Some of you may be familiar with this topic through "Whale Wars", while others of you might have thought that the practice of killing whales ended with Captain Ahab. But the issue is becoming relevant again, and lo and behold some economists have gotten together and proposed a solution to help the whaling industry clean up its act. Why, people should buy and sell whales.
Please read the article linked here (a warning to animal lovers: the picture at the top of the article might gross you out a little). After reading the market, consider the following:
- What is the current state of the whale population? How are whales currently protected? Do these protections seem to have much effect?
- What is the proposed option to save the whales?
- How is this scenario similar to the cap and trade auction we did in class?
- One argument against whale markets is that whales are different than pollution because they are sentient beings. One researcher even suggests that this could be "worse than slavery." Do you agree with this assessment? Explain.
- How would enforcement work?
- Do you agree with this proposal or not? Explain.
The first post will be due Saturday, January 14th at midnight. The second post will be due Sunday, January 22nd at midnight. These will be the last two posts of the quarter/semester, so make them count!
28 comments:
First off, that picture actually scared me because I clicked the article before reading your little disclaimer.
Now, as stated in the article, the whale populations are "relatively healthy." The whale ares currently protected by the outlaw of commercial whaling that was issued by the International Whaling Commission. However, this has practically no effect and many countries just disregard it totally and still hunt whales.
The new proposal to protect the whales is people can buy the rights to hunt and save whales. This is very similar to the cap and trade auction we did with class. We had companies buying the rights to pollute the air, and tree huggers trying to buy pollution credits to keep the air clean. Now, it's virtually the same thing, just with whales.
Personally, I am not only a tree hugger, but I am also an animal lover; and I think this would be a great plan. This would not be "worse than slavery" and I think whoever said that was a moron. The proposal to buy the rights to whales would be put in place to save them, whether it be through regulation of killing or conservationists buying to keep them from being killed. In a way, everyone wins, including the whales. Enforcement could work by strictly keeping track all whale hunting done by those with whale killing rights, and making them keep documentation of their hunting. If they are found to be in violation with their documenting or killing more than they or permitted, or killing without rights, they can be fined, sent to jail; whatever punishment the people enforcing see fit.
Overall, I think its a solid proposal and once you work out how it will be enforced well, it could really become a great thing.
The whale population is relatively healthy. So, they are not at risk for extinction. The only current protection seems to be the protesting of anti-whalers. Seeing that their persuasive skills are weak, I would consider them to be ineffective.
The proposal is to have the International Whaling Commission to sell catch allotments. Activists would be able to buy these shares as well, decreasing the amount of whale executions by humans. Having allotments would force whalers to not overfish.
In the auction, pollution permits were purchased. These permits allowed companies to produce more of their products. Ultimately, more products were produced for less pollution.
The statement regarding slavery is outrageous. You could say slaves are bought to kill. They were worked so hard that their bodies deteriorated. They were abused. I would probably rather be dead than put through torture and risk the physical and psychological damages. Besides, people breed animals to kill them. Farmers have cows and pigs ready to be slaughtered.
Enforcement would reduce the number of whales fished. This would make anti-whalers happy and maybe whalers as well. If they could make the same amount of money, they would not mind the change.
I suppose allotting water is similar to allotting land for farmers, so the proposal is not too extreme. I do not agree with any of the moral “support” of the argument or that whalers are excessive in their fishing. The proposal could help with other issues such as fishing for any marine animals. If a person is in charge of their one allotment, he will try to keep it clean so that the animals he fishes are healthy.
