I am always surprised at the level of outrage expressed by the Australian public when it comes to whaling, such as has happened during the latest incident between Japanese whalers and environmental activists. While many Australians may not agree with Sea Shepherd’s tactics, they agree that whales are majestic creatures worth saving and fighting for.
This in itself is not surprising – after all, whales are certainly wonderful, highly intelligent mammals who are integral to the balance of the marine ecosystem. What I cannot understand though, is how people can be so passionate about whales while being so indifferent to the institutionalised suffering and slaughter of millions of animals for consumption and use here in Australia.
What makes this even more perplexing is that most Australians have no first-hand experience of whales. We know what intelligent and sensitive creatures cats and dogs are because we share our lives and our homes with them. But how many Australians have even seen – let alone touched or communicated with – a whale? Yet despite this distance, whales seem to have captured our hearts the way no other animal has. Whether it’s their size, their intelligence or the mystery surrounding them, there is something about whales that attracts us.
Perhaps it is the fact that we don’t consume whale here in Australia that allows us to have such compassion. To us, whales are exotic, and therefore worthy of reverence and conservation. Because we eat chickens, cows and pigs, for example, we largely choose not to acknowledge the suffering those species endure inside factory farms. Most Australians either don’t know or don’t care about pigs who live their lives in steel pens so small they cannot turn around, or the piglets who are born on concrete floors and cannot touch their mothers except through the cage bars. We mourn for the loss of one whale’s life while we overlook the 460 million chickens who are slaughtered for food each year in Australia alone. Somehow it seems easier to ignore the suffering of the animals we eat and fight for the ones we don’t.
Australians readily criticise Japan, Iceland and Norway for hunting whales for human consumption, and rightly so, as it is a practice that is barbaric, unnecessary and harmful to the survival of numerous whale species. However, we ignore the fact that Australians hunt animals for food too – just look at the kangaroo, another wild animal slaughtered, in this case in the outback under the cover of night.
We may fool ourselves into thinking eating kangaroo is okay because they are a ‘pest’ and a renewable resource, but in fact the ongoing slaughter may threaten the long-term survival of these highly social and graceful creatures. It is morally inconsistent to say that one type of animal must not be eaten while it is okay to eat others.
Similarly, Australians condemn Japan for its use of whales in ‘scientific research’. Assuming we believe there is actual research going on – which most people don’t, as it is understood to be a cover for illegal whaling for consumption – we would be right to condemn. No animal life need be sacrificed in the name of research when there are other methods available, such as genomics, in vitro and computer modelling, which do not require the use of living beings.
I am not saying that we should stop protesting against whaling – in fact quite the opposite. I want to see some of people’s passion for whales expanded into other animal protection issues. I want people to stop and think about why they care so much about whales and yet so little about the animals they eat and use in everyday life.
All animals are deserving of our respect and compassion, not just those who we find mysterious or captivating. No animal – from the chicken to the whale – was put on Earth for use by humans. Each life is here for its own purpose, not to be born on concrete, raised in steel cages or slaughtered for human consumption. Let’s begin to show some consistency in how we treat animals and in which animals we fight for, and apply our compassion equally to all living creatures.
I agree with everyone when they say that morals are a personal thing which different for everyone – that is why I wrote this piece in the first person. I personally do not believe humans should use animals for any purpose, but I do appreciate that others feel differently.
Killing and cruelty are indeed different things, however all animals that are killed for human consumption suffer. Even animals raised in free-range conditions are often denied complex social interactions and may also be subjected to human interference (mutilations, artificial insemination, routine antibiotics, forced confinement etc) or human-induced deprivation (limiting food, premature weaning etc). This cruelty is perfectly legal in Australia, and is what passes for good ‘welfare’. As for the culling of ‘feral’ animals, there are alternatives to lethal methods, such as sterilisation and fencing, which I believe we should be exploring before rushing to the kill.
I cannot see how the suffering of pigs or kangaroos is any less important than that of whales. Each animal is a sentient being, and are we to say whose life is more valuable? I am not suggesting we ignore whales to focus on other animal suffering; rather that we should extend our circle of compassion to include all animals.
