Weapon Found in Whale Dated From the 1800s 661
LABarr writes "AP and CNN are carrying a story that has forced scientists to re-evaluate the longevity of mammals. A bowhead whale caught off the Alaskan coast last month had a weapon fragment embedded in its neck that showed it survived a similar hunt over a century ago. 'Embedded deep under its blubber was a 3½-inch arrow-shaped projectile that has given researchers insight into the whale's age, estimated between 115 and 130 years old. The bomb lance fragment, lodged in a bone between the whale's neck and shoulder blade, was likely manufactured in New Bedford, on the southeast coast of Massachusetts, a major whaling center at that time. It was probably shot at the whale from a heavy shoulder gun around 1890.' "
caught? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
although - if the information i garnered from Finding Nemo is correct, I guess it will eventually be finding its way back to the sea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The 49-foot male whale died when it was shot with a similar projectile last month, and the older device was found buried beneath its blubber as hunters carved it with a chain saw for harvesting."
In other words, the whale fell victim to a modern version of the same weapon it survived in the 1800s.
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Not the first time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather, it puts the age of the spearhead at well over 100 years. Isn't is possible--perhaps not likely, but possible--that the spearhead went unused for decades after being produced?
Re:Not the first time (Score:4, Funny)
Or sawing the whale in half and counting the rings.
Yay, Humans (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing proves that man is who rules the Earth like taking animals that are 130 years old, killing them, and then hacking them up with a chainsaw. Keep showin' them animals who's boss, oh brave hunters.
YOU'RE NEXT, TURTLES
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yay, Humans (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't because they are cute, it is because they are rare, unique and irreplaceable. When they are gone, they are gone for good.
M-
Re:Yay, Humans (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, they're doing it for cultural reasons? Then let them use hand-thrown harpoons to kill it and whale-bone knives to carve it up. You can't have it both ways. I suspect that vast factory ships with explosive harpoon heads and gas-powered chainsaws are not culturally consistent.
I'm sure that killing Mountain Gorillas is culturally consistent for some African tribes, yet no one complains when they are protected.
I agree that maintaining cultural identity is important, but where do we draw the line? To my mind, the law is there to be followed, for everyone. Double standards are racist and backwards. If killing whales is acceptable to our society, then make it legal. If it is unacceptable, make it illegal. The law should not be different because of who your parents were, or what the color of your skin is.
M-
Re:Yay, Humans (Score:4, Insightful)
To put it succinctly, you don't decide what constitutes a faithful continuation of their cultural identity.
Double standards are racist and backwards. If killing whales is acceptable to our society, then make it legal. If it is unacceptable, make it illegal.
It's not as simple as "acceptable" or "unacceptable" to kill in general. There is the issue of sustainability. Whale populations were annihilated by commercial whaling last couple centuries (and this had nothing to do with the Inuit btw!). Large scale whaling is unnacceptable. Small-scale whaling that will not endanger the whole population is acceptable. Allowing everyone to whale is not small scale. We cannot allow everyone to whale. We can allow a small number of people to kill a handful of whales.
So the question then is: If only a small number of people can whale, which people will we allow? That's where the cultural ties to whaling are significant. It's not a double standard -- the standard is small-scale limited whaling, period. But under that standard we by necessity give preference to someone and the Inuit are the obvious choice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, ok. So the community as a whole decides what is acceptable, not outsiders, correct? So... then you would have no problem with allowing non-consentual female genital mutilation among African immigrant communities in the US, as long as the community is ok with it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Back from the 23rd Century (Score:5, Funny)
oblig (Score:5, Funny)
Are you kidding?! (Score:5, Funny)
Every time it would rain, the poor whale can be heard for miles singing the complaining song of old whales. Roughly translated from whale song as he was talking to younger whales, "Aye! My neck is killing me! Years ago, some son of a bitch human shot me right in me neck! Yarrr. It 'urts every time a storm is ah brew'n. Yarrr. Take note young'ns"
from TFA (Score:3, Insightful)
The device exploded and probably injured the whale, Bockstoce said.
"It probably hurt the whale, or annoyed him, but it hit him in a non-lethal place," he said. "He couldn't have been that bothered if he lived for another 100 years."
The whale harkens back to far different era. If 130 years old, it would have been born in 1877, the year Rutherford B. Hayes was sworn in as president, when federal Reconstruction troops withdrew from the South and when Thomas Edison unveiled his newest invention, the phonograph.
