What is a valid reason not to hunt whales for meat?

[mad pierrot]

Thanks! It sounds good. I've had whale before, at a sushi bar of all places, and in curry. I was wondering how they'd prepare burger meat from whale. In any case, it's something I'd like to try. I wonder if they have any restaurants in Osaka?

 

[isanatori]

Thanks! It sounds good. I've had whale before, at a sushi bar of all places, and in curry. I was wondering how they'd prepare burger meat from whale. In any case, it's something I'd like to try. I wonder if they have any restaurants in Osaka?

Unfortunately, Lucky Pierrot have only restaurants in Hakodate.
Anyway, you can certainly have "kujira no tastuta-age" in Osaka or Tokyo.

Here's a list of restaurants serving whale : http://www.e-kujira.or.jp/link/kujiraryouri.html
There are 3 in Osaka-fu :

■徳家
仏教ニュース
大阪府大阪市中央区千日前1-7-11
06-6211-4448

■むらさき
大阪市西区にある鯨料理のむらさき | HOME
大阪府大阪市西区江戸堀1-15-4
06-6441-3871

■和風レストラン くまのじ
http://www.worldranch.co.jp/(ワールド牧場)
大阪府南河内郡河南町白木1456-2 ワールド牧場内
0721-93-6655

 

[mad pierrot]

Hey, thanks!

Great links, man. I really do appreciate it.




I'll be sure to take pictures when I get around to eating there!

 

[Limonette]

Whales are sentient beings meaning they can experience suffering. Being endangered is also a concern. Killing very intelligent animals seems worse to me. But when the Makah tribe in Washington hunted a whale I couldn't help but thinking that was better than the hundreds of cows, pigs and chickens they would of eaten otherwise. Wild animals don't have a choice to hunt, humans do. Eating meat is not as healthy for people either. I don't like hunting, but I think it is more humane to hunt in the wild, than have factory farms. For example, tuna caught in the wild living their natural lives, is better than the tuna from the fish farms. Or hunting a deer in the wild, better than eating a poor cow bred for slaughter living a short, cramped and miserable life. Ok that's all I had to say

 

[duff_o_josh]

well everything can be considered a sentient creature then. with what you have said its the same as gas stations, your probably right we should refine it out in the middle of some dessert or forest. we dont need store either with this logic. captivity...wild... things are bred in captivity so those in the wild can live. mankinds gift to the animal kingdom. we need meat, meat it is good most of the time.

 

[Limonette]

You're right every animal is a sentient creature - that's why I'm a vegetarian, that and for health reasons and environmental reasons.

 

[lexico]

Meat: to eat or not to eat

The difference between an omnivore and a vegetarian may be more than just what they eat, as many small things and big have triggered the omnivore to choose the vegetarian way of life. Sometimes the transition could have been an awakening, a realization of something that is very personal and also quite universal, but not objective. For the Native Americans, at least giving thanks to the being that was slaughtered to give humans the meat was the custom practised in all earnest. So was it with the Paleo-Asian tribes such as the Ainu and the Gilyak of Hokkaido , Sakhalin, and the lower Amur. I do not crave after the meat, sometimes disliking the idea of eating it, sometimes devouring what is prepared before me. In the olden times when meat was not factory-farm produced, meat was scarce, expensive, and always taken with gratitude. With meat readily available both in quantity and price, I think the appreciation is not what is used to be. I am happy to go without meat; vegetables are enough to keep me happy although I have enjoyed ribs with a Buddhist friend.

 

[Horizon]

You're right every animal is a sentient creature - that's why I'm a vegetarian, that and for health reasons and environmental reasons.

I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but, well...Animals get killed by vegetarians as well. Big farms use machinery to collect their crops or whatever and lots of animals like rabbits, snakes, rats, et cetera get chopped up into little bits pretty much and, well, at least the other animals don't go completely and utterly to waste.

As for environmental reasons, farming isn't really much better than raising that many animals. One still has to steal precious habitat from other creatures for it.