The whaling population currently isnt that bad. There are not at a risk for extinction, but the number being killed per year is increasing. This could be a future problem. Whaling was outlawed by the International Whaling Commission many years ago. But, Norway and Iceland defy this and Japan has many whalers. So, it isn't helpful. The proposed solution is to put up whale allotments for sale by the International Whaling Commission. This is similar to what we did in class, except in class we sold pollution rights. One argument against whale markets is that whales are different than pollution because they are sentient beings. One researcher even suggests that this could be "worse than slavery." I completely disagree with this. The purpose of slavery was labor, and this hurt the slaves. Selling rights to kill whales sounds bad, but it is helpful if followed. The only way to enforce this is to make whale hunters register and keep track of the whales they kill. This will not work! Most of whale hunters are not large corporations that can be tracked. They are small local fisherman trying to make a few bucks. They do it in secret, and are not government regulated. The ocean is to big to track small boats and make sure they aren't hunting whales. So, since this can't be enforced, I don't really agree with the proposal. If it was done only within the United States it would probably work though.
Currently 1,950 whales are killed every year by commercial hunters and the indigenous Arctic population. The only protection for whales is an outlaw by the International Whaling commission. This law is not effective because Iceland, Norway, and Japan kill whales anyway.
The proposed option to save the whales is to create and open market in which organizations could "buy" whales, thereby either taking them off the market or gaining the right to kill them.
This is similar to the cap and trade auction because organizations compete for a limited amount of goods and purchase in order to maximize efficiency. Instead of air, whales are the good in demand.
Although it seems cruel to buy and sell whales like any other good, a whale market, if enforced effectively, would save more whales than the current system. In effect, there would be more whales around for hippies to hug.
The logistics of enforcement would be difficult to organize, but I imagine it would include people accompanying whaling boats to make sure that they do not exceed their purchased limit. However, this would require hiring many workers.
I agree with this proposal. If it didn't work immediately, it could be refined and altered to become effective. It might as well be tried, because nothing else has worked.
Just like the polar bears, there is little current threat of whale extinction-and in many cases endangerment- yet there has been an increase in killings. It is important to note that whale populations are now steadily increasing due mainly to laws enacted by the International Whaling Commission. That obviously doesn't mean the killings have decreased (as previosuly menntioned), so it looks like their most successful legislation has to do with successfully reproducing at a faster rate. But the IWC is not satisfied. More of their beloved whales are being killed even though they have made it illegal to kill certain species.
Some scientists,probably the ones that haven't become emotionally inseperable from whales due to working witht hem for over 30 years, advocate for Cap and Trade Auctions to sell the right to kill whales. In this system, conservationists would be able to buy up some of these limited rights and take them off the market entirely.
This could be basically completely parallel to the Cap and Trade auction we did in class, but right now the only shared aspect is the despairing liberals. There are different companies that have various finances and place various worths on the ability to kill whales. Therfore, if we put a price on the whales, we can control how many are killed and the conservationists can spend money on something a little more constructive than sad TV commercials. By doing this, we would also eliminate companies killing whales for the sake of not wanting competing whalers to snag them all up. We will effectively being wiping out the Tragedy of the Commons by privatizing these lovely sea-mammals.
The difference, of course, is that whales are sentient beings (according to Buddhism), not gross air incapable of possessing intelligence. Please recall though, that the pollution from our class simulation had a direct effect on humans and other organisms, many of which are sentient beings. I digress; but stay tuned! I shall continue my discourse on a later date.
Environmental factors aren't dictating the argument over whaling. There isn't a shortage of whales, mink and fin whale populations are healthy, but many whale conservationists still oppose whaling. It's because they believe whales have "personable" characteristics; they are extremely intelligent and even have their own language. Whales are currently protected by anti-whaling groups like Greenpeace, who spend large funds to combat fishing vessels. Also, the IWC sets quotas for whalers in order control the whale pop. Unfortunately, the number of whales annually hunter has doubled from that of the early 90's. Nations such as Norway also disregard the IWC. Thankfully Christopher Costello, an environmental economist, has a solution to heated debate.
Costello suggests that the market should be patterned after the system known as "catch shares," with the exception that activists can also buy shares. This is very similar to the cap and trade auction we did in class because there is a negative externality in an industry that could be regulated. the externality, such as pollution of the death of innocent whales, could be better regulated with the use of shares. Giving activists the ability to buy shares as well, you create an industry where business develop incentive to actually create less pollution or kill less whales for the sake of costs. Some activists still feel the need to bicker over a effective solution.