The 49-foot male whale died when it was shot with a similar projectile last month, and the older device was found buried beneath its blubber as hunters carved it with a chain saw for harvesting.
This could be very bad (Score:5, Insightful)
What we should really be doing (Score:3, Insightful)
By "caught", you mean "killed", right? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whale wasn't "caught", it was killed. It's really disappointing to think that people still killing rare, intelligent mammals that can live to over 150 years old.
And before people start telling me that whale hunting is part of Inuit tradition, I'd like to point out that TFA mentions that this whale was killed with an mechanically-launched explosive projectile. That's about as traditional as a Lakota shooting a buffalo with an AK-47.
Re:By "caught", you mean "killed", right? (Score:4, Insightful)
That tradition is at least 100 years old, since the 1800's weapon was a mechanically-launched explosive projectile as well.
Yeah but (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah but (Score:5, Funny)
Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
Aging Whales: Evidence of Age (Score:4, Informative)
Aging Whales: Evidence of Age
Marine researchers now believe that the Arctic Bowhead whale may live 180 years or longer making it the longest lived mammal on earth. Back in the early 1990's, biologists weren't sure whether to trust these estimates, that is, until they stumbled on an important clue. I'm Jim Metzner, and this is the Pulse of the Planet, presented by DuPont. Jeffery Bada is a Professor of Marine Chemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, California.
"During the annual harvest by the local Inuit hunters, the biologists that were observing this found that there were stone harpoons imbedded in some of these whales. And these stone harpoons were no longer used by the local hunters after about 1870. Stone harpoons in a whale that was killed in the 90's implies that it is over a hundred years old, and this provided independent confirmation that we indeed were onto something really interesting."
What proved equally as interesting to Jeffrey Bada and the other researchers, was the fact that the oldest whales taken during the harvest were all males.
"I don't think it necessarily implies that the males of the species live longer than the females. It has more to do with their behavior. These hundred year plus old whales were survivors of the great slaughter of whales that took place in the late nineteenth century. And males in this species of Bowheads, tend to be solitary animals, where as the females group together in these big pods of whales, and as a result, they were probably more easily hunted. It may be that the solitary males survived, whereas the females were more heavily exploited."
We'll hear more about the long-lived Bowhead whales in a future programs. Pulse of the Planet is presented by DuPont, bringing you the miracles of science for 200 years, with additional support provided by the National Science Foundation.
---
[ above from: http://pulseplanet.com/archive/Feb02/2602.html [pulseplanet.com] ]
Did anyone ead the article? (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, maybe that's a little harsh, but I mean really, most of the comments make it clear that no one read the article. I feel like I'm in high school English class where the teacher would give a pop essay on the short story we were supposed to read the night before.
What's worse is that the poster did not even read the CNN article. Or perhaps didn't pay attention. The post says "AP and CNN are carrying a story that has forced scientists to re-evaluate the longevity of mammals". This is completely false. The linked-to CNN article says "It's rare to find [a whale] that has lived more than a century, but experts say the oldest were close to 200 years old."
Finally, the AP carried this story on Tuesday and CNN picked it up on Wednesday. Old news.
I'm kvetching (sp).
OMG (Score:5, Funny)
It wasn't a bunch of Yahoo's (Score:3, Insightful)
It ain't pretty, but it wasn't going to a bunch of sport hunters for trophies.
Indigenous culture. Time to change? (Score:3, Interesting)
Go ahead, flame me, but I'm serious. We human
Re:Indigenous culture. Time to change? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Indigenous culture. Time to change? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they want to preserve their ancient ways, fine. Hunt whales from small canoes with bone spears. But don't use a chainsaw and claim you're 'preserving your heritage'. Heritage is not a buffet. Either do it as your ancestors did to keep in touch with your past, or man up and move on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are preserving the rituals of the hunt, no different than modern (Catholics/Protestansts/Jews) preserving the rituals of the host/communion/sabbath. Now you can argue that these people should not use modern appliances to cook their bread or modern preserving technology to protect their drink, but I am sure they would explain to you that it is the ritual act itself, not the means, that is important.
Re:Indigenous culture. Time to change? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to preserve their ancient ways, fine. Hunt whales from small canoes with bone spears. But don't use a chainsaw and claim you're 'preserving your heritage'. Heritage is not a buffet. Either do it as your ancestors did to keep in touch with your past, or man up and move on.
