According to the Old Testament Book of Jonah, a fellow of the same name was once swallowed by a whale. He then apparently lived inside the whale's stomach for three days before being spat out to live happily ever after. Perhaps it's not a true story. Still, when I went to a whale restaurant in Tokyo this week I was secretly hoping it would be called Jonah's Revenge or perhaps Harpooned. Unfortunately, the owner had more taste and had named it Ganso Kujira-Ya which roughly translates as Original Whale Shop. There weren't even any puns in the menu about having a whale of a time. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since eating whale in Japan is not even slightly taboo. In fact, a person at my apartment block told me that it was part of the cafeteria lunch provided to him at junior high school. This attitude is in stark contrast to most Western countries. In Australia, for example, eating whale is considered almost as heinous as murdering and eating a small child!
Any way, I digress. The whale restaurant I visited had a very traditional Japanese design and featured many old Japanese paintings of people hunting whale. One painting, rather improbably showed a fully-clothed man clinging to the back of a whale in the ocean stabbing it with a spear!
As you can see from the photo of the menu (see below), almost every part of the whale was available to eat. I opted for whale steak then some whale sashimi. Cooked whale is rather like beef but perhaps tastes slightly sweeter. It looks a lot like beef too. In fact, if you weren't told it was whale you could easily mistake it for high quality beef. Whale sashimi, however, seemed like most other fish sashimi I've had.
Eating whale naturally made me reflect upon why so many people in Australia consider whaling to be absolutely abhorrent. Prior to my trip to the whale restaurant, I visited the websites of Greenpeace and the Sea Shepard to read about why whaling is so wrong. Strangely, I found the case against whaling to be utterly unconvincing. In fact, there seems to be a whole list of animals Westerners should stop eating before they order the Japanese to stop eating whale. If you share my curiosity, here are the arguments against whaling.
Whaling is cruel
Apparently, whaling is incredibly cruel. There is no doubt that images of whales being hauled aboard factory vessels then gutted and dissected are shocking but this is only because we are not accustomed to seeing comparable images from abattoirs where the same activities are performed on other animals that we readily eat.
So why is killing a whale crueler than killing any other animal? Anti-whaling advocates point to the use of harpoons and the fact that whales are chased by whalers. Let's first consider the use of harpoons.
A harpoon is no different to catching a fish with a hook and line. For those of you who haven't been on recreational fishing trips, let me explain. Recreational fishing involves a fish swallowing a hook (which embeds somewhere in its throat) then being hauled from the water and clubbed to death. A harpoon is precisely the same: it embeds in the whale allowing it to be hauled from the ocean and killed. The only difference between a fishing hook and a harpoon is that a harpoon is bigger and more humane as it is designed to kill the whale upon impact and is not swallowed by the whale either.
Now let's consider the fact that whales are chased through the ocean before being killed. Whales are chased by whalers simply because they are “free range” animals. This is no different to the average fish which is caught in rivers or oceans. Further, a whale (like any free range animal) has it much better than a battery chicken or factory pig which spends its entire life in squalid captivity. Or how about dairy cattle who are kept lactating for most of the year while their young are slaughtered to make veal? And I haven't even mentioned the live animal trade yet!
Overall, whales are treated far more humanely than many creatures we eat on a daily basis. Have you ever considered how the average fish you eat wound up on your plate? The average fish is killed by being dragged from the ocean in a net then dumped on a ship's deck where it is allowed to slowly suffocate. This is equivalent to slowly strangling a calf or lamb to death. Strangely, quasi-vegetarians (or should I say omnivores with pretensions) often allow themselves to eat fish when this should be the last food you should eat if you are opposed to animal cruelty.
Based on the above, I think that supposed cruelty to whales is no basis for Westerners to order Japanese to stop whaling.
Whales are intelligent
Anti-whaling advocates often point to the fact that whales have large brains. This is true but only because whales are incredibly large and hence have incredibly large versions of every organ. There is in fact no evidence that whales are intelligent. The fact that they seem to beach themselves on a regular basis suggests to me that they may actually be incredibly stupid.
But what if whales were actually intelligent? Should an animal's intelligence determine whether it can be killed or not? Is an animal's life any less valuable because it is not intelligent? Clearly not. Still, let's assume for argument's sake that whales are intelligent and an animal's intelligence should determine whether we eat it or not. It has been proven that pigs are incredibly intelligent creatures. Therefore consumption of pork by Westerners should be banned before we tell the Japanese to stop whaling.
Whale species may become extinct
We are often told that various species of whales are endangered and hence could be hunted to extinction. It is true that some species of whales are endangered. However, any high school debater could tell you that this is not an argument against whaling per se but rather an argument against hunting whales to extinction. Accordingly, if whaling is properly conducted, it is acceptable. The Minke whale is eaten in Japan which is not an endangered species. Blue whales, which are at the greatest threat of extinction, are not hunted.
