevore,
Your definition of a scientist seems to be a person who willfully divorces his or herself of all moral and ethical constraints and bounds. Obviously, this is not true. Being a scientist does not give you any license to travel to a country where slavery is legal and perform medical experiments on a human slave.
Whales and great apes have proven themselves to be fully sentient beings. You have provided no evidence to the contrary (and how could you?). The evidence for their sentience literally speaks for itself. Cetaceans can learn our language. They can learn to speak to us. But we cannot figure how to speak to them in their language. On the basis of intelligence, I contend that cetaceans are more intelligent than humans, because they can at least fumble through our language but we cannot even fathom theirs. Why can't we not talk to humpback whales right now through simulated whale calls? Because we cannot even begin to figure out their language. That makes us the dumb ones -- just as we still cannot figure out Etruscan and many other dead human languages.
I would suggest to you that instead of thinking of whales solely in terms of a large mass of living mammalian flesh that can be turned into dead flesh by means of high explosives, you might direct your living brain to think of their living brain and how you might be able to communicate with them.
Whales are the closest we will ever come to meeting an alien intelligent race during the next 10-50 millennia.
How can we communicate with an alien species if our first and only message is a grenade exploded into their brain?
Cheers.
It is true that many pro-whaling people feel that ethical concerns for whales are no more relevant than the concerns of people (I wonder if there are millions of them?) who feel beef or pork should not be eaten.
I believe that the notion of animal rights is evolving quite rapidly and that someday in the future (hopefully sooner rather than later) it will indeed seem horrifying to most global citizens that we treated cows and pigs in such a revolting, inhumane manner. Until then, I think it is quite easy to see the distinguishing factor that so far has put whales under a different ethical umbrella (one with elephants and zebras), which is that whales are wildlife.
Also, I should note in this vein that I fully support the efforts and morality of the vegan movement but, like any movement, the demands by some members (e.g., don't eat honey) can overwhelm those of us who haven't yet committed to their enlightened path.
It's just that every time someone who isn't vegan wants to talk about animals, they feel they have to include something like "I love burgers, but..." or "those vegans sure are crazy extremists, but..."
And there's no reason for it. No reason whatsoever to bring up vegans, especially when they weren't yet brought up by the inevitable vegan-hater who will eventually show up to any such thread.
It reminds me of hetero allies who feel they can't talk about GLBT rights without first carrying on about how much they're not gay, and how it's just so important for everyone to understand that they're not gay, and gay sex is in fact icky, etc.
Don't think that I don't appreciate you bringing up this topic, though. I'm still just taking minor issue with only one sentence out of the whole article.
As to commitment, if you already agree with the critique of animal exploitation in principle:
I'm calling bullshit on that one. Firstly, humans are great apes, and there are zero (0) studies indicating that whales or dolphins are more intelligent than humans. Secondly, I would seriously like to see the actual data on whales being smarter than non-human great apes. I frankly don't think it exists, and that is because thirdly their doesn't exist any ironclad biometric measures of consciousness and self-awareness. We can't scientifically prove human consciousness or self-awareness. They are just assumed, which why we study humans to learn about consciousness and self-awareness. The rudimentary measures of self-awareness, like mirror tests, do not prove much.
I'm not trying to knock whales or anything. I love them, but can we at least stay grounded in reality at ScienceBlogs?
Is eating fellow mammals ethical? I think it is not un-ethical. Minke whales are not on the western menu, and thus subject to scrutiny. What about cows, deer, pigs, those charming and yet so delicious animals?
Guys, it is all tainted by cultural bias. We in the western world, with Greenpeace help, fight for the rights of "the Whale", and feel appalled by not-endangered-whale eating in Japan or "cute" dog eating in Korea or China.
Let us get together against a baby eating tribe somewhere, and STOP HIPOCRISY RIGHT NOW.
Regards from proudly heavy mammal-eating country, Argentina.
What a weird notion! As if there was a big book of human rights somewhere, completely independent of what people happen to think is right and wrong.
There is no big book of rights stating that slavery is wrong. There is only our notion that it is wrong, and our notion that this notion trumps property rights. If you were aware of the fugitive slave laws in the US, you would know that people didn't always see slavery in this light. After all, the closest thing to a big book of rights that we have in the west in thoroughly pro-slavery.
There is no big book of rights saying that whaling is wrong, or conversely that people have a right to hunt whales. Only people's notions that it is wrong, and that it is so wrong that we ought stop other people - who don't think its wrong - from doing it, regardless of what they think.