Yeah, and at some point in the past they upgraded from bone to stone hewn tools to metal. At some point in the past they have made improvements to the designs of their boats. Exactly which revision of their "heritage" are you saying they have to stick to for it to satisfy you?
Unless one of their cultural traditions is "technological statism" then I don't see the problem. They didn't "man up and move on" when they invented a better harpoon; it was considered the natural continuation of the same heritage. Because there's a lot more to the underlying cultural heritage than a specific hunting technique.
Or do you think the plains natives should have stopped their traditional bison hunts after they aquired the horse from European settlers? I think in both cases the spiritual and cultural significance of the hunt was not fundamentally erased just because they figured out a new and better way to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Their particular heritage did not invent the explosive harpoon or the outboard motor. That's like saying that Native American culture involved hunting buffalo with a Henry Rifle. So t
Re:Indigenous culture. Time to change? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Indigenous culture. Time to change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Indigenous culture. Time to change? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Intuit whale take is below the species replacement rate, so they aren't putting the bowheads survival in any danger.
Re:Indigenous culture. Time to change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Although the general argument goes along the lines that allowing indigenous people to hunt whales makes it harder to put pressure on Asians, I think that this argument is deeply flawed. We have stopped hunting whales with modern weapons because we realize the harm we are doing to the environment. Unless the Japanese and others come to a similar realization, we will not be able to stop them.
One important (even priceless) posession is that of cultural heritage and living tradition. I recognize that many in the world today, having lost a sense of heritage and tradition, fail to appreciate its value, but telling native peoples which traditions they can or cannot do (or even should or should not do) is simple imperialism and tramples on this priceless posession.
The danger of extinction for a species due to traditional practices only comes from two sources. If we recognize this, we can allow people to continue with their heritage and still avoid damage to the environment.
The first is due to technological advancement. This is what lead to the extinction of the Aurochs in Europe (the development of firearms used in hunting wiped out this animal very quickly. Arguably, the rise in higher technology weaponry nearly caused the extinction of many species of whales as well.
The second is due to explosion of demand. This is usually linked to either population increase or more likely more efficient methods of hunting (see the previous paragraph).
Before people suggest that it is still immoral to hunt whales just because they are whales (and absent from sustainability issues), let me say one thing. Every time you eat the standard chicken you get at the supermarket, every time you eat a hamburger, and every time you eat a boiled egg, unless you go out of your way to do otherwise, you are contributing to a system which imprisons animals in ways which are far more unethical.
Personally, I try my best to eat only free range or organically raised meat wherever I can. I go to the length of buying a side of beef once a year from a farmer who raises the cattle locally and humanely. But to suggest that it is unethical for Native Americans to hunt whales while contributing to this gross mistreatment of livestock is not only imperialist, it is also hypocritical.
Re:Indigenous culture. Time to change? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is always brought up, implying that human tradition is so sacrosanct. Subsistence hunting is one thing, but many traditions and heritages are steeped in ridiculous mysticism, bigotry, and pseudoscience.
I mean, I know that I wholeheartedly support movements that seek to stop equality for the sexes, because it's so important to my culture to treat women like shit. Or how about those traditions of imperialism, wanton slaughter of natives, poisoning the environment.
The greater whole of humanity and the environment should always trump any cultural tradition. The real reason small indigenous groups can continue their subsistence hunting is because their impact is negligible.
Talking about culture as if it is some static thing is ridiculous in of itself. Culture changes as science progresses and social revolutions occur. Once the majority of whites realized that colored people weren't a bunch of savage slightly intelligent monkeys, most of them woke up and started treating them with some modicum of dignity. The only "culture" true to humans is that we adapt and change. Everything else is aesthetics (the clothes we wear, art we fashion, things we pray to, dreams we have).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
that whale had friends... whales are that smart. it was part of a community of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
telling native peoples which traditions they can or cannot do (or even should or should not do) is simple imperialism and tramples on this priceless posession
Yes! Like when the evil brits forced native Indians (I mean, Indians in India) to stop burning their wives alive on the pyre of dead husbands! This was a priceless possession of the Indian people and for the brits to say that burning women alive is barbaric, well that's just cultural imperialism.
And now this:
it is sti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on.
