MovieChat Forums > The Cove (2009) Discussion > This Movie, Hypocrisy and Meat Eating

This Movie, Hypocrisy and Meat Eating

posted 14 years ago by hyperlogik
80 replies | jump to latest

One of the things which will inevitably hurt this movie is that it's message will be tarred by an association with the animals rights movement. Most westerners eat meat, and they are going to go on eating meat for the foreseeable future. Most westerners also regard animal rights people with a great deal of suspicion, misguided idealists at best, crazies at worst.

However you don't need to be or even particularly sympathize with the general views of the animal rights movement to appreciate this film. It isn't hypocritical to be troubled by the particularly gruesome and barbaric killing of such an an unusually intelligent animal even if you do eat meat.

All creatures don't suffer equivalently with exposure to any given treatment and the capacity for suffering almost certainly increases greatly with intelligence. Any creature that has a concept of self and can anticipate the future is going to suffer far more from a prolonged and traumatic killing process than one that doesn't.

An end to the Taiji dolphin slaughter would be a good thing, full stop. The fact that meat eaters may support it isn't somehow wrong. By way of an analogy there was some pre-war anti semitic sentiment in Britain, but this didn't somehow make us too hypocritical to reasonably go to war with Hitler's Germany.

Also the fact that some overly radical animal rights people support this goal doesn't somehow invalidate it either. Just because you may regard a movement as a bit crazy it doesn't mean that you can't ever support any of their goals. Unfortunately most people won't ever see it like this and I don't think that some animal rights types grasp this fact. If they want to achieve the maximum good they should target ending specific situations like this rather than 'converting people.'

[–] ronnieronb 14 years ago

I don't see how this movement can be looked on without suspicion. Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd fame is involved. The man is an eco-terrorist and has rammed his ship into other ships at sea. The man is a liar and a criminal. The ass is even in the movie. I can't ever support a cause that Paul Watson is a part of.

bushtony and his mother suffer from Congential Stupidtiy and they didn't see it coming.

[–] nomen_meltdown 14 years ago

Personally, I kind of question the credibility of anyone who uses the term "eco-terrorist" without irony. Please define "eco-terrorist" and explain what, exactly, is so nefarious about them. Because if I'm someone so ignorant, so lazy or so selfish that someone else takes it upon themselves to sink my boat because I'm dumping poison into the sea or I'm fishing it completely dry- in either case threatening to collapse the whole ecological system and, in turn, doom my own species too- I think they're still the good guys in that scenario. I might not like having my boat sunk, but I-- and probably everyone else-- would probably like extinction, or the utter destruction of the environment, even less.

We aren't 'above' ecology. We're dependent upon it. And we're the small part of the system that frequently demonstrates itself, uniquely, stupid enough to risk destroying it all, ourselves included. To be honest I think anyone fighting on behalf of the whole frikken planet's life-sustaining ecology is probably on the right side of the issue, and that when the threat is so grave and all-consuming they can be forgiven for their impatience and their severe tactics. And anyone on the other side screaming "terrorists!" is like a serial arsonist crying "injustice" when the lynch mob burns down his house.

As for the charge of "liar and a criminal," could you elaborate on a) his lies; and b) his crimes? I'm frankly curious about both. Especially the latter because I'm always curious about how people revere the law (or don't). Since, when you actually look at laws you realise, they're often nothing more than the rules as written by whoever had the biggest stick at the time. Arguing for their absolute legitimacy is basically endorsing "might makes right." If you say that someone should be punished for breaking a law that was written purely for the benefit or self-aggrandizement of self-interested parties then you're tacitly damning a lot of people who are pretty widely regarded as heroes in retrospect. Like the American revolutionaries. Or Rosa Parks. Just to name a couple. The laws don't always necessarily have anything to do with what's just or what's right. A law written to do (or even allow to be done) harm on a massive scale is a law not worth the paper it's written on, and those who break it are no criminals. The man who bombs the train tracks in a country where state-owned and -operated cattle cars ship people to their deaths is no fiend, even if he is an outlaw.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nomen_meltdown 13 years ago

Okay, so you've successfully pointed out, repeatedly, that he's overweight (which apparently has some bearing on the legitimacy of his actions, for some arcane reason), and you've enumerated illegal acts he's performed. You still haven't said anything that contests my assertions: that the law doesn't necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with justice or what's right; or that he or other "eco-terrorists" are the 'bad guys,' especially compared to the people they combat.