I agree Kelly, speceism exists because humans turn a blind eye to the suffering of animals such as cows and calves but become outraged when seeing a whale cow and calf dragged up a whaling boat. I look forward to the day when all animals have the same respect regardless of whether they are bred for food or not. Denise
Using animals is speciesism. It is no better than any 'ism's like racism, sexism etc. And yes it is hypocritical to protest whaling but not the killing of farmed animals. Picking and choosing which animals to show mercy to and give an exalted status to is no better than doing that to certain 'classes' or 'types' of humans. Go vegan.
I must say, I totally agree with David. I think, it's the japanese culture to eat whales. We find it cruel. When we eat beef or pork, an Indian or any Muslim would be shocked. But this is our culture.
I don't mind eating meat, not just because it tastes good. The animals haven't died especailly for me. If I don't buy and eat it, another one does it or nobody does and the animal has died "senseless". In addition, if I would think about all those animals that must die in a cruel way after a cruel life, I could do nothing else all day long.
Furthermore, a 100 years ago nobody cared about eating pork, beef, chicken or whales. Now there are less whales, so they should be protected. But there are much more pigs, chicken and cattles then ever! Maybe some ways of keeping animals is not right and should be improved, but that's no reason for me to stop eating meat.
I think that articles like that are very interesting because they can bring about different points of view. I personally totally agree with the author!!
I do understand Kelly's point of view and surely respect it all the way. Makes perfect sense that hunting practices should be considered the same when it comes to whales or pigs. However, we do live in a world where it is common to have certain animals as part of our diets, although I do agree that hunting practices should be punished when done in a non-sustainable way that may endanger species.
Most of all, I think it is a question of understanding and respecting others' ideas whether or not we agree with them...
"Each life is here for its own purpose" Absolutely! "No animal – from the chicken to the whale – was put on Earth for use by humans." Well... "use" may not be the "correct" word. But really, it is the nature of the world. Some animals eat other animals, and we human eat some animals. I do believe that that is the purpose of those animals. They are on earth as food. Admittedly the only thing that would be wrong with that and that we all seem to agree on is that no animal should be kept in cage and cruelly slaughtered.
While I do agree that whaling should be banned, one of the most important aspects of the current globalization that is going on is culture. Culture comes along with many differences which often can also be seen as morals and therefore not everyone will agree on the morals found in different nations, also on whaling for that matter.
I personally do agree with David that the way animals are killed is the part where morals all over the world should be alligned, since no animal should suffer. However, there are of course many different aspects to consider in this matter, such as the conservation of our planet, the suffering from animals and the survivability of animals amongst others.
Furthermore, when we would have to treat all animals with the same type of compasion, eating any type of creature would not even be economically viable anymore.
To put it short, one view, or one set of morals is not the only view.
I tend to agree with David... I do think it is fine to eat some type of animal while protecting others. In saying that, yes, we shouldnt kill animals in cruel ways, and yes, they shouldnt be kept in steel cages. Killing and cruelty are indeed 2 different things.
At the end of the day the food chain is what it is for a reason...
Kelly Perhaps you'd be less surprised and perplexed if you took a few minutes to consider the individual, and highly personal nature of 'morals.' We don't all share your morals- simple as that. For example, I do find it morally consistent to say that 'one type of animal must not be eaten while it is okay to eat others'.
For me, it is immoral to keep or kill animals in a way that is unnecessarily cruel or painful to them. I believe it is immoral to hunt wild native animals in cruel or unsustainable ways, and that their flesh should not be left to waste. This means kangaroo harvesting by professional shooters ('one of the most humane forms of animal slaughter' according to the RSPCA) is quite moral, while whale harvesting isn't. I can't find any reliable evidence of roo harvesting threatening their long term survival.
Given the harsh realities of feral populations of pigs, goats and camels reducing diversity, destroying the landscape and ultimately extending the deserts, I feel it is immoral to allow this to continue, and feel that they, too, should be culled with an absolute minimum of cruelty and waste. I am not indifferent to institutionalised suffering of animals and would protest against it- but I am in favour of their slaughter. I just don't believe that the concepts of 'killing' and 'cruelty' are synonymous.
