I lived in Africa from 1985 to 1992 and I worked for a period in Kenya with a fellow who grew up along the shores of Lake Victoria.
The first time David saw the ocean was when we traveled together from Nairobi to Mombassa and then on to Malindi doing field survey work.
To commemorate David’s first trip to the coast I suggested we have lunch at a resort just north of Mombassa.
We walked into the buffet lunch, come seafood smorgasbord, and David was incredulous.
“You don’t eat those things,” he said laughing and pointing at the huge bowl of prawns.
They live in the mud and feed-on the crap at the bottom of the lake he went on to explain. He was referring to yabbies.
Diet is cultural. I lived in Madagascar for some years and there was a proverb that went something along the lines, “If you haven’t eaten rice with your meal, you haven’t eaten.”
So should the Japanese be allowed to eat whales?
In today’s The Australian, Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell is reported saying:
The world’s humpback whale population had been reduced by 97per cent by commercial whaling. In the 20 years since commercial whaling had been banned, numbers had still only increased to 25 per cent of the original population. “Now is not the time to start hunting them again”.
So he is running the argument that the Japanese should not be hunting whales because numbers are low. But then the piece in the newspaper went on,
Senator Campbell said he hoped to end the whale kills that Japan conducts in the name of science and was shocked and saddened by recently broadcast images of whale-cooking classes in Japan.
“Anyone who sees a giant and highly-intelligent creature getting harpooned – having a grenade set off inside its head or inside its stomach and if it doesn’t get killed within 20 or 30 minutes they stick an electronic lance in it – if somebody doesn’t get emotional about that there’s something wrong with them.”
In a land-based context there is an argument that sustainable harvesting programs focused on native species can enhance conservation. Bob Beale and Mike Archer writing in the Australian Financial Review (23-28th December 2004) argued that mallee fowl and giant bustard would not be “facing oblivion if we served them up for Christmas dinner instead of Asian chicken and North American turkey”.
Should every thinking environmentalist be vegetarian?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Something has been bothering me about our Environment Minister being so against the Japanese eating whales. I think my issue is that at the same time he is rallying internationally against the killing of whales, he condones the harvesting/slaughter of dugongs in Australian waters:
The GBRMP Authority controls the harvesting of dugong by quota system, which is allocated through the Council of Elders of ATSI communities. This council act as a liaison between GBRMPA and the communities in which they represent. The harvest quota is based on the requirements of the communities for special ceremonial occasions only, such as, wedding, birth or death. The Council of Elders is required to supply the information of the harvested dugongs to the GBRMPA.
Yes, every thinking environmentalist should be vegetarian – I find it extraordinary that so many are not. I remember when Bob Brown was getting beaten up by various distorted claims in the Herald Sun in the last election campaign, he made a point of emphasising that he ate steak as a way of proving that it was wrong to say that the Greens’ policy encouraged vegetarianism.
It has irriated me for a long-time that most environment groups are so weak on encouraging less consumption of animal products. It baffles me that green groups campaign (quite rightly) against trawling in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park or seabird death from long line fishing but rarely have “eat less fish/seafood” as a central part of their campaigns.
The same could be said for those who have campaigned against landclearing or grazing in Alpine National Parks but who rarely mention the obvious link to the consumption of meat.
The humanitarian/animal welfare/animal rights arguments are strong additional reasons to be vegetarian, but the environmental ones are sufficient enough.
Not surprisingly I am totally against whaling and it is one of the few areas where the Australian Government has said a lot of good things (not always backed up with action mind you), but I do agree that the Japanese (and Norwegians, etc) are entitled to point out the double standard when Australians willingly slaughter millions of other mammals each year, from cows and pigs, to sheep and kangaroos – as well as plenty of other wildlife with barely a murmur of concern.
I think Mike Archer’s argument, which he’s been pushig for a long time, is fairly thin. You might ‘conserve’ the bustard if you ate instead of turkey, but only if you ‘farmed’ it industrially in the same way as we now do with turkeys, chickens, etc which is hardly conserving a species – e.g. Meat chickens would have no chance of surviving in the wild.
Andrew,
There are many, many unthinking environmentalists.