If Robin Hood were real and you were living in his stomping grounds, you could probably list his crimes, too. Assault, theft, maybe murder. But considering what he's up against-- an unaccountable regime that abuses its own people for the enrichment of a corrupt, privileged few-- how do you describe him as the bad guy? And similarly, how do you describe activists who try to disable boats that are short-sightedly and greedily damaging the environment, thereby threatening the long-term survival of our entire species, as the bad guys?

I'm an island- peopled by scientists, bards, judges, soldiers, artists, scholars, & warrior-poets.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nomen_meltdown 13 years ago

No, you aren't discussing what I'm trying to get at, which is that even with an enumeration of illegal acts he's committed and even if he isn't some paragon of virtue, I'd still take his kind of 'villainy' over that of the people he's trying to stop. Because when I compare outcomes-- a world where he stops what they're doing versus a world where they stop what he's doing-- I prefer the former. I prefer some illegal whaling ships sunk by a 'coward' and a functioning marine ecosystem with biodiversity to cheap shark fin soup for 10 years followed by a toxic ocean devoid of life. I prefer a 'terrorist' who breaks self-serving laws written by patsies of industry over people too stupid or too selfish to consider the big picture over the long term for the viability of life on Earth.

My point is that given the consequences of those he's trying to stop running amok, I'd rather have Watson on the loose. Because I'd rather see the crews of ten or a hundred boats probably harmed than see everything in the oceans-- and everything else not far behind-- definitely dead. That's where we end up if we allow things to continue as they are: the delusion that these resources are not finite will lead to their depletion, and catastrophe follows. Just because the extinction of marine life is happening gradually, a little every day, quietly, behind a big obfuscating plastic curtain instead of in sensational fits where one can say "what's Fatso done this time" doesn't make the one any less of an extremist behaviour than the other.

Activists like Watson who endanger human lives know that they aren't going to kill "the last human" or precipitate the collapse of a whole ecology. The people he lashes out against, on the other hand, never think about whether they're killing the last whale/shark/tuna/sea turtle on Earth-- they tell themselves that'll never happen, or if it does it couldn't possibly be them that does it-- and that's why some day they just might do exactly that. So yeah, I say better by far that a man who thinks the sea is infinite just because he can't see its bottom or the shore, and pours poison into it 24/7 or pulls fish out of it without a thought for how many remain, better that he drown in it than the rest of us live with what he would make of it.

I'm not idolizing Watson or saying he's perfect. I'm calling him the lesser evil.

I'm an island- peopled by scientists, bards, judges, soldiers, artists, scholars, & warrior-poets.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nomen_meltdown 13 years ago

Well I'd say we're even, because I'm no longer much interested in discussing this with someone as blissfully ignorant about ecology as you appear to be. You do understand that with our population and our technology that we are entirely capable of wiping out whole species, right? That we've already driven several to extinction, and many more to the brink? Do you really think we can do that with impunity? Do you believe that you can annihilate an entire niche population without disrupting everything around them? Have you heard of the food chain/web/whatever it's called now, and how precarious its balance might be? Do you understand that eradicating a top predator like sharks for their fins (because it's "lucky!") or tigers for their balls (oh, because they're "magical!") allows the populations they controlled to explode, potentially depleting their own food supply and leading to their subsequent extinction?

Even without a lot of study into environmental science, if you have a basic grasp of math you should be able to 'get' this. Our ability to live on this planet depends on the sum of a massive, complex formulation where we are just one of the factors, and apparently the only one stupid enough as a species to go around annihilating some of the others without a thought for the final outcome. Parsed down, if the whole equation were as simple as "3+1=4" and our viability on Earth depends on an outcome result of 4, then the stupidest person is the one who thinks we can just erase that 1 without consequences... for 'luck,' or for 'experimentation,' or because we want to park in the unique tract of forest where it lives. And you may think that I'm sympathetic towards some stupid people, but I think you're an apologist for the stupidest people.