Some activists say that because whales are sentient beings, selling them to both activists and whalers would be "slavery"! This idea is redundant. Currently whales are being murdered in high numbers. in order to save any whales it would be wise to purchase shares. The activists have almost the same funds as the whalers, who are also receiving subsidies from the gov.(indicating a possible weakness in the market). There will never be a universal agreement that whales have "natural rights" similar to humans, so the catch share is the best solution. It may even force some whalers into other fishing industries.
Whales are doing quite swimmingly at the moment. Whales are currently not protected with any effective laws, as countries like Norway and Iceland openly whale and Japan kills whales in the name of research.
One proposed option for whaling is to create a market where whales are bought by conservationists and effectively taken off the market, or the whales are bought by hunters.
This is similar to the environmental cap and trade auction we did in class because only the companies that are able to afford buy the "whales" or "air" are able to do so efficiently, while the other companies must look for other means to earn a profit.
Whales aren't humans. They swim, that's it. Very few actions done by man kind can parallel the evil of slavery; stabbing an underwater creature doesn't even come close.
One effective way of creating order on the high seas is to arm the whales them selves with lasers. This will enable them to defend themselves and create an externality, which will undoubtedly raise the opportunity cost for would be hunters, to the point where they must justify their agregious acts of violence against mankind...whalekind...fishkind...amphibiouskind...?
I am going to take a different approach to this blog post and discuss the intelligence of the whale.
To start off with, whales have the largest brains among the organisms of this planet. To give a comparison, the average human brain is 1300 cubic centimeters, while the sperm whale's brain is 8000 cubic centimeters. Brain size doesn't account for total intelligence, but it certainly plays a role.
Let's take a look at the neurological makeup of a cetacean's brain. When placed side by side, a human's neocortical surface is 2,275 cm2, while the average dolphins neocortical surface is 3,745 cm2. A sperm whale's neocortical surface is far larger than that of the dolphin.
As far as actual neocortical neuron count, the minke whale has 12.8 billion, which is 2/3 of a human. However, minke whales have the highest number of non-neuronal cells in their brain of any species, called glia, in the neocortex, numbering at 98.2 billion. The human brain pales in comparison, having a glial to neuron ratio of 1.4 to 1, while Minke whales have a ratio of 7.7 to 1. Recent research has revealed that glial cells play a large part in information processing. With the higher number of glial cells, it would seem unnecessary for a whale to have more neurons since the huge number of glial cells can do more processing with less neurons, while a human is the other way around.
Cetaceans also have an incredibly complex communication system that utilizes sonar. There are even studies that whales have names for each other. Whales also have huge lifespans, with some even reaching over 200 years old. Whales demonstrate the ability to recall huge tracks of ocean over thousands of miles in their lifetime. This clearly demonstrates that whales have intelligence that is comparable to human beings.
I will now answer the questions for the blog post. It would seem clear that whales and other cetaceans are extremely intelligent, and are most likely as intelligent as human beings, albeit they may process information very differently. Seeing this is the case, I feel that the cap and trade auction approach to whaling is equivocal to slavery, and whaling in itself is clearly immoral.
Rather, humans should look for a way to communicate with whales, as their knowledge of the ocean would be invaluable to marine scientists. In this, whales, humans, and other species can benefit.
sources: Scientific American, Animal Planet, Discovery, things I have recalled from memory
The article stated that the overall whale population is healthy and that in reality they are not in risk for extinction. Whales are currently protected by law issued by the the International Whaling Commission but in reality they are disregarded. The only real protection for the whales is the anti-whaler protests. The proposal is that people can buy and sell the rights to kill whales. Just like the cap and trade auction in our class, where companies could buy and sell their rights to pollute a certain amount of air, whale advocates will be able to buy as many rights as possible so not as many whales will be killed. Just like in the auction in class, where the companies were able to make more electricity with less pollution, less whales will be killed if the auction is ran properly. I personally do not want to see any animals get killed but if this process can save the most lives then i am all for it. The idea that this is worse then slavery in a sense is correct because in this case you are paying to kill a living being. Either way both are horrible things that are killing many innocent lives. Enforcement could work but it would be very difficult because how would you keep track of each whale but if strict laws are put into place limiting the killing of whales with strict repercussions then it may be successful. Personally i do not know how it will work but if the proposal is successful then a good service is being done that will hopefully say many lives.