And, according to what I've heard, protein (from meat of course) was what allowed human to evolve our 'intelligence' (although, using that logic, you'd think carnivores would be at about the level of a rocket scientist at one point in their lives, but ehh...)

And, Lexico, aren't Buddhists supposed to be vegetarians...? I don't really know much about them, but I'm pretty sure I heard that one...:?

 

[lexico]

I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but, well...Animals get killed by vegetarians as well. Big farms use machinery to collect their crops or whatever and lots of animals like rabbits, snakes, rats, et cetera get chopped up into little bits pretty much and, well, at least the other animals don't go completely and utterly to waste.

Good point; but are you saying that it's okay or good if the killed animal gets to be used for human consumption ? Although they don't get the chance to end up on our dinner table, they turn into fertiliser. Isn't that some positive contribution to the nitrogen cycle of the ecosystem/farming/mankind, and hence good according to your standard ?

As for environmental reasons, farming isn't really much better than raising that many animals. One still has to steal precious habitat from other creatures for it.

All major technological innovation have resulted in an increase in food porduction, leading to supporting a greater population, which then lead to more exploitation of the natural environment by transforming it into agrable fields and paddies. Perhaps disease, plagues, and one-way/mutual slaughter were natures ways of controlling human populations; wouldn't human suffering kind of balance out that of animals, plants, and nature that were victimised by us humans ?

And, according to what I've heard, protein (from meat of course) was what allowed human to evolve our 'intelligence' (although, using that logic, you'd think carnivores would be at about the level of a rocket scientist at one point in their lives, but ehh...)

As you've pointed out, the thesis that "protein is essential in higher intelligence" is only a myth. It is probably a corruption of the medical observation that feti, infants, and children who lack the minimum required daily intake of the essential amino acids (highly subjective standard btw) suffer from all kinds of problems including lowered immunity to disease and toxins, slower physical growth, and underdeveloped intelligence. How could they not suffer, for all genetic information are to be expressed through enzymes which is basically protein. But above the minimum required, excess protein intake are just wasted serving no particular pupose other than enriching urine with amino acids dissolved in it. That is another reason why vegetable consumption is far more flexible and wholesome to the human body. O, I forgot, it is also possible to thank the vegetale before you eat it. I have thanked the lettuce I had in my salad; it made me feel quite comfortable and healthy, and my stomach sang a song of praise to the noble lettuce, figuratively speaking.

And, Lexico, aren't Buddhists supposed to be vegetarians...? I don't really know much about them, but I'm pretty sure I heard that one...:?

That's what I thought myself, but please see Mad Pierrot's post #14 here; Japan!!!! Please stop whale hunting !!!! or my response to it here I'm working on it, Mad Pierrot.. In summary, Siddhartha Buddha died of chronic mesenteric infarction, that is internal bleeding of the intestines following a circulatory shutdown, after eating a good dish of pork. It appears that the primitive church of Buddhism did not prohibit the eating of meat but only did the individual's behavior (participating either actively or passively) of killing an animal for food, and neither did the Buddhist canon of Tibet, Mongolia, China, Korea, or Japan which all descended as translations from a now-lost sanskrit or pali writings of this early school of Buddhism.

 

[Kara_Nari]

Tibetian buddhist monks eat meat.
They are the ONLY monks that supposedly do.
NOt only do monks not eat meat because the animals have been killed, but also because of the smell. Hence the reason why they dont eat garlic, onions, spring onions and two other things, which I cant remember off the top of my head.

 

[duff_o_josh]

And, Lexico, aren't Buddhists supposed to be vegetarians...? I don't really know much about them, but I'm pretty sure I heard that one...:?

wouldnt all of japan be vegetarian then?

 

[Horizon]

No...There are other religions in Japan, other than Buddhism. ☝

Good point; but are you saying that it's okay or good if the killed animal gets to be used for human consumption ? Although they don't get the chance to end up on our dinner table, they turn into fertiliser. Isn't that some positive contribution to the nitrogen cycle of the ecosystem/farming/mankind, and hence good according to your standard?