I'm an island- peopled by scientists, bards, judges, soldiers, artists, scholars, & warrior-poets.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nomen_meltdown 13 years ago

Find any list of species that are or have been previously endangered. I bet you could even google it. Then you tell me what you think the people responsible for those species' population crises last time have learned since then that will seriously stop them from doing it again, given half a chance. Holy crap, I mean what rock have you been living under where they managed to preserve- against all evidence- hope that people driven by short-term commercial interests can be trusted to give a *beep* about the survival of an animal that isn't them? We're talking about people who see these animals purely as a resource to be extracted, instead of as other living creatures with a place in the world or some value beyond that which we can exploit.

If they're the type you'd rather side with, then I can't say I have any faith in the value of carrying this on any further. I'll just wish you luck- I suspect you'll need it on whatever planet you hope to live on.

I'm an island- peopled by scientists, bards, judges, soldiers, artists, scholars, & warrior-poets.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nomen_meltdown 13 years ago

You see, animals are a resource.

Well, that's illuminating. I wish I'd identified the smell sooner.

Pray tell, what makes other living creatures a mere resource for our exploitation? What makes the every last one of their untold numbers something for the mere 6 billion of us to 'spend?' Perhaps because we have "souls" and they don't? Or somesuch nonsense? Oooh, does that mean it would be extra offensive if I called you a speciesist pig?

I'd posit after all of this that the fundamental difference in our philosophies- the reason we're never going to see eye to eye- is because you appear to think that other creatures exist for our benefit or consumption, with no place of their own in the natural world. While to me they're our 'peers' if not our equals, competitors or companions, who we consume- sure- having achieved technological superiority over them. But I think that our dignity as a powerful species is largely contingent upon the dignity we afford them as a less powerful species. I think if we're going to eat them to nourish ourselves we should at least try to be respectful about it, not just efficient 'managers' of them as a resource. And I don't think that we're all that special compared to them, we just got luckier in the evolutionary lottery. Under other circumstances I can picture us at the mercy of other, more advanced creatures, and it makes me hope that they'd treat us better than we treat every other form of life 'beneath' us.

I chalk this whole farce of an argument up to your lack of imagination and inability to extend anything like compassion to anything unlike you. Basically, I submit that you're a monster. But I suppose you'd like some facts to back that up, too?

I'm an island- peopled by scientists, bards, judges, soldiers, artists, scholars, & warrior-poets.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cricket267 13 years ago

suddesu,

As a biologist, I would like to point out how silly your argument is. To my knowledge, there are no other species on this planet that exploit the environment so much as humans do. And we will pay for it- our era will be one of the briefest in our planet's history if we continue to make our own rules rather than to play by the laws of nature.

Do you know of any examples in the animal kingdom (besides humans) where a species actively takes broad and drastic measures to eliminate its competition for food (think pesticides, or wolf culling) or raw materials? Please supply me with them if you do.

I assume that you believe that because humans have evolved a level of intelligence that allows for the development of technology we have license to disregard the consequences of our plundering. Do you also think that we are the pinnacle of evolution because of this? Sure, we can build tools to allow us to survive in all manner of conditions- but our minds do not make us superior to animals who have specialized in other ways. A scuba diver will never be the swimmer that a dolphin is- nor will it be a part of their unique culture. We don't deserve life and happiness any more than they do. To suggest otherwise is pure egotism.

[–] Shantanab-Lone-Voyager 13 years ago

Don't Mind Suddesu,I really doubt he knows anything about proper "Science" - in any stream whatsoever.

I completely agree with you, Dolphins are themselves at the top of the oceanic food-chain,and Nature made them suitable as Hunter only - not as "Resources" of other species,especially Humans ( Dolphins does not even share their habitat with Humans,who are biologically a land-dwelling species.Thus Humans could never qualify as "Natural" hunters of Dolphins anyway ).So, that logic is not applicable here.