Currently, the whale population is not in danger of extinction. However, the number of whales killed by hunters is on the rise. Whaling has continued despite a worldwide ban put in place by the International Whaling Commission. To save the whales, it has been proposed that the rights to hunt whales be sold in a forum similar to a cap and trade auction. This proposition would set a quota for the number of whales that could be hunted by commercial whalers and indigenous Arctic peoples, which could then be bought or sold by hunters or conservationists. Personally, I think this is a great plan. Although I am never in favor of killing animals, clearly the current system of protecting the whales is not working. By setting a quota for hunters that is lower than the current number of whales killed annually, whales would be saved and the population would rise. The number of whales killed annually has been on the rise, as stated in the article, and this seems to be the best option to put an end to that. I don't think this is comparable to slavery. The important thing in this situation is the number of whales being saved from death. The proposition would function to keep whales alive, not to kill them. Over time, the quota could be reduced, getting us closer and closer to the ideal of a widespread ban on all whaling. Enforcement would be similar to the enforcement of hunting seasons in state parks. Hunters would be required to document their catches. If anyone is found to be overhunting or hunting without permission then they could be fined or punished in whatever way that the enforcers see fit. Overall, I think this proposal is the best way to save the whales from overhunting.
Although more whales are being killed now than in the past, their population is relatively healthy. Anti-whaling groups spend about $25 million to stop the hunting of whales. Also, commercial whaling was outlawed by the International Whaling Commission. This does not seem to have a huge effect on the hunting of whales, considering multiple countries openly defy this ban.
In the article, the author is discussing the proposal to sell rights to hunting whales. There would be a maximum quota, which would be created by the International Whaling Commission.
This scenario is similar to the cap and trade auction we did in class. Your company could purchase rights to pollute the air, or you could choose to cut down on the amount of pollution you exerted. With the proposed system, rights to kill whales is very similar to right to pollute the air.
I do not agree with the statement that this system is anything like slavery. This is an attempt to protect the whales, not to exploit them. Although they are organisms and not pollution, they are still being over-used just as the air. People are taking advantage of whales, just as they are taking advantage of the air.
The International Whaling Commission could enforce the system. Companies would have to accurately report the number of whales that they catch, and follow the guidelines set by the commission. This may be hard to enforce, but I do think it would be possible.
i agree with the proposed plan. This would lead to appropriate killing of whales. They are going to be killed no matter what, but this method would prevent exploitation. The International Whaling Commission would ensure that the whales would remain at a stable population, and companies could still remain in business.
Currently, the whales are protected by a law but it is difficult for it to be enforced on people, so many still whale. As a result, a lot of whales still die anyway. So the whale population is steadily decreasing. The proposed option to save the whales is to have a certain number of whales taken at a time and then sell them on an open market so that people that want them the most would pay the most. This scemario is similar to what we did to the cap and trade auction we did in class because in class, the people that bought the most whales were being the most productive with those whales. And in real life with the whales it will be the same because the people that could make the most marginal profit off of the whale would buy it. I think if it were people it would be worse than slavery because instead of buying someone to do work, you would be buying them in order to kill them. However, they are not humans. This is no different then when someone buys some cows or something in order to kill them and sell them. I agree with the proposal because it lowers the amount of whales that are killed and sells those whales in the way that they will be used most efficiently for that company and for society.
According to the article, minke and fin whale aren't really in danger extinction anymore, but there's no mention of the state of other whale populations. Whales are currently protected by the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling, which doesn't seem to be all that effective.
