A Few Thoughts on Academy Award Winner “The Cove”
I want to start this by saying that I haven’t followed the mass of media (mostly outside of Japan) about “The Cove” particularly closely, and nor have I seen the documentary. But I have seen enough to know the broad strokes, and what I wanted to say is more about general ideas anyway, so I will leave the details for someone else.
“The Cove” purportedly is a documentary that explains the traditional killing of dolphins by fishermen in a small town in Japan. It was awarded the Academy Award for best documentary on Sunday in LA, something that was by no means a shock to anyone. The Hollywood set love issues like this, and were always going to vote in droves to ’save the dolphins’.
I’m Australian by birth, and I have often been asked by Japanese people to share my feelings about issues such as those set out in “The Cove”, and also, more commonly, about the related issue of whaling. Australia are of course very vocal in opposition to Japan’s whaling practices, and this has become even more the case under the Rudd government, with the rhetoric escalating more and more still in recent weeks. Whenever I’ve been asked to give my own opinions though, I think people have been surprised to hear them.
I may be branded an ‘animal hater’ with a cold heart of stone for saying this, but I don’t have a problem with whaling or even killing dolphins (for food and other traditional uses), per se. I do have a problem with it if it is done in a particularly cruel manner, which seems to be part of what “The Cove” alleges. Part, but not, if you believe the press, the biggest part.
The problem that I have with all the hysteria surrounding whaling etc. in Japan is that those against the practice move far too quickly and easily into moralistic and ‘we’re better people than you’ rhetoric, which is purely ｅmotional and thus meaningless in terms of coming to an understanding. I am comfortable with morality in a general sense, but I see far too much rhetoric on these issues that centers around whales and dolphins somehow being superior moral animals to other kinds of animals such as pigs, cows, lambs or chickens that people in the West eat with regularity. If this is what they believe, they are welcome to believe it. But it will never be convincing to a society that has a long tradition of taking so much of their meat from the sea. Some even stretch the argument further, to make some kind of equivalence between humans and animals, which I reject. They are free to believe it, but I believe that animals are to be used for food and the needs of humanity, and that humanity are to be stewards, but not absolutist protectors of all animal life on this planet.
I don’t know specifically what arguments “The Cove” makes. But I have read enough to believe that while there may be a great deal of value in the film, there may also be a great deal of propaganda. Telling the difference can be difficult, especially when resorting to emotive means to tell your story. One of the great failings of the anti-whaling debate (and yes, I know that I am conflating two somewhat separate, but in my opinion sufficiently similar issues) is that the anti-whaling side in recent years have taken to means that do their own cause nothing but harm. They resort to attacks on vessels that are conducting whaling activities, and use purely emotive arguments where scientific ones would be vastly more effective.
I don’t know the exact scientific figures for whale populations. Those on the anti-whaling side say that the whales are endangered and need to be protected. But intuitively I know that this is not the case with all whales, only certain varieties. The Japanese scientists claim that they are operating in a responsible manner, which does not endanger the whale population (I know that I am using ‘whale’ in the general form here, though there are many different species). Who is right? This is the debate that needs to be had, and it seems at least to me that there has not been a true consensus of opinion one way or the other. Maybe many in the international community believe that there has been, but I would like to see a lot more discussion of these facts as opposed to the emotional outbursts and propaganda that we see so often characterizing the debate.
If Japan are able to continue their whaling activities without endangering the existence of the whales that they catch or ’study’, then they should be allowed to continue to do so without molestation. If they are truly acting in an irresponsible manner and endangering the sustainability of species, then interested parties around the world should continue to exert pressure on the issue. Perhaps the true answer lies somewhere in between, in some gray area, in which case more research would be needed – and less hysterical posturing.
|
|
Related posts:
Tags: Academy Awards, Australia, Dolphins, Japan, Propaganda, Science, Sustainability, The Cove, Whaling
I understand dolphins are very intelligent animals. You’re comfortable with people eating them? How far down the intelligence scale are you willing to go?Some might say they are at least as intelligent as human children.
We traditionally kill several hundred American children in our village each year because, you know, they don’t speak Japanese. Who knew they were intelligent?