And clearly,as you have pointed out,Human uses superior technology to break down every possible rule that Nature has set for itself to maintain balance within different species...but this act is clearly not sustainable. Even with all those "Technology" we have,we could not prevent all those species that have gone extinct in the last century!
Some more info can be obtained here http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html

Happiness is only Illusion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Shantanab-Lone-Voyager 13 years ago

Sadly,Orcas(Or Killer Whale) are themselves the largest member of Dolphin Family (Delphinidae),and are considered as Apex Predators - so what's your point? LOL

So,try again pinhead..lol!

Happiness is only Illusion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Shantanab-Lone-Voyager 13 years ago

Well,glad you tried again...LOL

clueless product of Indian education.

LOL! At least my humble "Indian Education" made me aware of the basic taxonomy of Dolphin family,which your top-notch Japanese Education system failed to do.Of course I don't blame them,I'm sure they tried their best with you..

Seriously man,I expected more maturity from you! Keep posting those random youtube links of Dolphins getting killed by Orcas(lol),or by Sharks,Unsuspecting fishing trawlers,underwater mines etc (Maybe Dolphins get abducted and killed by aliens also,why don't you look it up in youtube (your sole source of knowledge)?)

So keep them posting,but it will not change the FACT that Dolphins ARE top-level aquatic predators.All we'll have is another good laugh ,at the expense of your stupidity!

You are just showing some particular species of Dolphin getting hunted by another species (which is again another type of "Dolphin" itself ,sometimes).
Likewise, I can give you plenty examples of various species of Dolphins (River Dolphins and Orcas for example) - which have no "natural" predators whatsoever,Orcas even prey on Great Whites (GW's are also top predators themselves).

Clearly, you don't have the slightest idea of what the term "predator" means in Biology - look it up in any book you can. It is not an unique position and heavily depends on the habitat of the species in question. An apex predator in one environment may not retain this position as a top predator if introduced to another habitat...long story short : random videos of Dolphins getting killed does not make them any less "predator",or a "natural" prey of Humans!

So,stop making a fool out of yourself and Japanese Educational system and read some good biology books instead.

Happiness is only Illusion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Shantanab-Lone-Voyager 13 years ago

Huh??Don't put your words on my mouth!

I've never used "no other animal eats dolphins" in my claims,rather used the biological term "Predator" to define the Dolphin family in general,which bears a significantly different meaning which you are clearly unaware of!And Dolphins are not "Natural" prey of Humans.

In answer to my claim you posted random video links,but that does not prove anything that refutes my claim that Dolphins are not apex predators!

Try to show me some scientific article please,rather than videos of some specific species of Dolphins hunted by some other species.

So,guess who's pathetic now! LOL

Happiness is only Illusion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Shantanab-Lone-Voyager 13 years ago

Nature has made the dolphins quite suitable orca food "resource" (a different species (?)) and shark food "resource" (a different class)

What's really funny though,is that there exists no "Dolphin" species ...it is a "family" name,which includes Orcas,Bottlenose etc species.In my post "other species" thus necessarily means species that does not belong to the family of Dolphins.So,to educate your pathetic brain here first:http://www.acsonline.org/education/taxonomy.html

you suddenly made a whale a dolphin

Eh??Please read some textbooks,it is getting tiresome teaching you all the facts...
...Today it is recognized that the orca is neither a whale (except in the broadest sense, i.e., the sense that all cetaceans are whales)...
The orca is the sole species in the genus Orcinus It is one of thirty-five species in the dolphin family....
having the word whale in the name of a species that is really a dolphin causes confusion (yepp,that is you - the ever-confused moron!)
http://dolphins.jump-gate.com/differnt_dolphins/orca_killer_whale.shtm l - Stop making a fool out of yourself man!It has been very clear to me that you have ZERO knowledge in animal taxonomy whatsoever!