Yayhoos? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yayhoos? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whaling is supposed to permitted by the IWC for traditional hunts by certain indigenous peoples. Perhaps you'd like to tell us what part of using a sophisticated modern projectile weapon is traditional?
The tragedy and travesty is that most of these so-called "traditional" hunts are bogus. Rather than using traditional means and rituals these "natives" are using modern weapons, sonar and a variety of other means to find and kill whales. The catch being often turned over to the Japanese for profit.
There is as much "tradition" in this type of whaling as there is "science" in Japanese scientific whaling. It's all a smokescreen for profit.
So, I agree with the original poster, although "yayhoos" is a very generous word.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other living things are worth protecting precisely because we CAN protect them.
Oh, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Europeans used to set people with warts on fire as part of their indigenous culture. And yet we frown on that today.
Because the people who care so much about the whales couldn't send them a few tons of chicken every season for some reason? It's not like they're starv
Re:Yayhoos? (Score:4, Interesting)
Their approach to preserving this whale hunting "tradition" has so diverged from its cultural roots that its become a fallacy.
To describe what really happens, they race out after this thing in their power boats and fire at it with a very modern, highly accurate harpoon with an explosive tip. Generally they try to blow a hole in the lungs so the whale starts drowning and then they dispatch it with high powered rifles when it surfaces. After it dies, they tow the carcass back to shore and then they tie a rope or chain around the tail and haul it up onto the beach with ATVs or a pickup truck. They then proceed to dismantle the body using their "traditional" chainsaws, as alluded to in TFA.
Now I'm no hippy or environmentalist, but the whole exercise seems to defeat the spirit of the "preserving the culture" concept. Is it really necessary? I think they do it simply because they're permitted to, I'm sure its a kick to hunt a whale, and they get a shitload of free meat and byproducts out of it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody. The bear doesn't need my help, and shooting it OR the person will just alert it to my presence. I back away slowly and quietly, and go back the way I came. Then I tell local authorities where they can recover the poor bastard's remains.
Re:Yayhoos? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, after a significant cool down time, I will admit the when I said the above, it was intended to be inflammatory, and was a knee jerk kind of post. References to Swift's "A Modest Proposal" tend to be pretty outrageous and polarizing. I will, on the other hand, stand by my assertion that the last bear on earth, or indeed the last, or last few members of any species are worth more than any human. The idea that humans have a right to survive, at any cost, and the more extreme, that any human has the right to survive at any cost, seems so incredibly dangerous to me. How much blood staining our collective existence do we have to have? I'm not a vegetarian by any means, but Cows are in no danger of going anywhere as a species, and neither are chickens. But the mass slaughter of an entire genetic line? That is entirely different.
How are we supposed to justify to future generations (should they even exist) that there were once great marine mammals, the largest animals that ever lived, that swam through the seas and sang hauntingly beautiful songs to one another. And that, in that perhaps not so distant future, they no longer exist, because we destroyed their breeding grounds and hunted the last few and ate them. How are we supposed to explain, that there were once other close members of the human family tree living in the forests of Africa. That they could walk upright, some could learn a little sign language, that they used tools, and cared for their young. And that they are no more, because we burned down their forests, and they were hunted to extinction, for meat.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Am I the only one disgusted by this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Longevity of whales (Score:5, Insightful)
Ships injure and kill whales, whalers kill whales, sonar from U.S. Navy submarines kill whales and ruin their hearing. What we're doing is unforgivable.
Is anybody else alarmed about the news that we just killed an old whale?
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Insightful)
I had part of a pig for breakfast and turkey for lunch, so I'd be a hypocrite if I complained much.
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Insightful)
Then imagine the rest of the planet trying to get Americans to abandon this tradition.
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Insightful)
Straw man much?
Anyway, where is the all-knowing, perfectly-objective judge to make this decision? Some say, people killing whales is causing us to run out of whales, and running out of whales would be bad, and so all people killing whales should stop.
Some other people might say, we've been killing whales with canoes and spears for thousands of years and it's never been a problem. We never ran out of whales. It's the new kids on the sea with what are basically warships and canons (to make war on sea life) that are causing the problems.
How about the folks that are having problems living off the sea stop being so destructive, and stop bothering with the folks who are living with the sea?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Insightful)
I would also guess that the Inuit people couldn't care any less about whether there are enough whales to supply you with Animal Planet specials about whales to watch from your climate controlled living room. They are probably more concerned with the continued existence of whales due to their cultural connections being deeper than regular visits to Pier One's nautical themed knick knack department.