That’s a completely absurd argument. How far down the intelligence scale am I willing to go? How about ANIMALS… Dolphins are not human. They are animals. There are studies that suggest pigs may be nearly as intelligent as dolphins, but I don’t see as much emotional rhetoric calling for bans on bacon…
What bugs me most about this debate is this attempt to bring dolphins and whales into the same realm as humans. To make them equivalent. They are not. Are they cute? Yes. Do they exhibit some amount of intelligence? Yes. Does this make it barbaric to eat them? Hardly. I’m not saying that I want us all to go out and have a dolphin burger or anything, and I don’t particularly care to eat one myself. But it, and whaling has been a tradition for many years in Japan, and who I am to say that this is more barbaric than eating pigs, or other animals – dogs, rabbits, etc that are eaten in other cultures but may not be my cup of tea either…. What it comes down to for me, in the end, is that animals are for the benefit of man, and not the other way around… We need to be good stewards and not overly exploit them, or cause them to become extinct, but we are free to use them for food and other needs.
I agree with most of your arguments especially the points on purely emotive arguments and use of propaganda. There seems to me a push to dehumanize the whalers to the point of just focusing on Japan as the only whaling nation. I just read an article in the Guardian about a finned whale carcass http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/100-tonne-whale-cornwall
the last paragraph has this “It is an ignominous end for such an exquisite creature; but perhaps a better fate than that facing its cousins in the Southern Ocean where, under the guise of “scientific research”, a Japanese whaling fleet is even now harpooning fin whales destined not for the laboratory, but for the supermarket counter.” conveniently ignoring that Iceland hunts for finned whales much nearer.
This article mentions only Norway and Iceland in the last two sentences http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288393
“Norway and Iceland also kill whales under the research loophole. Australia has also asked Iceland and Norway to cease their whaling activities.” However if Wikipedia is to be believed Iceland resumed commercial whaling in 2006 and Norway registered an objection to the International Whaling Commission moratorium and is thus not bound by it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands “Around 950 long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melaena, actually a species of dolphin) are caught annually, mainly during the summer.” Don’t really see Hollywood lining up to “expose” this, just a animated public information film (narrated by Anthony Hopkins)commissioned by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.
Also a lot seems to be made about Japan whaling under the guise of scientific research according to the Wiki article on Whaling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling “When the commercial whaling moratorium was introduced by the IWC in 1982, Japan lodged an official objection. However, in response to US threats to cut Japan’s fishing quota in US territorial waters under the terms of the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment, Japan withdrew its objection in 1987. However, according to the BBC, America went back on this promise, effectively destroying the deal. Since Japan could not resume commercial whaling, it began whaling on a supposedly scientific-research basis.” Interesting the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan appears to to contradict this go figure.
Personally anyone using the PCB and Mercury issue to stop whaling needs a kick to the butt, because there is probably more fish eaten that have this danger “http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/guide.asp” and alot of those fish are getting low in number nevermind that most warnings I’ve seen are toned down by the commercial fishing industry. If Whaling commercial and research where banned altogether that would be fine by me. But shipping, pollution and development seem to be just as large a danger to whales.
Disclaimer I am a 4th gen american born japanese with ancestry ties to taiji ,japan and I have eaten whale. Also more worried about the environment overall ,especially since things are probably more related than most people think. Sorry for the long reply
“How far down the intelligence scale am I willing to go? How about ANIMALS… Dolphins are not human. They are animals”
You see Guyjin, that’s where your argument falls apart. If you argue for ‘intelligence’, a dolphin, cow, pig, turkey or chicken is smarter than a mentally disabled person or baby in many cases, I guess we therefore have the right to eat and kill babies and the mentally disabled? Of course you see this as ‘absurd’, but if you argue based purely on intelligence, then that’s the reality. The only reason you can give for killing animals is because ‘we’re human and they’re not’, and that’s no different than ‘we’re white and they’re not’ or ‘we’re male and they’re not’. In other words, in analogy with racism and sexism, ignoring the interests of a sentient being based purely on its species, is nothing more than a form of discrimination.
I reject the idea that Dolphins deserve special rights over other animals, all sentient creatures should be awarded equal consideration with humans.
Most people already accept that it is wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering on animals. Unnecessary must at the least, mean it is wrong to inflict suffering for reasons of pleasure, convenience or amusement. Yet if you look at society’s treatment of animals, the overwhelming amount of suffering inflicted on animals can be justified ONLY on the basis of pleasure, convenience or amusement. Consuming meat and other animal products cannot be considered necessary in ANY sense. The ONLY reason we have for consuming these products is that we enjoy the taste, and if we take the interests of animals seriously, our enjoyment cannot be considered a moral argument.
Most people own a cat or dog. We treat these animals as a part of our family; yet we stick forks into other animals who are no different from those who we consider our family.