The proposed option to save the whales is essentially allowing the sale of whales. Activists can buy whales to take them off the market, and whalers can buy whales to hunt and kill. This is like the cap and trade auction we did in class, but instead of selling the rights to air, it's about selling the rights to whales.
Whales may be sentient beings, but that shouldn't really factor into anything because they're still animals. We treat plenty of intelligent animals in ways that are sickening and terrible. It's still not as horrible as doing the same things to human being because the sentience of those animals doesn't even approach that of human beings. So no, it wouldn't be "worse than slavery."
How would enforcement work? It wouldn't. If anti-whaling groups can't enforce an outright ban on whaling, then how do they expect to enforce theoretical property rights on organisms that are constantly on the move in the world's oceans? As stated in the article, the price of a whale is currently $0. Unless conversationalists start backing up their rules with bullets, the whalers will have little incentive to begin paying more than the current price.
I don't agree with the proposal. Maybe it would work in a perfect world where people don't break rules but, then again, so would outlawing whaling. If anti-whalers really want to save whales, they should convince the U.S. government to pressure other countries' governments into enforcing the ban. The problem with that and any other strategy is that, for all intents and purposes, no one gives a **** about whales, so good luck finding the muscle needed to back any international whaling law.
According to the article, of the species hunted, whale populations are relatively healthy. Commercial whaling had been outlawed by the International Whaling Community, but the IWC has had difficulty enforcing the ban. Some countries openly ignore the ban, while others claim that they only hunt the whales for scientific research. Recently, it had been proposed that whaling should be turned into a market of sorts. Whaling companies could buy the right to hunt a certain amount of whales and activists could pay to have a number of whales removed from the market. To me it seems that while this idea could work, the main problem with any system is that they can't enforce it. Even if this proposal became the system, the enforcement of the system wouldn't be any different. There wouldn't be any way stop hunters from hunting more whales then they are allowed.
The article says that the whale populations are not completely disturbing, but it also goes on to explain the startling statistics of how many whales are killed and hunted in present days. Twice as many whales are killed now than from 1990. The whales are currently protected through the International Whaling Commissions outlawing commercial whaling. The protections don't seem to have much affect since the killing of whales has doubled. The new proposal is that people can buy their right to hunt the whales as well as to save them. Which is very similar to the cap and trade auction from class because people were buying the rights to pollute the air and also to save the air and make it cleaner. This is definitely not the same as slavery because the people were purchased to be worked and killed. Enforcement would help water pollution and reduce the number of whales hunted so i do agree with this proposal.
Currently, most hunted whale populations are not in danger of being endangered but are being hunted more than ever. 1,600 whales killed a year is a lot and with whale hunters defying the International Whaling Commission laws all the time, whales could be in more danger than we think they are. The proposed option is to allow whale hunters as well as activists to purchase "shares" of whales. This would be a certain number of whales that hunters could hunt and activists could save, with a maximum quota per year. This would take whales off of the market as well as make money for the International Whaling Commission. This is similar to the cap and trade auction we did in class because by buying shares, the whalers can hunt more like the energy companies could pollute more. The activists buying shares to take whales off the market is like the activists taking permits off of the market for pollution. I think that if we are saving more whales, this is a good thing. It is hard to say if this is "worse than slavery" because we can't say that whales are not also a good that is bought and sold. I do think that more research should be done in order to determine whether whales are truly sentient beings and if these rules should again be changed. I do agree with this proposal unless the International Whaling Commission is going to do something about how many whales are being killed illegally. If things are going to stay the way they are, then I believe that introducing this market could help save whales because of how much money activists would raise to save them. If buying shares of whales is the best way to save them, then why not just raise as much as possible to save as many as possible.