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:4, Informative)
But I thought we were on animal farms, in which case maintaining [toledoblade.com] wastewater [desmoinesregister.com] systems [nocafos.org] appears to cost too much as well.
Nevermind that factory farming leads us to do insane things: Lettuce from national fast food chain Taco Bell makes people ill all over the country. A crazy stroke of coincidence? No, they buy the most of their lettuce from one single farm in California and ship it all across America. And this isn't some secret moon lettuce from the future that chops itself, it is the same stuff that virtually anyone with a patch of dirt big enough to stand on can grow by just throwing seeds out, then kicking back and doing mostly nothing.
Taken as a whole, the practice is probably not in everyone's best interest.
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Interesting)
"Modern farming practices are potentially far more sustainable than the more traditional methods.
Sure we could use our very well developed understanding of ecosystem science to make farming sustainable, but what actually happens is that all our fancy science is used to make "food production" profitable. And not even profitable for the farmer necessarily, but profitable to the mass food distribution system conglomerates through high yield monocultures.
Buying local produce from "sustainable practice farms" (I just made that term up, i'm no expert... can't remember the technical term), usually called organic (but you'll want to verify this as the major food conglomerates have moved into "organic mass production") is not only a good way to get tasty food, it's an act of economic protest. Unfortunately, like most protest in the west, it's reserved for the relatively well off.
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, there's concerns about the usage of monocultures - but it's not entirely monocultures either. We still have a number of different breeds of a number of crops.
We'd already be out of farmland in the USA if it wasn't sustainable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I'm talking about in terms of sustainability is, looking at ecosystems
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone came into your house and opened every water faucet for 23 hours of the day, then suddenly turned them off, and then had the audacity to tell you to conserve water by not drinking any, would you accept that?
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Informative)
"We" (as in "people subject to U.S. law") have stopped killing them. If you RTFA, you'll find that the people who killed the whale were Eskimos, who have permission to do it because it's their tradition.
If you want to bitch at the Eskimos for doing it, be my guest -- but you'll probably get bitched at in return about how "their traditions are as endangered as the whales" or some such thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't have it both ways.
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you should be forced to grow your own food using 19th century technology. That should have the nice side benefit of reducing your "carbon footprint".
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:4, Interesting)
It's resulted in overhunting because if you have to risk your damn life in some flimsy hand-made kayak, you quickly figure out just how important that dead whale is to your cultural heritage.
Yes, I read the article too. Which is why I also know that they are killing 255 whales a year when there are only about 8000 left alive at all. This species was not long ago on the very brink of extinction, and we just don't know enough about them to be sure how many is "safe" to take. Why risk it?
Every culture on the face of this earth has had to adapt to changing situations, why are they excluded?
M-
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "modern" tools make it much more likely that if you hit the whale you get it and it counts against your quota. The ones that get away and die 24 hours later would not be counted.
That is the most stupid answer I ever read (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just about saving a species, it's about the whole ecosystem a species fits in that is destroyed because of the actions of forementioned idiots.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we want to harvest, we should farm or otherwise artificially support the populations we use.
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Funny)
I agree, I bet new species pop up all the time. Heck, just this morning I bet a couple of new species of whales were created! Yeah, it will happen no matter what we do....even though we are the ones doing it. Makes sense.
Lets start a club where we try not to cloud these issues with facts and logic. We can call it the Patriot Freedom Club. We can have cookies, and chocolate milk, and talk about how much global warming is beyond our control. Then we can get in our SUV's and go run over baby tortoises as they scramble for the ocean! Die little bastards, die!
Sorry, long day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeez, whatever! "Alaskan" Eskimos, "Canadian" Eskimos -- they're all the same anyway, since the distinction didn't exist before Europeans divided up the United States and Canada!
The point, which you thoroughly missed, was that the U.S. (and probably Canadian) government makes exceptions for natives. You can argue over which semantics are politically-correct until you're blue in the face; personally, I don't give a shit!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Their numbers are low and getting lower? I don't know where you're getting your info (you probably should have read past the headline and into the FA, and not relied on your feelings of 'probably' etc...) but from what I've heard in the past, this type of whale--bowheads--are making a pretty decent recovery. That's why na
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you make a completely irrelevant comparison (humans vs squid and sharks), and speculate wildly about it's childbearing years.
