• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    Let me guess yet another vegan.

    The Faroer don’t have enough arable land for everyone to switch to a vegan diet. They could import the rest of what they need, yes, but their only notable export product is fish so that wouldn’t make much sense would it.

    And with “only notable export product” I mean “stamps are on place number two”. You know, the kind you glue onto envelopes.

    • Spacenut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Just to be clear, you’re no longer saying it’s ok to kill whales because it’s cultural and they’ve been doing it a long time? You’re now saying that it’s ok because they would be economically ruined if they didn’t kill whales?

      I’m not trying to be combative, just trying to clarify.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Both are things that make killing whales ok. It’s just that when arguing with vegans “they’d literally starve” is a way more productive argument.

        • Spacenut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Got it, thanks for clarifying. I think both lines of reasoning have problems though:

          1. X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time.
          2. Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y.

          I can think of many things to fill in for X and Y that satisfy the necessary conditions, but still aren’t ok. I do, however, think this line of reasoning is valid:

          1. Z is ok because we would literally starve if we didn’t do Z.

          I don’t think any vegan would take issue with #3, since in that case Z is necessary, and vegans are only concerned with unnecessary harm.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I mean I could have gone deeper into it but then I didn’t particularly feel like arguing with a vegan. Yes, I’m speciesist, we can leave it at that.

            The Faroer certainly needed whaling in the past to survive, and that necessity has engrained itself in their solidarity culture – everything about how the hunt is done and distributed is communal, closest comparison I can come up when looking at Germany would be the status of the fire department in a village: Not the inn, not the church, not even the football club, but the fire department is the core and beating heart of the community and its solidarity. They had a brief stint with commercial whaling but they stopped that before commercial whaling got outlawed, couldn’t compete with the Norwegians and their giant ships.

            Faroese being as green and nature-conscious as they are they would indeed stop if the whales were endangered… but they aren’t. Dolphins are controversial, I guess they’re going to stop hunting them within the next decade or two. That, or the rest of us are going to poison the seas even more so that the meat becomes completely inedible. It’s dire.

            • Spacenut@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              So from what you’re saying, it seems like not only is killing whales unnecessary for the Faroer anymore, but the document you linked seems to imply that it’s actively detrimental to their health.

              Also this response doesn’t really engage with what I said before about the lines of reasoning being flawed. You’re painting a picture of how whaling has been an integral part of their cultural history, and that’s interesting information, but it doesn’t really relate to whether it’s the right thing to do.

              So again, it’s an argument of the form “X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time,” which I don’t think is very persuasive.

              And one more thing: you’re now saying that they don’t kill whales commercially? So “Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y” doesn’t even apply, right? Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                You have yet to establish, or even argue, that eating whale meat is a wrong in the first place. Approaching your life from an “if it’s not proven to be ok, then it’s bad” kind of perspective may be jerkoff fuel for the dedicated moralist, but is ultimately not anyone’s principle of acting. It’s not how our minds work. It is a convenient way to acquire a crippling load of shame if one so wishes.

                it’s actively detrimental to their health.

                Life is dangerous to health.

                Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?

                Yes. You’re mixing up different things.

                • Spacenut@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Sure we can do that, I just didn’t want to hijack a conversation about what makes killing whales ok with a bunch of other separate considerations.

                  1. Whales feel pain.
                  2. It’s wrong to inflict pain on others unnecessarily.
                  3. Killing whales is not necessary.
                  4. Therefore, killing whales is bad.

                  Separately, there’s the environmental impact. No matter how sustainable the whaling is, it’s not like they’re overpopulating and need to be culled or something. Whales are important in the ocean ecosystem, and they’re good at sequestering carbon on the sea floor for a very very long time when they die. It seems pretty obvious to me that killing whales is done out of self interest (we like eating them, it’s our tradition, etc.) rather than out of some altruistic sense of duty to preserve the ecosystem, and not killing them at all would be the most sustainable solution.

                  And finally, I don’t know a ton about it but evidently there are some pretty serious health concerns with eating whales, that makes it seem like you could argue for not eating them (and therefore not killing them) purely out of self-interest to maintain your own personal health.

                  • barsoap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    It seems pretty obvious to me that killing whales is done out of self interest (we like eating them, it’s our tradition, etc.) rather than out of some altruistic sense of duty to preserve the ecosystem, and not killing them at all would be the most sustainable solution.

                    Is everything you do altruistic? If no, then why should we be altruistic specifically there, if yes, then how do you manage to lie to yourself on such a fundamental level?