The anti-whaling movement's failure

The other day I had my aha! moment. I was watching a Japanese TV variety program with Takeshi Kitano and Tsurube discussing whatever the hell they wanted to talk about in an open discussion format. It was very interesting, mainly because Takeshi is a very intelligent guy, and seeing him able to talk freely like that was a rare treat.

Among other things like the issue of Yakuza infiltrating the media in Japan, the nuke disaster, climate change and the prevalence of poop jokes in late-night TV, the one topic that really got my attention was the issue of whaling.

So what do Takeshi and Tsurube think about whaling, the Sea Shepherd and all that?

Their ideas can be summed up simply: how dare the Aussies and others tell Japanese not to whale? It's our culture!!


And that was it. The argument is done. I had heard similar statements before, but seeing someone intelligent like Takeshi put it so simply, and in such a direct way made it really hit me.

The anti-whaling movement cannot win.

But it's not because of the value of whaling itself. The anti-whaling movement is failing because the way they framed the issue.

Before all the hub bub about the Sea Shepherd and all that there were 2 distinct arguments you could use to attack whaling:

1. Whaling is bad because whales are noble/intelligent/sentient/whatever creatures. Whales feel pain. Whaling is morally wrong.
   
   Or, the very different stance:
   
2. Whaling is bad because many species of whales are still in danger of going extinct, and whaling as an industry is so hard to regulate that it can drive others to dangerous levels as well.

Which of these arguments is stronger?

Obviously the second argument. That is the one I've always been in favor of, but not just for whaling - there is as much concern for many of the ocean's resources, whether they be whales, tuna, sharks or whatever. Over-fishing (and whaling) is a real problem, and it must be addressed.

But the problem is that the Sea Shepherd and other anti-whaling activist groups have focused so much on the cultural/moral aspects of whaling that they have ruined their own position. And that's because not only can you not win a argument like this, making the argument itself weakens your ability to argue.

And it's because the cultural/moral argument is so easy to defeat:

If you say you shouldn't whale because whales feel pain/fear and that they're smart creatures, then what about pigs and other farm animals? Pigs have to be killed in private or it'll cause others watching the slaughter die of heart attacks (making them unusable for human consumption). Takeshi brought that argument up. What about chickens? I've personally seen a chicken recoil in fear from a camera after having a flash go off in its face. Obviously they do learn/react/maybe think about the world around them. So is it OK to keep them in tiny pens, waiting to have their necks broken? I don't think so.

So how can you say people shouldn't whale because it's cruel, when other practices are just as bad?

And while the Sea Shepherd people will then counter with a we're vegetarians so that doesn't apply to us comment, they've still lost, because in admitting that there's cruelty in other areas of agriculture that they're not attacking, it makes their anti-whaling stance seem more and more like cultural elitism (which it is, really, if you look at it from the Japanese point of view).

So the argument is lost before it's even started, and not only that but making anti-whaling arguments from the point of view of moralism only will back whaling defenders even more into a corner. You get people who don't really even give a shit about whaling defending it, because they perceive their culture being attacked.

So please, people, stop saying that killing whales is bad because of the morality point of view. It doesn't matter what the whales feel, the argument cannot win.