Morals are, after all, a personal thing. You just seem to be surprised at the Australian population's morals because they are different from your own.
Green directory of eco-friendly Australian businesses. This green directory is providing you all details about environmental companies around Australia. Find the green business around your place.
Comments
Killing and cruelty are indeed different things, however all animals that are killed for human consumption suffer. Even animals raised in free-range conditions are often denied complex social interactions and may also be subjected to human interference (mutilations, artificial insemination, routine antibiotics, forced confinement etc) or human-induced deprivation (limiting food, premature weaning etc). This cruelty is perfectly legal in Australia, and is what passes for good ‘welfare’. As for the culling of ‘feral’ animals, there are alternatives to lethal methods, such as sterilisation and fencing, which I believe we should be exploring before rushing to the kill.
I cannot see how the suffering of pigs or kangaroos is any less important than that of whales. Each animal is a sentient being, and are we to say whose life is more valuable? I am not suggesting we ignore whales to focus on other animal suffering; rather that we should extend our circle of compassion to include all animals.
Denise
Go vegan.
I think, it's the japanese culture to eat whales. We find it cruel. When we eat beef or pork, an Indian or any Muslim would be shocked. But this is our culture.
I don't mind eating meat, not just because it tastes good. The animals haven't died especailly for me. If I don't buy and eat it, another one does it or nobody does and the animal has died "senseless".
In addition, if I would think about all those animals that must die in a cruel way after a cruel life, I could do nothing else all day long.
Furthermore, a 100 years ago nobody cared about eating pork, beef, chicken
or whales. Now there are less whales, so they should be protected. But there are much more pigs, chicken and cattles then ever!
Maybe some ways of keeping animals is not right and should be improved, but that's no reason for me to stop eating meat.
Most of all, I think it is a question of understanding and respecting others' ideas whether or not we agree with them...
Absolutely!
"No animal – from the chicken to the whale – was put on Earth for use by humans."
Well... "use" may not be the "correct" word. But really, it is the nature of the world. Some animals eat other animals, and we human eat some animals. I do believe that that is the purpose of those animals. They are on earth as food. Admittedly the only thing that would be wrong with that and that we all seem to agree on is that no animal should be kept in cage and cruelly slaughtered.
I personally do agree with David that the way animals are killed is the part where morals all over the world should be alligned, since no animal should suffer. However, there are of course many different aspects to consider in this matter, such as the conservation of our planet, the suffering from animals and the survivability of animals amongst others.
Furthermore, when we would have to treat all animals with the same type of compasion, eating any type of creature would not even be economically viable anymore.
To put it short, one view, or one set of morals is not the only view.
At the end of the day the food chain is what it is for a reason...
Perhaps you'd be less surprised and perplexed if you took a few minutes to consider the individual, and highly personal nature of 'morals.' We don't all share your morals- simple as that. For example, I do find it morally consistent to say that 'one type of animal must not be eaten while it is okay to eat others'.
For me, it is immoral to keep or kill animals in a way that is unnecessarily cruel or painful to them. I believe it is immoral to hunt wild native animals in cruel or unsustainable ways, and that their flesh should not be left to waste. This means kangaroo harvesting by professional shooters ('one of the most humane forms of animal slaughter' according to the RSPCA) is quite moral, while whale harvesting isn't. I can't find any reliable evidence of roo harvesting threatening their long term survival.
Given the harsh realities of feral populations of pigs, goats and camels reducing diversity, destroying the landscape and ultimately extending the deserts, I feel it is immoral to allow this to continue, and feel that they, too, should be culled with an absolute minimum of cruelty and waste.
I am not indifferent to institutionalis ed suffering of animals and would protest against it- but I am in favour of their slaughter. I just don't believe that the concepts of 'killing' and 'cruelty' are synonymous.
Morals are, after all, a personal thing. You just seem to be surprised at the Australian population's morals because they are different from your own.