And whatever you claim,Orcas were,and always will be a "Dolphin".So,when a species of dolphin,is attacked by another dolphin species - that does not make dolphins "prey" in general,because it does not involve any non-dolphin animal.Similarly,as Orcas(Dolphins) prey on sharks,that argument of yours does not stand too!

Now you're telling me that human eating dolphin is somehow different than shark eating dolphin because humans walk on land?

Yes,it is,because it is about identifying "Natural" hunters of Dolphins,which Humans are not (because their "Natural" habitat is different).Like it or not,that is how Science works!If you have problems accepting this,bring me any document that lists Humans as "Natural" predator of any of the Dolphins.

So,cut the crap,read the books and stop posting idiotic replies!

Happiness is only Illusion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Shantanab-Lone-Voyager 13 years ago

Yepp,really funny for me too,'cause it is YOU who is trying to "weasel out".
Let's try to freshen up your pathetic memory of yours..

1.I claimed Dolphins (i.e.all members of Dolphin family,including Orcas) are at the top of the oceanic food-chain!

You protested ,posting a video of an Orca killing some other species of dolphin...without even realizing that Orcas are Dolphins.
result: YOU FAILED!

2.Then you backtracked and posted another video of a Shark attacking some smaller member of dolphin family.But again YOU FAILED.Because,Orcas hunt sharks - and,by default,become apex predators themselves.

3.After such series of pathetic blunders,you committed the most foolish one,claiming Orcas are Whales,but not Dolphins. That one really cracked me up...LOL

4.And finally,you FAILED to mention any proofs opposing my claim that Humans are NOT considered as NATURAL predators of Dolphins(any species)...

I know "it isn't working well" for you,and I'm really sorry for you - and all the money that you've wasted on your opulent Japanese education system!

Happiness is only Illusion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JPfanatic93 13 years ago

Well said, nomen. I fully agree. Too bad too few other people get this.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nomen_meltdown 13 years ago

Ugh, you aren't going to be another rhetorical effing troll like suddesu, are you? Because I don't care for another 'debate' where I'm talking ideas and the other side is talking tricky little turns of phrase.

I'll say to you what I came to realize through previous arguments is what I meant to say from the start. I don't condemn 'eco-terrorists' even if their actions do constitute terrorism (yay for everyone who 'wins' the argument that terrorism is terrorism, yay for tautology!). Their actions fit the definition so fine, they're terrorists. Now that we aren't having that argument, my point is that when the stakes are, ultimately, planet Earth's long-term hospitability for life as we know it, I'll take the terrorists' side (in terms of ideological support, if not as an active participant) over the slow, inexorable destruction of the ecology that would result from doing nothing. If there are two 'sides,' one where people comfort themselves with the delusion that the ocean is infinite as they blithely pump toxins in and pull every living thing out, and another where they attack the former (not with intent to kill, but rather intent to stop what's being done, and willingness equal to their enemies to kill in self-defense in the commission of what they think is right), then I'll take the latter.

Because left uninhibited to their own devices-- and they spend plenty on lobbyists to try and arrange that they can proceed uninhibited (indicative of their intent to do so)-- sooner or later the behaviour of the first group will kill the marine eco-system. And that will kill everything else. Me included. Them included, even if they're too stupid or short-sighted to 'get' that. Their impersonal actions ultimately, necessarily guarantee my personal destruction. Meanwhile, left uninhibited to their own devices, Paul Watson and his buddies and their actions don't necessarily guarantee my destruction because they're just trying to stop certain actions. Actions I don't have to have anything to do with. If they want to stop whalers then great, I'm not a whaler. If they decide to also stop the tuna fishery then darn, maybe I won't be able to have any more tuna sandwiches, but I can adapt to that. If some other eco-terrorists want to burn my Ford Focus because cars are turning the air to crap, then goddammit yes, I'll be pissed that they torched my car. But I can adapt to that, too, because while they've inconvenienced me, while they've cost me, while they've materially injured me, they didn't set out to kill me, and they left me the use of my legs (which is how nature intended me to get around anyway). So eco-terrorists? Sure, they can be a huge annoyance. But they aren't out to kill me, and I can adapt to them and the environment they'd create. The 'big ocean' industries? They don't care about my life one way or another, they just want me consuming. Meanwhile, their practices will eventually lead to an ecological collapse, and I can't adapt to that. So I'll take "alive and annoyed" over "died in a mass extinction," even if that means siding with 'terrorists.' That word doesn't scare me half as much as a lifeless ocean does.

