Can the Continued Hunting of Whales be Justified - Essay Example

Name Tutor Course Institution Date Can the continued hunting of whales be justified? Hunting of whales is a traditional practice that dates back several centuries and hence, it forms a significant part of human culture. The Norwegians have been involved in hunting of whales for more than 4,000 years while the Japanese have been known to be the most engaged in this practice for longer in the human history (Dolin, 2007). Therefore, whaling is a traditional practice which is up to now been practiced. This paper will discuss whether the continued hunting of whales can be justified. It will argue that the continued hunting of whales should not be justified; it is dubious practice. The quantity of whales hunted by hunters has continued to decline sharply since the beginning of the 1960s. This is not because there has been a decrease in the demand for whale meat but because whales have significantly reduced in number. The gestation period of whales is 7-13 months, and mostly they just produce one calf at each gestation period. Given the thousands of whales that are being killed every year, it is illogical to expect them to continue maintaining their population numbers (Brower, 2010). In 1946, an International Whaling Commission was established to try and address this problem. This Commission developed protection orders on specific types of whales that were believed to be mostly affected. However, the population of all types of whales continued to experience a sharp decline even in 1986 pushing the commission to issue a total ban on hunting of all species of whales (Chadwick, 2008). Although this prohibition is still active to date, there are loopholes that have resulted in more than 30,000 whales are reported to have been killed since 1986. There is one exemption to this prohibition that relates to whalers who used traditional methods. For example, the Aboriginal Substance Whalers continued to carry on the whaling practices that their ancestors had started using traditional methods. The International Whaling Commission acknowledged the need to retain this tradition so as to protect the culture of these communities. Thus, the Commission made the allowance permit whaling meant not to make a profit. Although such an allowance might not be agreeable, it appears a lot less ethically dubious. There are three countries where hunting of whales mostly takes place: Japan, Norway, and Iceland. Japan takes advantage of the loophole that allows whaling for scientific research to justify their whaling. Japan argues that climate change could be affecting whales or else that the different species of whales could be competing for food resulting in the decreased number of whales. Thus, it asserts that an investigation is required, and this would call for the killing of 4,000 whales over a period of 12 years (Morikawa, 2009). All of this can be said to be dubious and debatable. First of all, such a large sample size is lethal as it has resulted in unnecessarily killing of whales. Second, it is evidence that the Japan is more interested in whaling for commercial purposes rather than scientific purposes as, at the end of the research, the whales' carcasses are sold at a profit. Third, Japanese whalers use advanced speedboats that are equipped with radar, GPS, and the modern whale finding sonar and thus allow for catching of many whales (Sekiguchi, 2007). Thus, it can be argued that Japan simply wants to exempt itself from future challenges to hunting of whales. Given the high interests of Japan in whaling, one would assume that whales play a significant role in the Japanese cuisine. On the contrary, the demand for whale's meat is very low which has resulted in a double increase in the quantity of uneaten frozen meat stored in Japan to 4,600 tons in 2012 (Morikawa, 2009). The whale meat was merely popular during the postwar period in Japan. Nowadays, a large population of Japanese categorizes the whale meat as just curious food. The Iceland and Norway make use of the moratorium principle to justify their whaling. They, therefore, continued whaling for commercial purposes without trying to use science to justify their practice. Norway and Iceland argue that it is illogical to ban the killing of whales before prohibiting the hunting of other animals. They argue that if the reason for the ban is conservation, then other animals are also equally endangered. In fact, they assert that the different species of whales are not as endangered as the species of animals, such as Bluefin tuna. Moreover, they claim that if whaling is cruel, then factory farming is cruel as well. If the ban is based on the principle that whales are smart, then pigs are equally smart. Hence, the argument to only protect whales is not rational. If it is rational to conserve whales, then let it be also rational to conserve polar bear or panda or any other smart mammal (Costello, Steven, and Leah, 2012). Therefore, these countries view banning of whaling by the non-nationals as a harassment of their traditional values. The ban on killing only whales can be justifiable from the human perspective. Well, it is normal for humans to empathize more with mammals than other animals given that we are just but humans with human feelings. Conclusion Hunting of whales is not justifiable. The fact that whaling is a practice that has taken place for thousands of years doesn't mean that it should unavoidably be continued. Many traditional practices that today's standards consider as inhumane have been discontinued. Even though traditions were a moral reason to carry on inhumane activities, it wouldn't mean that the drive for hunting of whales should continue. The historical nature of whaling is very different to nowadays' drive hunts. In the past, whalers used traditional methods used for whaling that entailed non-powered vessels, which caught a few whales. In this contemporary era, whalers are using modern motorized methods of whaling that indiscriminately kill all species of whales in huge quantities. Thus, the argument that whaling is a historical practice is ludicrous. The fact is very clear that hunting of whales result in a sharp decline in the numbers of whales as it has been observed. References Dolin, E. J., (2007). Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America, Norton. Brower, K. (2010). "Still Blue: Off the Shores of Costa Rica, Scientists Study a Stronghold of Whales that Once Hovered Near Extinction," National Geographic. Accessed on 23rd may, 2016 at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/blue-whales/brower-text. Chadwick, D. (2008). , "Right Whales: On the Brink, On the Rebound," National Geographic. Accessed on 23rd may, 2016 at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/right-whales/chadwick-text/1. Costello, C., Steven G. and Leah G. (2012). "Conservation Science: A Market Approach to Saving the Whales," Nature. Accessed on 23rd May 2016 at www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481139a.html. Morikawa, J. (2009). Whaling in Japan: Power, Politics, and Diplomacy, Columbia University Press. Sekiguchi, T. (2007). "Why Japan's Whale Hunt Continues," Time. Accessed on 23rd May 2016 at www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1686486,00.html. Why is Easter Island an important warning sign about the relationship between humans and the environment? Easter Island is a small remote Island that is located in the Pacific Ocean, thousands of miles off the coastline of South America. Easter Island is situated 1250 miles far from the closest livable land Pitcairn Island and at the maximum; its population was just around 7,000 (Good and Rafael, 2006). However, the Easter Island's history is a grim warning sign to the world notwithstanding its superficial insignificance. This article will demonstrate that the Easter Island is an important warning sign about the relationship between humans and the environment. The Easter Island's History is an outstanding example of the dependency of humans on the environment as well as of the outcomes of irreversibly destroying the environment. Easter Island was faced with a scarcity of resources and hence its inhabitants constructed the most advanced technologies to counter this problem. However, the technological development by humans placed immense demands on the environment. With time, the environment could not withstand the pressure, resulting in its collapse. But of interesting to note is that the society that had inhabited this Easter Island and that had taken a lot of time and resources to build also fell together with the environment (Peiser, 2005). Easter Island's fate has broader implications too. The world, just like the Easter Island has scarce resources to maintain humans and all their needs. For the past several centuries, humans have been successful in obtaining food to sustain their population that is increasing at an alarming rate. Moreover, humans have also been able to extract more resources given their high level of technological advancement. The consequences of these practices have been dire, and that humans have found tough to solve. Just like the society in Easter Island went down with the fall of their environment, the population in the current world is left with no option than just to cope with the destruction it has itself caused to the environment. Some of these consequences include the climate change and chronic diseases. Destruction of the environment can result in deterioration of living conditions (Rainbird, 2002). However, these undesirable consequences can be prevented if proper measures are put in place to avoid overexploitation of resources. We are all in agreement that food is important for the survival of humans. However, humans should be very careful when farming to avoid rendering the land unusable for food production. For example, overusing the farmland can result in uncontrollable soil erosion making the land uncultivatable. Also, deforestation can lead to the decrease of rainfall received causing decreased crop production. Deforestation can also lead to the lack of timber to construct houses or make furniture (Rainbird, 2002). In conclusion, the Easter Island's history shows that humans rely on the environment. Similarly, it shows that human development can permanently alter the environment. Thus, there is a significant relationship between humans and the environment. Humans should take into consideration the way their activities influences their environment so as to maintain a functional living space. Thus, humans need to use resources in a way that ensure their survival as well as the survival of the environment. References Good, D. H., and Rafael R. (2006). "The Fate of Easter Island: The Limits of Resource Management Institutions." Ecological Economics 58: 473-90. Peiser, B. (2005). "From Genocide to Ecocide: The Rape of Rapa Nui." Energy & Environment 16, no. 3&4: 513-39. Rainbird, P. (2002). "A Message for Our Future? The Rapa Nui (Easter Island) Ecodisaster and Pacific Island Environments." World Archaeology 33, no. 3: 436-51. Read More