Whales protect other fish
Some argue that whales protect other species of fish and therefore play an important role in maintaining fish numbers. This is clearly nonsense. The greatest threat to fish numbers is commercial fishing. How could a whale stop a commercial fishing fleet?
Whales are peaceful
Yes, whales are quite peaceful but so is every other animal we eat. Have you ever heard of a lamb going on a shooting spree?! In fact, whales are arguably less peaceful than most animals we consume as they are carnivores whilst cows, sheep, chickens, etc. are herbivores.
Whale watching is more lucrative
Whale watching is apparently a lucrative activity. I don't know how true this is but I will assume it's correct. Still, whale watching and whaling can both be conducted. The species of whale hunted by whalers (being the Minke whale) is not one of the species which is observed during whale watching which focuses on the large species of whale.
If the argument of anti-whaling advocates is that it would be more efficient to divert the resources used for whaling to whale watching, they are being very naive. How likely is it that a whaler from Japan or Norway will suddenly see the error of his ways and decide to convert his whaling vessel into a whale watching tour ship? Not very.
So why are Westerners really opposed to whaling?
After reading the arguments against whaling, I was left wondering why Westerners really are opposed to whaling. The case against it is so unconvincing. Well, I think there are three reasons. Funnily, these three reasons are never referred to by anti-whaling advocates because they are utterly illogical reasons.
Firstly, we are opposed to whaling because images of whaling offends our sensibilities. As stated earlier, whaling is unsightly but it is no more unsightly than the killing, gutting and dissecting of any other animal which we eat.
Secondly, we are opposed to whaling because we have a strange affection towards whales just like we do towards dogs. Westerners like to regard whales as peaceful, kindly animals which we should help and protect whenever they become stranded on a beach or injured by a fishing net. We have a similar emotional attachment to dogs which we regard as “man's best friend.” This is fine but we cannot chastise others for not sharing out feelings towards whales. Others are entitled to regard whales in the same way that we regard chicken, cows and sheep–as another animal we can kill and eat.
Thirdly, we are opposed to whaling because we regard whales as deities in the quasi-religion of environmentalism. It seems to me that environmentalism has become a quasi-religion in the last few decades. Environmentalism offers people a greater good to pursue, a struggle for salvation in the face of global catastrophe, distant places to visit on crusades, an opportunity to measure their behaviour against a moral yardstick, greedy heretics to condemn … etc. It is little surprise that some pursue environmentalism with religious zeal.
Without doubt, the chief deity in the quasi-religion of environmentalism is the whale. We falsely place it on a pedestal saying it is peaceful, super-intelligent, graceful and protective. We pay money to gaze upon it and will rush to its rescue should it require our help. The Giant Panda and African Elephant are arguably lesser deities. It is therefore of no surprise that the followers of this quasi-faith are outraged when some choose to hunt and eat their chief deity.
As we live in the age of religious freedom, I have no qualms with people prescribing to environmentalism as a quasi-religion, but by the same token, such people cannot castigate others for not sharing their beliefs. To do so would be a return to the Middle Ages where we persecuted heretics. If this were allowed, Hindus would have every right to tell Westerners they are vile people for killing and eating cows which are sacred to their religion!
Food for thought
As you can see, my simple trip to a whale restaurant turned out to be quite thought provoking. I would like to conclude by saying that I am not an advocate of whaling but rather an advocate of tolerance and an opponent or hypocrisy and pretension. I grew up in a country where whaling is regarded as wrong but after some careful thought, I have come to reconsider what I previously thought was correct.
Thank you for reading and take care.
Our Man in Japan.
Hi Pete!
ReplyDeleteSounds like you’re fully embracing the Japanese experience! Long time reader, first time commenter. I’ve a pretty busy Sunday ahead of me so i’m only allowing myself 20 minutes to respond to your blog post.
Cruelty to animals
As a proposition i would say hypocrisy is no indication of the legitimacy of cruelty. The conclusion that the continued existence of cruel practices justifies the continued existence of another practice recognised to be cruel and inhumane is not legitimate unless your position is that cruelty to animals is at its core acceptable.
Intelligence and Beaching
As I understand it whales use the magnetic field of the earth to navigate with astounding accuracy. There is a belief that enormous blasts of magnetic radiation form the sun, the ones that cause the aurora borealis, are responsible for sending the whales off course. They too are at the mercy of the natural world. To argue that whales are stupid for beaching themselves is analogous to arguing that a person caught in the path of a tornado is equally unintelligent.
Endangered species.
The Japanese whaling industry has as recently a 4 years ago attempted to implement a program by which humpback whales, an endangered species, would be killed. It seems there is still work to be done.
True opposition.
Criticism is legitimate. Your second point fails to recognise that often the criticism of whaling practices is often related to the means as well as the ends. Both large and small scale farming practices that treat animals with disdain attract public condemnation. Democracy would be a fiction without the capacity to criticise. On a national level this is the case especially where the matter is a matter of international concern and the subject of much global political and legal discourse.