According to the article, the population of whales that is currently hunted is "relatively healthy." Most commercially hunted whales are non-endangered Minke and Fin Whales, and there are only a small number of potentially endangered whales who are hunted by indigenous Arctic peoples. Whaling is currently subjected to regulation by the International Whaling Commission, and whales are primarily protected by independent anti-whaling organizations. These protections, especially IWC regulations, deter most countries from commercially whaling; however, Norway, Iceland, and Japan have increased whaling operations in spite of these regulations. Environmental economists have offered a solution: selling rights to hunt whales. This proposal is similar to cap and trade pollution proposals in that it allows whalers (polluters) to buy whale hunting credits (pollution credits), and likewise allows anti-whaling groups (anti-pollution groups)to buy up the whaling (pollution) credits. I agree with this proposal because it seems better than the current system. The money from the sale of whaling credits could be used to fund anti-whaling education campaigns, and enforcement would be the responsibility of the International Whaling Commissions's fleet of ships. I disagree that whaling is worse than slavery simply because sentience is not sufficient grounds for moral consideration. Slaves were people, rational beings, and rationality is the only condition for moral consideration. Whales are not rational beings, and therefore they are not due protection in my opinion, unless they are endangered. Slavery was far worse than whaling.
According to the article, the population of whales that is currently hunted is "relatively healthy." Most commercially hunted whales are non-endangered Minke and Fin Whales, and there are only a small number of potentially endangered whales who are hunted by indigenous Arctic peoples. Whaling is currently subjected to regulation by the International Whaling Commission, and whales are primarily protected by independent anti-whaling organizations. These protections, especially IWC regulations, deter most countries from commercially whaling; however, Norway, Iceland, and Japan have increased whaling operations in spite of these regulations. Environmental economists have offered a solution: selling rights to hunt whales. This proposal is similar to cap and trade pollution proposals in that it allows whalers (polluters) to buy whale hunting credits (pollution credits), and likewise allows anti-whaling groups (anti-pollution groups)to buy up the whaling (pollution) credits. I agree with this proposal because it seems better than the current system. The money from the sale of whaling credits could be used to fund anti-whaling education campaigns, and enforcement would be the responsibility of the International Whaling Commissions's fleet of ships. I disagree that whaling is worse than slavery simply because sentience is not sufficient grounds for moral consideration. Slaves were people, rational beings, and rationality is the only condition for moral consideration. Whales are not rational beings, and therefore they are not due protection in my opinion, unless they are endangered. Slavery was far worse than whaling.
According to the article, the population of whales that is currently hunted is "relatively healthy." Most commercially hunted whales are non-endangered Minke and Fin Whales, and there are only a small number of potentially endangered whales who are hunted by indigenous Arctic peoples. Whaling is currently subjected to regulation by the International Whaling Commission, and whales are primarily protected by independent anti-whaling organizations. These protections, especially IWC regulations, deter most countries from commercially whaling; however, Norway, Iceland, and Japan have increased whaling operations in spite of these regulations. Environmental economists have offered a solution: selling rights to hunt whales. This proposal is similar to cap and trade pollution proposals in that it allows whalers (polluters) to buy whale hunting credits (pollution credits), and likewise allows anti-whaling groups (anti-pollution groups)to buy up the whaling (pollution) credits. I agree with this proposal because it seems better than the current system. The money from the sale of whaling credits could be used to fund anti-whaling education campaigns, and enforcement would be the responsibility of the International Whaling Commissions's fleet of ships. I disagree that whaling is worse than slavery simply because sentience is not sufficient grounds for moral consideration. Slaves were people, rational beings, and rationality is the only condition for moral consideration. Whales are not rational beings, and therefore they are not due protection in my opinion, unless they are endangered. Slavery was far worse than whaling.