Terrorism is a means to an end. On the environment, I'm weighing the ends much more assiduously than the means because the means on one side might harm me while the ends on the other definitely will.

I'm an island- peopled by scientists, bards, judges, soldiers, artists, scholars, & warrior-poets.

[–] JPfanatic93 13 years ago

Eco-terrorists kick ass. At least they have the balls to stand up for truly noble causes while the rest of us conform to money hungry capitalist society that continues to drive the world further into the reaches of being uninhabitable. Nothing but respect for eco-terrorists.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nomen_meltdown 13 years ago

On top of which, according to your own logic you've just praised the 9/11 terrorists as their beliefs were the same.

Disingenuous bullcrap, and it's pretty repulsive that you feel the need to back up your 'argument' (whatever your actual argument is) by making misleading assertions about praising religious/political terrorists. There's a world of difference. To me, someone who uses terrorist means to try and achieve the end of disrupting those who would frack up the environment beyond repair is defensible, because their intentions are rooted in the objective reality that our species can't survive a barren ecology. But someone who uses terrorist means to advance an ideology built upon some supernatural deity? That's just stupid.

That said, I didn't previously assert that you were a troll. I asked if you were one. And based on the style of your response- sarcastic, self-satisfied cackling, grandiose allcaps insults, lies, rhetoric and reflexive barricading yourself behind the flimsy notion that if I call you a troll, that must prove you aren't one- I'd say you've answered pretty clearly. You could only have been more clear if you'd posted the URL to a picture of yourself under a bride. So since you appear to have nothing helpful, meaningful, or constructive to add, how about you go play in a mine field. Get a friend to YouTube it afterwards, I'd love to watch you turned into meaty shrapnel.

I'm an island- peopled by scientists, bards, judges, soldiers, artists, scholars, & warrior-poets.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mous_169 10 years ago

I think it's you that suffers from SEVERE stupidity.....get off your high horse you scrub. Paul Watson is someone who's fighting for the world.....you, on the other hand, are internet tough guy that has probably never thought about anything but yourself.....gtfo

[–] bluez_inc 14 years ago

What makes dolphins and whales different from cows, goats, tuna, and chicken is that dolphins and whales are self aware and capable of higher thought.

To compare meat eaters with Hitler kind of makes you lose all credibility in your argument.

[–] meldelicious 14 years ago

To assume that only dolphins and whales are self aware and capable of higher thinking is a fallacy (no insult intended towards you bluez, especially since goats, cows, etc. often show less than ueber smart thinking).

Many birds and mammals have exhibited higher thinking. Besides, higher thinking should not be a reason for eating/not eating an organism. BTW, I am not advocating a diet of dolphin, whale, nor humans--just saying that it is a poor argument.

But, I do think that the complete extinction of a species by human gnashing is a good argument. And for the love of any species, being partnership with Paul Watson is just wrong. Sh*@fire, Greenpeace kicked him out.

You know the sound that Goofy makes when he falls? That's my quote.

[–] bluez_inc 13 years ago

What I mean by "higher thinking" is that they both have demonstrated that they have culture. Dolphins and whales are intelligent and aware enough to form societies and have cultures of their own with their own languages and activities. Some primates do this, too. However, this is highly unusual in the animal world as most animals operate on pure instinct and conditioning rather than lessons learned socially from other animals.

You can ask a biologist to confirm the rarity of learned culture in the animal kingdom.