I think you're close-minded and uninformed.
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:4, Insightful)
What exactly am I close-minded about? Or uninformed for that matter, was I wrong about something?
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Funny)
Well it is Slashdot;-) There are two sides to every opinion: the right one and the uninformed, close-minded one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like how clear cutting the entire amazon rain forest for lumber and slaying all of the monkeys for exotic dishes would
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
50 seems like a lot more when you realize that 80 is 1% of the whole population. 100 would probably be close to 1% of the entire bowhead population, depending on what estimates you take...Some people think the total number globally to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am more alarmed that we are even killing whales at all, regardless of age. But if that wasn't the base issue I would say that it is far more devastating to the population if young whales capable of reproducing are killed. This is because if you wipe out the base of the population growth you kill the species as a whole. what does an old whale look like anyways?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Like this [signonsandiego.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's true, estimated whale populations have been declining, but are estimates really accurate?
People used to think that there were only a tiny amount of Giant squid--maybe in the thousands--worldwide.
When whales eat giant squid, the s
Re:Longevity of whales (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Juneau, Alaska and we have so many fucking whales up here you can't even walk down the beach without seeing them right here in the waters offshore. That's not exactly a historical perspective, but we're not talking about the last dodo here.
The reason to stop hunting whales isn't that there are few of them, but rather that they probably have legitimate claim at the second most intelligent life from on earth, and more importantly, probably above the threshold of intelligence where we shouldn't hunt them at all. Whales, dolphins, elephants, and primates -- they are all probably above that threshold. As humans, we respect our own first, then other highly intelligent animals (which all happen to be mammals), then other mammals, then other animals, then other forms of life. People differ on where along that spectrum we should stop the killing. Vegans put the line right under all animals, I put it right under intelligent life.
If you really care about whales, then rally against their biggest problem, which is (and for 150 years has been) boat engine noise, which fucks up their ability to talk to one another.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anybody else alarmed about the news that we just killed an old whale?
It's doubtful that 100+ year old whales are still fertile, so killing them would have absolutely no effect on whale population rates. If we're going to kill whales (and I'm not saying we should), it's certainly preferable to kill only the oldest o
Fool of myself (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you post from an account instead of posting as an AC?
I am aware that Inuit were doing the hunting. So what? Inuit have other choices. Fishing for salmon would be a good example.
I do value the Inuit culture, but at a certain point clinging to old ways becomes a Luddite reaction to change. They don't need to hunt whale, and their continuing hunts of whales endanger their future ability to hunt whales.
Mankind needs to move on. Lingering in old ways does not exalt the past, it mocks the past.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This bears repeating. When the whales run out, do you think the Inuit will change their stance on McNuggets or just die out quietly?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I do value the Inuit culture"
Well, that's great, but you sure don't know anything about them. Their whale hunting endangers nothing except your stupidity.
Re:Fool of myself (Score:4, Interesting)
Having grown up in Alaska, with native friends (whose family participated in the hunts) I've got maybe a different view on the whale hunt. This isn't about food, it's about identity. The Inuit who live in western housing, who have electricity and regular groceries, who attend schools (often taught by non-inuits), who get around on motorized vehicles (snowmobiles in the winter, 3-and-4-wheelers in the summer), who receive dividends from their native corporations (these native corporations receive oil royalties) have feet in two cultural epochs- the industrial world and essentially the stone age.
Bridging these worlds isn't easy- their once-rich culture is declining, as the need it fulfilled (sustaining true subsistence hunter-gatherers in an incredible environment) slowly becomes a thing of the past. The Inuit are awesome, beautiful people and I don't envy them their position, nor do I begruge them this tradition. (even though I would never harm a whale or seal or walrus myself). It's the centerpiece of a culture that equated survival with community and cooperation- and their challenge for now is how to translate these values into their modern lives. The hunt is really a big deal- part rite of passage into manhood, part party, it's the time where disparate families and communities would meet, trade, where young adults from separate communities would court each other- imagine your life if suddenly the place where you did all of these things were gone.
We could learn a thing or two from the Inuit, just like they've got some stuff to learn from the rest of the world. This will take time. Maybe they'll replace the hunt with something else to serve all those other purposes. Maybe not. That's their thing, and they'll do it on their terms.
Re:Wow, what it must have felt like... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Congratulations! (Score:4, Funny)
However, the big different between God and animals is that there are animals.