According to the lack of effort evident in the article, I would conclude that whale hunting is very loosely regulated with unreliable means. Although not in danger of extinction yet, the whale population decreases by almost 2,000. The new and improved option imposed is similar to the Cap and Trade economic negotiation discussed in class because those who desired to abduct, kill, and sell whales are not going give as much of their hard-earned money to buy the right to commercially hunt whales as advocates are going to in order to remove many available whales from the market. In a sense, it is a bit different than slavery in that it deals with whales instead of humans; however, humans can express their sentient ability a little more freely. With Iceland giving the International Whaling Commission the finger, it is already evident that enforcing these laws would be difficult. Nevertheless, I do enjoy the concept of this proposal simply because of the faith I have that the advocates for whales will pay so much that most or all whales will be off the market. This is of course assuming that there is one day that comes when all of the offenders were reprimanded.
Whales are currently a healthy population; though "protected" by anti-whaling laws,the laws are openly defied or bypassed through the guise pf scientific research.
To try a fresh approach to the situation, an option of buying and selling rights to kill/protect whales has been proposed. This scenario is almost exactly like our class activity of buying and selling pollution rights.
Although I do think it is interesting that whales could be sentient beings, I'm not sure I would say that whaling is worse than slavery because I value a human life a lot more than a whale's life.
Enforcement would work by whalers being confronted to see if they have permits for whaling.
I think this proposal makes sense and will probably do more for protecting whales than the current system.
The current state of whale population is healthy but they are being hunted every day. Whales are currently protected by a commercial whaling ban but it is not obeyed by many countries so it doesn't really do anything. The proposed option to save whales is cap and trade auction by buying and selling rights to kill whales or protect them which is just like when we bought and sold rights to pollute. I don't think this is worse than slavery because whales aren't people so it's not as bad. The law would be enforced by officials checking to see if whaers have whaling permits. I agree with the proposal because it at least gives anti-whaling groups the chance to save some whales.
The current health of the whale population is relatively healthy despite increases in the amount of whales hunted every year. They are in no danger of extinction at the moment and the only protection they receive is from the International Whaling Commission which has outlawed whaling but many countries simply refuse to acknowledge the organization so it is ineffective.
It has been proposed that people need to buy the rights to hunt whales and others, who wish to stop whale hunting, can buys rights to save whales. It is basically like the class demonstration in which companies had to buy rights to pollute the air and those against pollution could buy the rights to prevent pollution.
I don't agree with the assessment because it relies on the assumption that whales are practically human. I think the worst part of slavery was that it was torment of a human caused by another human. The argument can be made that whales are very similar to humans and perhaps they are but whales are simply killed and slaves had to endure the torment all of their lives.
The only way to enforce this is if each of the countries would set up fines or other punishments for any hunters who violated the new plan. There really is no way to enforce this plan if others don't want to follow it.
I disagree with this plan because I don't think it would work because of the problems of enforcement. Many countries do not see the whale industry as having a problem since their populations are healthy so they don't see the need to following a solution that in their minds does not exist.
The current state of the laws on whaling is that is illegal to kill them. Currently Japan and other countries defy the laws and justify them by saying its for scientific research. These laws have some affect, but Japan is still whaling and organizations like Greenpeace are trying to stop them. The system is a little bit of a cat and mouse game that has been going on for years.
The proposed option is a ot like the one we did in class. The killing of whales will be auctioned off at a certain number so Japan or whale savers can buy them. They will have the choice to buy them but it will come with a price.
The whales are going to be bought to kill, but this happens with most other animals just not exactly the same way. Enforcement would be hard to do, but severe fines could make it possible. I would agree with the proposal because it seems more logical than any of the others.
The current state of the laws on whaling is that is illegal to kill them. Currently Japan and other countries defy the laws and justify them by saying its for scientific research. These laws have some affect, but Japan is still whaling and organizations like Greenpeace are trying to stop them. The system is a little bit of a cat and mouse game that has been going on for years.
The proposed option is a ot like the one we did in class. The killing of whales will be auctioned off at a certain number so Japan or whale savers can buy them. They will have the choice to buy them but it will come with a price.
The whales are going to be bought to kill, but this happens with most other animals just not exactly the same way. Enforcement would be hard to do, but severe fines could make it possible. I would agree with the proposal because it seems more logical than any of the others.