All laws, all norms work that way. Rights are not givens - to the point that I think the whole notion of a "right", a "thing" that you somehow "have", is specious.
Nice dance step. We can't scientifically prove anything, actually, because there's no such thing as scientific proof. Proof exists only in mathematics, as you surely already knew.
But our reasons for assuming core consciousness in other humans apply also to other vertebrates, as Antonio Damasio has convincingly shown.
And you give no reason to think that. There's your cultural assumptions talking. Your fellow mammals experience suffering, and so to cause them unnecessary suffering is unethical if anything is.
Jennifer-
As a devote follower of his majesty the all mighty, myself and my fellow believers are often accused of forcing our beliefs on others. While I don't take part in such activities I can understand the examples and feelings of the accusers. I find your argument that because you feel harvesting an animal is wrong it should be banned and deemed unethical for all cultures to practice as statement of bigotry. You might not worship the deity or have the same diet that I have but I certainly would never suggest that you should stop your way of life and adopt mine.
-WWJD
polarbarzombie, I do not know which human right of yours is violated by people eating whales. In fact, if it were not for the media you would not even know about it, let alone have any of your rights violated.
fufu, to rape, steal and murder are all to violate the rights of other human beings in some way. To kill and eat an animal does not violate the rights of other human beings is any way at all. Of course, non-whaling nations (which it is pointed out, the USA is not one) are free to create their own laws and give rights to animals equivalent to what they give to humans. However please do not expect that just because you create such a law in your country, that other countries are obliged to follow. We are our own sovereign nations, we make our own laws for ourselves. You are free to complain if it makes you feel better (the alternative would be to tolerate human diversity), but you can not force us to abide by your arbitrary rules unless you wish to wage war upon us.
Diego, I was glad to read your comment from Argentina. It is nice to see there are people who think in a similar way to us on the other side of the world.
Paul Murray, you seem to be picky as for the semantics, but I am sure you understand my point. It is ridiculous to say that I should not eat whales because some other persons on the other side of the world feels such a way. It is clear that there are people who do not have the urge to oppress the rights of whale eaters, so even if I were supposed to do as others say, it is not clear who I should listen to. I prefer to make choices for myself, instead. Only in the crazy countries such as North Korea would I expect to not be able to live in this way. But I suppose they might eat whales there too, they do in South Korea.
I'm a former die hard anti whaling activist in Greenpeace . I met many people in Greenpeace sho wondered why whales should be singelled out as special.
The I learned the horrors of factory farming. Whaling is humane compared to factory farming roaming around in the Oceans.
Pigs are btw one of the 4 most intelligent animals in the world.
It was good to introduce the moratorium , but to single out one species as more intelligent , sentient more naluable than others , is just animal nazism , harming and not doing the animals neither rge whales any good.
BTW ; I support a small scale commercial whaling activity.
It's humane , sustainable and eco-friendly.
Thanks!
BTW : I'm a wildlife rehabilitator and have donated my last dollars to a bird hospital.
And I read in the recent issue of Research and Progress( in Swedish ) by an etolog , that it is very sad that we single out some animals ( and humans ) as being more superior than other living beings . Actually it's just only about quality and quantity.
And I read in the recent issue of Research and Progress( in Swedish ) by an etolog , that it is very sad that we single out some animals ( and humans ) as being more superior than other living beings . Actually it's just only about quality and quantity.
"We are our own sovereign nations, we make our own laws for ourselves. You are free to complain if it makes you feel better (the alternative would be to tolerate human diversity), but you can not force us to abide by your arbitrary rules unless you wish to wage war upon us."
Don't give me that "sovereign nation" crap. You aren't murdering whales on your own countries, you are doing it in the open ocean, and are destroying a treasure in which all humanity has a stake. So, as much as I'd love to see these whaling ships, whalers, and their political supporters be brought to a painful end, in the way they so richly deserve, your false dilemma of war or recognition of "sovereignty" has no logical coherence.
Whether one sees whalers as part of the human diversity or (more correctly) sees whalers and their supporters as sad and worthless degenerates, this issue of "sovereignty" is just another in the long list of dishonor, lies and prevarication that you killers assert to justify your foul natures.
Mr. Kiyoshi,
While I am highly sympathetic with your claims that by opposing your and your nation's whale-eating ways, we in the anti-whaling crows are taking away your natural rights, you must also reflect on the fact that you are taking away the natural rights of the whales. The question, though, is simply one of how much consideration do the rights of the whales merit. For those of us on the anti-whaling side of the fence, the whale's right to life bests the right of people to enjoying a food that is, fundamentally, a luxury item. Now, I'm sure that you would disagree with this statement, but it is what's at issue here. No amount of complaining that we are taking away your rights is going to persuade us to agree with you, since we believe that you are infringing on the rights of others. That is why, from our perspective, fufu's comparison of whalers to thieves seems to not be at all ridiculous.