Not really. If you kill something, you're supposed to eat it. Occasionally I suppose it's fine, but not in such a manner. Other animals do it sometimes, yes, but they don't do it nearly as much as humans do.

All major technological innovation have resulted in an increase in food porduction, leading to supporting a greater population, which then lead to more exploitation of the natural environment by transforming it into agrable fields and paddies. Perhaps disease, plagues, and one-way/mutual slaughter were natures ways of controlling human populations; wouldn't human suffering kind of balance out that of animals, plants, and nature that were victimised by us humans ?

Those things are indeed one way to keep the population down. However, 'human suffering' apparently isn't occuring nearly enough as I still hear the human population is about 6 billion people now. I think that qualifies as being over-populated.

As you've pointed out, the thesis that "protein is essential in higher intelligence" is only a myth. It is probably a corruption of the medical observation that feti, infants, and children who lack the minimum required daily intake of the essential amino acids (highly subjective standard btw) suffer from all kinds of problems including lowered immunity to disease and toxins, slower physical growth, and underdeveloped intelligence. How could they not suffer, for all genetic information are to be expressed through enzymes which is basically protein. But above the minimum required, excess protein intake are just wasted serving no particular pupose other than enriching urine with amino acids dissolved in it. That is another reason why vegetable consumption is far more flexible and wholesome to the human body. O, I forgot, it is also possible to thank the vegetale before you eat it. I have thanked the lettuce I had in my salad; it made me feel quite comfortable and healthy, and my stomach sang a song of praise to the noble lettuce, figuratively speaking.

Oh, I see. Perhaps that's what they meant then or something...:?

That's what I thought myself, but please see Mad Pierrot's post #14 here; Japan!!!! Please stop whale hunting !!!! or my response to it here I'm working on it, Mad Pierrot.. In summary, Siddhartha Buddha died of chronic mesenteric infarction, that is internal bleeding of the intestines following a circulatory shutdown, after eating a good dish of pork. It appears that the primitive church of Buddhism did not prohibit the eating of meat but only did the individual's behavior (participating either actively or passively) of killing an animal for food, and neither did the Buddhist canon of Tibet, Mongolia, China, Korea, or Japan which all descended as translations from a now-lost sanskrit or pali writings of this early school of Buddhism.

Thank you for answering.

And all along I thought Buddhits were oh-so nice...☝

Tibetian buddhist monks eat meat.
They are the ONLY monks that supposedly do.
NOt only do monks not eat meat because the animals have been killed, but also because of the smell. Hence the reason why they dont eat garlic, onions, spring onions and two other things, which I cant remember off the top of my head.

Thank you for your explanation as well. I appreciate it!

 

[Limonette]

Some animals probably do get killed during the farming process, Horizon, but I imagine that many run away at the sound of the machinery. I doubt there's been any statistics or studies done about it. But even so, it takes alot more land to raise feed for meat animals than to feed vegetarians.

If anyone is interested in the environmental aspects of this, here's an article for you:

http://www.veg.ca/issues/enintro.html

 

[Limonette]

Perhaps disease, plagues, and one-way/mutual slaughter were natures ways of controlling human populations; wouldn't human suffering kind of balance out that of animals, plants, and nature that were victimised by us humans ?

That's interesting Lex. I don't think it quite balances it out though, but I like the theory. Not that human suffering is good, and also nature suffers when man suffers do to our pollution and so on. We can destroy the earth long before it can destroy us. But "natures revenge" would be a great theme for a book or movie, and that's the case sometimes I think.

I think mad cow disease could be classified as cow's revenge - we turn vegetarian cows into cannibals, they pass the disease they get back to us. However, it's really us doing it to ourselves, and the cows. I read a couple books on mad cow disease. (I like reading about strange diseases - they're fascinating - plus the politics that goes along with it.)