Animal farming is also a nightmare for the environment, it takes 20 times more land to produce food for a meat-eater than a vegan, animal farming contributes to 51% of Global Warming, and is the leading cause of deforestation and desertification. A cow eats 10 times more plant matter than volume in flesh it outputs.
Mainstream science is increasingly acknowledging that meat and other animal products have negative effects on human health; causing cancer, heart disease, diabetes and a score of other illnesses.
Then there are the other common arguments I here:
1. “Plants are alive too, therefore it is okay to kill animals.”
Animal rights argues for the right of SENTIENT animals. Plants are not sentient, that is, they have no perception of the senses and are not conscious. Whereas all sentient animals have an interest in not being treated as the mere property and resources of others, plants have no interest in anything. Suppose that plants were sentient, veganism would still be the moral baseline. For the simple fact that in order to produce meat, an animal needs to consume far larger amounts of plants than volume in flesh it outputs. The more we care about plants, the more we want to minimise the suffering inflicted upon them animals by going vegan.
2. “Animals kill other animals, therefore we can too.”
There are also scores of vegetarian animals that never harm another living creature, why should they not serve as our role model, rather than carnivores?
Animals perform a number of ‘natural’ acts that we humans would never consider acceptable. For example, rape, murder, cannibalism etc. Since when have animals served as a role model of how human society runs itself and determines its moral values? Isn’t it funny that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed “superiority.” And when our supposed “superiority” gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.
We kill billions of animals every year for reasons that cannot possibly be considered necessary while accepting that it is wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering on animals,
If we take the interest of animals of interests seriously, we must award their interests equal consideration by adopting a vegan diet.
Wow. First of all, thanks for taking the time to post here. I hope you enjoy the site.
Having said that, your first sentence is totally flawed, and thus goes your whole argument. My argument doesn’t break down at all, because I am not arguing intelligence. I was responding to the comment of another poster, who argued intelligence. My point was that this was a ridiculous argument. That intelligence has nothing to do with it. The issue is, that animals are NOT equivalent to humans, that their interests do NOT deserve the same consideration as those of humans. And that animals are available for mankind to use and enjoy, as long as they are good stewards of them.
Does this mean that every time a human kills or eats an animal it is done in an efficient way or for good reason. Not necessarily, no. There are abuses and excesses in every aspect of life, and always will be. And that applies to how humanity uses animals as well. But I reject the idea that animals should be put on such a pedestal to not be used for food or other purposes by humans. Some people believe that. Good for them. I do not. I believe that animal meat is good for humans (in moderation, like all things), and I reject the idea that we only eat meat out of convenience or enjoyment. But even if that were the case, I reject the notion that humans should stop enjoying their food in order to stop killing any animals. Animals are not humans. They are animals. And it is my opinion that they are there for the use and enjoyment of mankind, and for the betterment of the earth. A role that they serve well. In short, you are not going to sell me on the arguments for everyone being a vegan. But nice try.
Alright Guyjin, you ignored about 90% of the points I raised and simply reinstated your opinion for a second time.
As I said, saying it is alright to exploit animals based purely on the fact that “we’re human and they’re not” is a form of discrimination no different from racism or sexism. All sentient creatures bear many of the same basic interests, and to not take those interests into consideration based purely on species is discrimination. Most people completely disagree with that line of reasoning. Most of us own a cat or dog or other pet, and see it as barbaric to abuse such animals, yet at the same time have no problem abusing other animals that are completely the same. If you agree with animal welfare, human slaughter or treating pets lovingly, you acknowledge that it is morally incorrect to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering on animals, like most of the human population does.
Yet murdering and exploiting animals for food, clothing and other purposes cannot be considered necessary in ANY sense.
So you have a choice: either we owe absolutely no moral obligation to animals, and can treat them however we wish, or they bear moral significance and we must therefore award their interests equal consideration.
I’m all for respecting other people’s opinions, but as long as you’re unable to morally justify your actions, billions of sentient creatures lose their lives as a result of your carelessness.
“In short, you are not going to sell me on the arguments for everyone being a vegan” – That is the main problem when approaching meat eaters, they come into the issue approaching it with a closed mind. I understand this, as I was once a meat eater myself. All that I ask is that you keep an open mind and take the time to consider the points I am making to you. It is not for the other vegans you are turning vegan, it is the animals you are turning vegan for.
Please take the time to go and watch the movie ‘Earthlings’: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142#
That should have been: “If you agree with animal welfare, humane slaughter or treating pets lovingly….”