This is frustrating because the original post was about Ms. Jacquet's optimism that more of us would begin to extend the envelope of rights to other species besides whales.
"Eventually, I hope an ethical principle similar to the one for whales can extend to other members of the marine world..."
And all we've talked about so far has been where our food comes from. Though food is probably the most difficult area to overcome in this regard. Of course, I'm grateful for the discussion, since I need to do and think more on food, but there's still more to say.
E.O. Wilson, the noted biologist, (and no one's criticising his scientific qualifications!) wrote in The Future of Life that there are 3 forms of ethical values. The first is anthropocentrism, which is the idea that we must protect our own species first, which somehow ends up meaning to the detriment of other species. The second is pathocentrism, which is what is being argued here, that we will protect our own species and other species that we feel we can relate to, that we have an emotional attachment to. This would, no doubt, include whales, dolphins and the higher mammals, one would assume. The third would be what he calls biocentrism, that is, the idea that we must protect all of life, all living things, as best we can. That what is alive, is somehow sacred or valuable. Now food might be an exception to this, in some ways.
I would say that there is some validity to all three. We preserve nature because it is also in a roundabout way good for our own survival. We protect what we relate to because it makes us feel better about ourselves and our "spiritual" connection to nature. We should try to protect all of life because we believe it has as much right as we do to exist - it's been here as long or longer than our own species, or alternatively, God made it and gave it the injunction, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," the same as he did for us. It can be a religious notion, biocentrism, or an ethical one. I don't personally think it matters which.
The whole argument here should have been about enlarging the envelope, though in a sense the food talk was trying to do that too. How can we get people to relate to nature in a positive way, when many people can't get past the notion that spiders or snakes, etc. are yucky. We have to get them when they're young, for one thing. It's a progression, from loving one's own species, to loving "many" animals, to loving all of life. We need just now to keep pushing that envelope.
It is nice to see that you recycle
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/science/17whale.html?ex=1231477200&en…
We can't scientifically prove human consciousness or self-awareness. They are just assumed, which why we study humans to learn about consciousness and self-awareness. The rudimentary measures of self-awareness, like mirror tests, do not prove much.
Posted by: penn | December 8, 2008 5:28 PM.
So by your own argument, it is ethical to hunt human beings and eat them. After all, we cannot prove a human being hunted and killed for food has consciousness or awareness.
Good luck.
was it a print subscription? how many copies per year?
was it a print subscription? how many copies per year?
a great thing to see these beautiful animals .....:)
So by your own argument, it is ethical to hunt human beings and eat them. After all, we cannot prove a human being hunted and killed for food has consciousness or awareness.
However your ethics do not, and can not, determine the actions of other people, unless you believe that your ethics trump the human rights of others.
So long as you keep this in mind, I don't find what you have said here to be troubling.
I saw a seminar once, a decade ago or so, where a guy explained why he believed apples had originally involved to have their seeds dispersed primarily by bears. I can't remember the reasoning now, but it seemed sensible at the time.
Guys, it is all tainted by cultural bias. We in the western world, with Greenpeace help, fight for the rights of "the Whale", and feel appalled by not-endangered-whale eating in Japan or "cute" dog eating in Korea or China.
I just stumbled on this blog, nice one! :)
I've been wondering for a while now, why is it that ethics are unwanted into "pure science" only when they represent the other pole of the thinking (that is the conservational one).
Why is it not acknowledged, that also the thought of humans having some sort of a right to use up all the natural resources and to enslave other species, is a cultural product? A paradigm, if you want. It isn't any more (might be even less!) justifiable to think about those anthropocentric views as more "scientific" and sort of more rational because they're calculable in terms of money. Actually the anthropocentric view is much more biased, if we look at it with an attempt to being objective.
It seems peculiar to me, or maybe even hypocritical, that conservational view is looked down on when talking about ecology or other "pure science", when at the same time the unjustifiably anthropogenic view is quietly accepted into the pool of basic assumptions, like being the "normal" and "rational" view.
by your own argument, it is ethical to hunt human beings and eat them. After all, we cannot prove a human being hunted and killed for food has consciousness or awareness.
How can we get people to relate to nature in a positive way, when many people can't get past the notion that spiders or snakes, etc. are yucky.