You're very good at explaining things such as what you say in the next paragraph which I won't quote because it's too long - anyway I'm basically in agreement with you. Whew! What a long and tedious sentence. What the human body needs in protein is very low and you're right the excess protein is excreted which is hard on the body in various ways. Americans for example eat way too much protein for their own good health.

For some reason I got the impression that Siddhartha didn't die but instead vaporized or changed into a ray of light or something like that. I read the book of Siddhartha when young, think I got a wrong impression, lol.

Also interesting about Buddhism, Lex and Kara Nari.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The most valid reason not to hunt whales for meat is that humans do not need meat to survive and therefore any hunting (or raising animals) for meat is therefore not needed. It is simple logic.

Customs, habits, or pleasure for a particular flavor are all reasons that do not make it a necessity and therefore not valid reasons to cause pain, misery, suffering, and death to another being.

 

[yukio_michael]

The most valid reason not to hunt whales for meat is that humans do not need meat to survive and therefore any hunting (or raising animals) for meat is therefore not needed. It is simple logic.

Customs, habits, or pleasure for a particular flavor are all reasons that do not make it a necessity and therefore not valid reasons to cause pain, misery, suffering, and death to another being.

No, that's not a reason, that's a vegan moralisation of an abstract idea, used in the stead of actual facts in order to forward a isolated agenda--- there isn't anything logical about it.

 

[Mycernius]

The most valid reason not to hunt whales for meat is that humans do not need meat to survive and therefore any hunting (or raising animals) for meat is therefore not needed. It is simple logic.

Customs, habits, or pleasure for a particular flavor are all reasons that do not make it a necessity and therefore not valid reasons to cause pain, misery, suffering, and death to another being.

Humans do need meat to survive, unless you want to eat soya everyday. Meat is the prime source of protein in a human diet. the only plant that can give us all the protien we need is soya. On another note meat also provides the energy for our brain and is one of the reasons that man is intelligent. It is the diet of meat that allowed human brains to develop to the point they are at now. A purely vegetarien diet in our past would have left man still up the trees. Humans on a whole are omnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat meat and plants. To subsists on one or the other is not good for our bodies. The problem with todays diet is the meat is to fatty and groomed to our taste. The same goes for plants. If we still had to survive by hunting and gathering we would still have an omnivorus diet. Because of supplements and the way we can control our dietry intake that allows more and more people to live vegan lifestyle. No matter what your choice, if it was down to survival you would eat meat. Only our intelligence allows us to make this choice., and the reason we have that chioce is because of our ancestors diet of meat and plants.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

No, that's not a reason, that's a vegan moralisation of an abstract idea, used in the stead of actual facts in order to forward a isolated agenda--- there isn't anything logical about it.

Yukio, what is abstract about not needing meat to survive? We surely do not. If we did then then vegetarians or vegans would not survive long after adopting those eating habbits.

Sure, the veg group is small, but I wouldn`t consider them isolated. They are constantly outreaching to the communities they are in and to friends and family. Neither are they shunned by society. Keep in mind, most vegans/vegetarians were once flesh eaters themselves and came to understand that flesh consumption need not be a part of our habbits to survive.

If meat is not needed for survival, which in this era, it is not, then it is quite logical to choose those actions which do not cause pain and suffering. To choose to cause pain and suffering when it need not be chosen is illogical -- that is if you agree that causing pain and suffering is wrong. I know I do.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Humans do need meat to survive, unless you want to eat soya everyday. Meat is the prime source of protein in a human diet. the only plant that can give us all the protien we need is soya. On another note meat also provides the energy for our brain and is one of the reasons that man is intelligent. It is the diet of meat that allowed human brains to develop to the point they are at now.

Well, thanks for admitting that we do not need meat. Surely we don`t, and that soy can provide all our protein needs is admitted by you and most others is a concession on this point. But, besides soy, nuts and seeds also can provide a large portion of our protein.