The current condition of the whaling industry is healthy. A lot of whales are being killed. This is similar to a cap and trade auction because you can buy rights to hunt whales and buy the right to save the whales. In class we bought the right to polute or to scrub the air. I don't agree with this proposal because you shouldn't be able to buy the right to hunt whales. It's exactly like slavery. It's not fair to buy the right to hunt a species because you could easily deplete the species by continually hunting them.
Worse than slavery? WOW. As a VERY sentient being, I am rather offended that my potential enslavement is more palatable than a 50 ton bag of blubber being killed. Sorry, I know they are more than that, but REALLY?! That reminds me of the paradox of Hitler; the dude could be responsible for the killing of over 11 million people, but he wouldn’t eat meat because he was an animal lover. Whatever.
Killing anything shouldn’t be taken lightly. I dig the Native American way of life. Use every part and pray for its spirit! A whale bladder could be like a gigantic trash bag or something.
But how does government regulate this? Well I believe that Cap and Trade Auctions are the best way to run the market, so with some of the money the IWC makes, they can send around patrolling ships or station personnel on whaling ships. Maybe this needs to be a partial effort of the United Nations; no other entity outside the U.S. can be seen a real threat to other countries. However, I think one or both needs to step up and foster the selling of rights to kill whales. Regardless of who buys the rights, they have the ability to cut off the number of whales available.
As for the morality of the matter, conservationists may not want to put price on the life of an intelligent and majestic being, but this is their best hope for saving as many whales as possible. If they are aware of their better financial situation, they should see this as a prime opportunity to SAVE THE WHALES!
This may blog post may be in vain given that it’s a week late (tardiness for which I wholly apologize), but it’s worth a shot.
To begin, whale populations aren’t exactly in danger of becoming extinct; however, they are in danger of being hunted and disassembled at the whim of Icelandic, Japanese, Norwegian, or Arctic hunters. Pick which one you think is worse. I, for one, would rather be the last whale on Earth than have my enormous whale intestines extracted and piled up on a frozen dock in Isafjorder, Iceland.
Currently, almost 2,000 whales are killed each year, this being around twice as many as were killed annually twenty years ago. It would seem that conservationists and anti-whaling advocates aren’t accomplishing much. It’s not enough anymore to wear a t-shirt imploring people to “save the whales;” at this point, our efforts need to go above and beyond such timid methods of protest. While the International Whaling Commission (didn’t know we had one of those…) outlawed commercial whaling over two decades ago, that hasn’t stopped those bloodthirsty hunters from snatching all the whales they can stick on their harpoons, has it?
The idea proposed is the buying and selling of whales, and it resembles quite similarly the simulation we enacted in class a couple weeks ago. Hunters, in effect, could purchase whales, and in the same way a conservationist or whale-lover could buy one and remove it from the whaling market. The money spent on futile anti-whaling efforts today could be used to remove as many whales from the clutches of angry hunters as possible. However, this idea has rubbed many people the wrong way. Some even equate it to “slavery,” because as we all know, there is one question that has bugged our society for centuries: “Are whales people?”
I, myself, am torn. When I read about the possibility of a sperm whale possessing the capacity to forgive, I became distraught and unsatisfied with the idea of buying and selling whales. For, if I allowed a whale to be purchased by a hunter, would that whale be able to find it in himself to forgive me? The risk is too great, I say.
Okay so, anyway, buying and selling whales is a great idea. Except there is absolutely no way to enforce it. Are we going to find and tag each whale with a collar and quibble over whose whale is whose? Will the Japanese hunters who cleverly disguise their mass-murdering business with some BS about scientific research really care if Greenpeace has purchased ten thousand whales and rendered them “untouchable” by whalers, or will they keep hunting as they always have? I think it’s a good idea, but it would never work. Kinda like communism.
I think this guy from the article says it best: “The idea that an Ayn Rand free-market solution will just magically arrive like Venus on a half shell, and that problems will be resolved, is unrealistic,” said Ramage. “Real efforts are just not that simple.”
Post a Comment