Environmentalism as religion, a flawed analogy.
Religion is based upon faith. For Christians, Christian teachings can prevail even without objective and rationally considered evidence. The canons of religion fill the gaps in human knowledge and lead thinking so as to frame actions consistent with religious values. This is not the basis of environmental concerns.
Modern conservation is based on rationalism. Rationalism demands that conclusions are based on evidence that can be objectively determined. As a society we embrace fully the objective. Political success and polls, illness diagnosed by tests. Religious teaching can provide answers to all like questions but we side with a rational approach because we deem it a surer bet. The fabulous thing about a rational approach to public discourse is that the discourse can be approached in an open and inclusive way. This ideally leads to better outcomes for the whole community. It is this concern with the wellbeing of all, into the future, based on objectively determinable conclusions as opposed to mere belief, that underpins the modern environmentalism.
To make the assertion that people who are concerned with the environment in which we live are somehow adherents to a belief system that requires no objective evidence is to mischaracterise the basis on which the school of thinking proceeds. True modern environmentalism embraces and relies upon scientific process in all fields of concern, be it biology or economics. That is why the analogy fails.
The Furphy
Finally, you missed the source of much of the indignation about whaling. The base justification to Japanese whaling is not the marketplace. It is “scientific research.” The Japanese can only whale in the manner they do because they are supposedly conducting research. The research is bogus. They know it, we know it. Perhaps if the Japanese fishing authorities just came out and said that they were whaling for all the reasons you have given, the indignation and outrage would be less. Until that happens we’re left concluding that the industry is a dishonest one, that the topic is in fact taboo but the rewards are too great to ignore.
Call me Ishmael, i think i just tried to harpoon your blog!
Dude I didn't know you'd gone to Japan! Also, I believe Jonah was eaten by a giant fish. Just sayin.
ReplyDeleteMad Max
Mad Max, your alias is very effective because I can't even tell who you are! Are you able to reveal your identity?
ReplyDeleteAs you say, the Book of Jonah says that Jonah was swallowed by a "great fish" (Jonah 1:17). However, Matthew 12:40 says he was swallowed by a whale so I guess we're both right.
Thanks very much for your comments, Hugh. I thought I would say a few things in response.
ReplyDeleteHYPOCRISY DOES NOT LEGITIMISE CRUELTY
As I understand it, your point is that Australians are entitled to criticise the Japanese for carrying out a cruel activity (even though Australians carry out crueller activities) because the hypocrisy of Australians does not change the fact that the activity is still cruel and hence should be criticised.
I disagree for two reasons. First, in light of Australia's actions (and the actions of other countries), whaling cannot be considered cruel. Eating animals always involves some level of suffering for the animal. Whether this suffering amounts to cruelty depends on whether it is excessive. The only reference point for what is excessive suffering is the prevailing practices of the day. Judged against these practices, whaling is not cruel and hence should not be criticised.
Secondly, I think hypocrisy is inherently wrong for two reasons. First, hypocrisy involves condemning someone for failing to meet a standard that we do not even meet ourselves. This should be unacceptable to anyone who believes in the fair and equal treatment of all people. From a moral perspective, this is what makes hypocrisy wrong. Secondly, from a political perspective, hypocrisy is wrong as it undermines the effective operation of democracy. I agree that democracy would not work if we were not allowed to criticise others but it would also not work if our criticisms had no credibility. Someone who criticises another for doing something which they do themselves has no credibility in anyone's eyes, and for that reason, will simply be ignored as a hypocrite. As a result, their criticism would bring about no change. We would be left with a group of people hurling abuse at each other without anyone really considering what is being said. This would never be productive.
INTELLIGENCE AND BEACHING
Whales being unintelligent because they beach themselves is just a conjecture by me. My main point is that intelligence should not be a criteria for determining whether an animal should be killed and eaten, and even if it is, we eat pigs who are known to be intelligent. The end result is the same: Australians can't tell Japanese to not eat whales without being hypocrites.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Saying that whaling is wrong because it involves hunting an endangered species is still an argument against hunting an animal to extinction and not an argument against whaling per se. This is the fundamental point I made.
ENVIRONMENTALISM AS RELIGION, A FLAWED ANALOGY
I agree that the analogy between religion and environmentalism is not perfect which is why I call environmentalism a “quasi-religion” and not a religion. I agree that environmentalism has no faith element and is instead based on objective evidence (although, there are some who would say that this evidence is not objective). Still, I think the other comparisons I draw between conventional religion and the “quasi-religion” of environmentalism are valid
THE FURPHY
How the Japanese describe whaling doesn't change the fact that (a) there's nothing wrong with it if we use the yardstick for animal treatment adopted by Australia and (b) Australians have no basis for criticising the Japanese. I personally think the Japanese should stop using the disguise of “scientific” whaling but that does not change the fact it is still acceptable to whale.