It is conjecture about flesh eating being responsible for our intelligence. Perhaps it could also be responsible for our aggressiveness. After all, we war against one another and destroy the planet and her eco-systems. All that doesn`t seem very "intelligent" to me. So, perhaps meat is responsible for our stupidity.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

A purely vegetarien diet in our past would have left man still up the trees. Humans on a whole are omnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat meat and plants. To subsists on one or the other is not good for our bodies.

Both of us have no way of knowing if a vegetarian diet would have left us in the trees. What we do know now is that we are not in the trees now and therefore that point of "tree business" is moote. Our past need not rule our present and future. Surely we have evolved physically and mentally.

Mentally, we are now able to muse philisophically on morals and ethics and think to extend our circle of compassion -- rather than leaning on our past history of brutality, exclusion and inflicting death for survival.

Being an omnivore does not mean we must eat both meat and plants to survive. It means we are capable of surviving off either (i.e. we can choose). We can make a decision about our diets.

And, while I will concede that we can eat meat and that in early stages of our evolution it was perhaps necessary to do so to survive, I think it is up for debate as to whether we were designed for meat consumption. Of course, we can handle meat consumption, but that doesn`t mean we were optimally designed for it.

First, we are not biologically equiped with attributes that lets us catch prey.

2. Our incisors are not pronounced as are carnivores' are.

3. We have flat back teeth meant for grinding as do plant eaters.

4. Carnivores have short digestive tracks. Ours are long like plant eaters.

5. Humans are very prone to becoming sick from raw meat. Carnivores are able to eat even meat that is putrified.

6. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C. We do not.

Now, I am not saying that this means we were designed to be herbivores. But, I am saying that it throws enough doubt on the belief that we were designed for optimal health or survival through meat consumption.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

To subsists on one or the other is not good for our bodies. The problem with todays diet is the meat is to fatty and groomed to our taste. The same goes for plants.

The same does not go for plants. You are right that one would probably get very sick if one resorted to eating all meat, but you are wrong in assuming the same for those who choose to eat only plant based foods. In fact, many do eat only plant based foods and you will be hard pressed to find any group of doctors that would state being a vegetarian is not good for our bodies.

However, it is not very hard to find studies or professional health associations that say vegetarianism can be very good for you.

If we still had to survive by hunting and gathering we would still have an omnivorus diet. Because of supplements and the way we can control our dietry intake that allows more and more people to live vegan lifestyle. No matter what your choice, if it was down to survival you would eat meat. Only our intelligence allows us to make this choice., and the reason we have that chioce is because of our ancestors diet of meat and plants.

This whole thing above is irrelevant for this era. We are not in a fight for survival, and like you stated, we can choose, therefore we should choose to not harm life by causing pain. And trying to get a little back to the whaling topic, Japanese in no way need to expend all the financial recourses it does to send hunters and ships into the oceans and homes of sea animals to kill creatures that are highly intelligent.

 

[Mycernius]

You make some good points, but just for clarification about our digestive tract. If we were supposed to be plant eaters then our appendix would be bigger than it is. Our digestive system not only has problems with some meat, but also with cellulose tissue. A combination of meat and plant makes a good diet.
We are biologically equipped to hunt for prey. We stand on two legs. It is a more effiecient way of getting around and we can walk four legged animals to death, a hunting tactic that our ancestors used and is still used by some tribes in Africa. Our eyesight is binocular, an adaptation to judge distances and a trait found in most carniverous and omnivorous creatures. Even our closest relatives will eat meat to supplement their diets. There are film records of Chimps activitly hunting and eating monkeys. Pandas will kill and eat sheep to supplement their own diet when bamboo is difficult to find.

5. Humans are very prone to becoming sick from raw meat. Carnivores are able to eat even meat that is putrified.

Not true for all carnivores. Cats will not eat putrid meat. Dogs and other scavenger animals can become ill after eating putrid or diseased meat. Humans can eat some raw meats without becoming sick. Beef, and some fish spring to mind.