[–] mickthetrig 14 years ago

I don't think the Hitler analogy was directly comparing meat eaters to Hitler; that's just what you took from it. The poster was saying that people who consume animals can still support the end of this Taiji dolphin slaughter practice. (A maxim comes to mind, when there's work to do, it doesn't matter whose hands are there to help, dirty or clean.) The poster then said that, similarly, there were anti-semites in England, and they still went to war against Germany.

One thing we shouldn't overlook is that we are gauging the relative intelligence of these various animals by our own human standards, so the logic is already distorted.

[–] JPfanatic93 14 years ago

Fish are definitely meat. Even insects are meat.

[–] vlun 14 years ago

as long as animals are cute and large, we'll call it murder if anyone tries to kill them.

the uglier ones, we could care less. That's the thinking.

[–] Yellowman88 14 years ago

True that because Dolphin populations are sustainable. Any argument these guys say is complete *beep* This is about West meets the Far East. Why didn't they go to Faroe Islands? They kill about 1000 dolphins yearly about the same number as Japan.

So how are fishery populations conserved??? They use mathematical models to find a population that serves to yield the maximum reproduction rate. The goal of this model is to maintain this certain population so you basically fish the growth rate. In essence, you basically balance the population and only eat the increase in the dolphin population.

The problem is over-fishing so how do you fix this??? REGULATE REGULATE!! I'm not an expert in this but I think the Japanese government restricts their catch each hunt. But then the question is... are these Fisheries abiding by these regulations set by the Japanese Government.

Other similar issues about Japan/ Fishing
Whale fishing is bad because whales have a EXTREMELY LOW REPRODUCTION RATE. This could cause a problem to whale sustainability.
Blue Fin Tuna. Very delicious fish. It's like the Kobe cow of the ocean. marvelous marbling of fat and meat. Its the most expensive fish meat in the ocean. Theres a very high supply and demand for this fish so the population is shrinking. People are getting greedy. One big blue fin tuna can fetch for over $100,000K... so... if you caught one of these bad boys what would you do...

[–] jess_hubbard82 14 years ago

The Cove blog post here. http://nerd-like-me.blogspot.com/2010/02/dolphin-drama.html

Jess

Check out my blog. Let me know what you think.
nerd-like-me.blogspot.com

[–] barkarson1 14 years ago

1000 dolphins in Faroe islands you say. I'm not that good in math but I'd say the difference between 23.000 and 1.000 are not about the same...In fact, I'll go out on a lim here and state that they are massively far from being about the same.

[–] corpus_callosum 10 years ago

people who are equally disturbed about the wholesale slaughter of ants/roaches/flies/mosquitoes are pretty damn rare.

and even more rare are those that are disturbed by all the systematized killing of plant-life.

i bet all the people here that are saying things like "pigs/cows/etc. are just as bad to kill as dolphins" have no problems killing insects and plants by the thousands.

this should tell you that, the intelligence level of the life forms being killed is indeed relevant to more than %99 of all people out there.

[–] kathyhung1108 14 years ago

hmm...we shouldn't eat animals with higher thinking, and allowed to eat those with lower thinking....then should we consume those mentally handicapped people?

[–] Yellowman88 14 years ago

mmmm Human Bacon...

[–] leoan 14 years ago

These people who keep saying "dolphins are smarter so its not like eating a cow". Would they freakin stfu if I ate a freakin retarded dolphin?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] random_guy2 14 years ago

"Any creature that has a concept of self and can anticipate the future is going to suffer far more from a prolonged and traumatic killing process than one that doesn't."

See that was what I saw as the main failing of this film -- the ostensible reason given for it being immoral to kill dolphins was that they are self-aware (which is itself a rather weak argument), but the only evidence given of their self-awareness was a couple of people saying they could "feel" it when they looked into the eyes of a dolphin, and O'Barry claiming that one dolphin recognized herself on TV. That sounds a lot more like people who want to believe that dolphins are self-aware than real convincing evidence.

The killing of any animals in mass is pretty horrifying to watch for most of us, a fact that PETA and this film use effectively. So while I think the film was structured brilliantly and effective as a documentary, it seemed to fail in its (seeming) attempt to convince the viewer that something immoral was happening.