Note: Maybe a new thread would be better to continue this

 

[Bibinbahell]

Sorry. I just had to post this:

Least Harm Principle

 

[yukio_michael]

Yukio, what is abstract about not needing meat to survive? We surely do not. If we did then then vegetarians or vegans would not survive long after adopting those eating habbits.

Although I don't include vegetarians with vegans, because they do not moralise their eating habbits, they are so often brow-beaten by vegans to "go all the way", in order to facilitate some sort of mock-ethical goal.

It's true what you say, but it is better to word it, "it is possible to survive without meat." In actuality, many people who go vegan become very sick, because it's difficult for them to provide the body with the right ammount of proteins needed--- Veganism is a luxury, despite what people claim--- it is practioned by those who can afford to do so.

Sure, the veg group is small, but I wouldn`t consider them isolated. They are constantly outreaching to the communities they are in and to friends and family. Neither are they shunned by society. Keep in mind, most vegans/vegetarians were once flesh eaters themselves and came to understand that flesh consumption need not be a part of our habbits to survive.

Vegans represent 2% of the total world population, and they aren't the most popular sub-group on the planet. The work that PETA has done often ostracises them from the public moreso than it endears itself--- As for vegans, it is exactly this moralistic high ground that makes many people rail against them--- This has just been my personal experience with vegans--- I've even seen vegans make statements like "[as for Africans who had contracted HIV from infected bush meat]...haha! Don't eat meat!"... That's nearly an exact quote, I removed an explacative---

It's isolated, and one person's statement doesn't represent the group, but this is the mentality--- Human life is secondary to the lives of animals, which I find to be a skewed viewpoint when there is a purported moral element to your cause. A PETA spokewoman once said that even if she knew that animal testing could cure cancer in humans, she still would be against it--- It's that sort of isolated ethics that derides the whole movement.

If meat is not needed for survival, which in this era, it is not, then it is quite logical to choose those actions which do not cause pain and suffering. To choose to cause pain and suffering when it need not be chosen is illogical -- that is if you agree that causing pain and suffering is wrong. I know I do.

Please, again, stop using absolutes to make your point as in "meat is not needed for survival"--- We all know that vegans are capable of staying alive on a vegan diet though I would love to see a vegan football team versus a non-vegan team---

The actions I choose are not those that I intend to cause pain and suffering. It's inevitable that animals may suffer for my health, so in Japan, before eating we say Itadakimasu which means, "I will receive---" ...Japanese say "itadakimasu" ("I will humbly receive [this food]") in order to show proper thankfulness to the preparer of the meal in particular and more generally to all those living things that lost their lives to make the meal.

Causing pain and suffering is an abstract idea much like war. We know that war is bad, but sometimes great wars are fought for very precious freedoms. Humans are alive today because of their diets and ability to survive, nobody chooses to cause pain and suffering, it is an abstract part of human survival that some animals die and others live.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

You make some good points, but just for clarification about our digestive tract. If we were supposed to be plant eaters then our appendix [do you mean appendix or intestines???] would be bigger than it is. Our digestive system not only has problems with some meat, but also with cellulose tissue.

Sure, we can eat meat. Sure we can eat cellulose tissue. And, yes, we can have trouble with both. I can`t say for certain we were designed to eat meat. Maybe we weren`t and it is possible that if we weren`t, our bodies may have gradually evolved into being able to eat it.

But, have we already evolved away from that being our optimal source of food? Remember, all carnvores create their own vitamin C. We do not.

Some will say look at our closest primates and will point out that chimpanzees eat meat, such as other primates they catch. That is true, but in general that is when their plant food has become scarce depending on the season or prolonged abnormal weather such as a drought.

Looking at the human anatomy now, I would say that our bodies have moved away from a natural base of meat for food. It is funny how people mention our canine teeth. Look at them. They are nubs. Barely useful.

But our intestinal tracts are quite long (around 25 ft) in comparison to other carnivores. Like us, plant eating animals also have a rather long tract.