I’m baffled by the fact that you are baffled by the fact that Green groups are weak on encouraging less consumption of animal products. I don’t think it’s because Greens groups haven’t a clue about how to run a campaign. I think it’s because they’re scared of a negative popular reaction to a policy of vegetarianism (or even of less meat-eatingism). The Herald-Sun’s assault on Brown should be enough evidence of why they’re scared. I should also think Green groups – and the Greens in particular – don’t currently have the resources to take on the combined might of the various meat industries.
I do recall listening with some disbelief last year to RN’s ‘country viewpoint’ on Bush Telegraph, while a rep from the cow-eating industry encouraged everyone to tuck into a slab of steak at least twice a day. I’d love to see the reaction to a rural Green jumping on the same programme and spitting a contrary view.
Whales, that’s right – it was all about the whales, wasn’t it? Ah… I’m a little unclear about your position here, Jennifer – did you say you are in favour of Japan continuing its commercial whaling, or against?
I wouldn’t presume to question a person’s vegetarianism, but to imply that environmentalists that don’t eat meat have a monopoly on cognitive capability is simply moronic!
I think, therefore I am … amongst other things … able to choose an omnivorous diet.
If, instead of ‘thinking’, Jennifer had of posed the original question in reference to, ‘non-hypocritical environmentalists’, who could have responded. Who, amongst the multitudes is environmentally beyond reproach?
Australia’s traditional indigenous peoples can claim a sustainability that has lasted longer than any other surviving human culture in the world, but meat is centrally important to their triumph.
And while Andrew might be a bona fide, rennet-free vegetarian, his recent version of environmentalism north of the Daintree River (http://www.andrewbartlett.com/PDF%20Speeches/Mar%2010%20The%20Wet%20Tropics%20Management%20Authority.pdf) reveals an understanding that I would very much like to improve.
Neil
I wasn’t meaning to imply some form of moral superiority, and there all plenty of things we do that we shoudn’t if we were to be totally consistent in our environmentalism. I was tyring to make the point that meat eating doesn’t even seem to be part of the debate amongst environmentalists when you compare it to transport, energy consumption – let alone the forests which you would think was the most important issue of all if you listen to many green groups. That’s why there is an inconsistency at the heart of the approach many take on the whaling issue – while still supporting the campaign to stop whaling (and (usually) to save the forests and for more renewable power generation and more public transport, etc)
Thanks for the link to my Daintree speech. I have no idea what you’re critical of about it but this isn’t the thread for that debate anyway i guess.
Production Line,
Agree with some of your comments, disagree with others. The current environmental establishment could and would take on the meat industry if it thought there was easy mileage in it i.e. membership or funding.
As regards my position on commercial whaling – you ask the hard questions.
The above blog perhaps focuses on the cultural issues – and perhaps because I am still thinking the issues through side-stepped putting a position as such.
These are the issues that perhaps need to be considered for ‘thinking environmentalists’ and I put them in the context of vegetarianism:
1. Is harvesting of the animal (whale/dugong etcetera) sustainable i.e. how are population numbers trending (biodiversity issues)?
2. What is the difference between killing and also eating a whale as opposed to killing/eating dugong, pigs, chickens (i.e. ethical issues)?
3. When we eat a diet high in grains as opposed to meat we are reducing our ecological footprint (i.e. lot of chicken, pork and beef is grain feed, more energy efficient to cut out the last bit of the production line)?
4. What are the human health issues (e.g.I used to be vegetarian for reason no. 3, but was advised that the most ‘natural’ and ‘easiest’ way to fix my then health issues was to to include some red meat in my diet).
Mate of mine is devoted to whale watching – he takes people out on cruises, speaks at Greenpeace gabfests, lobbies various govt bodies and generally campaigns pretty hard.
Prior to whales he had a variety of pursuits, none profitable and most unethical – he changed his name to flee the creditors.
Whales and other mammalian sea-critters indulge in all sorts of non PC activity, dolphins have been recorded gang raping and killer whales just love to play with the bodies of young seal pups.
How have whales achieve this exalted status over say cattle? If I was a cow I would feel discriminated against.
Lets not be hypocritical!
You know, Jennifer, rather than the issues you listed in your comment, I got the feeling from your original post that you wanted to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of Ian Campbell’s rationale for opposing Japan’s continuation of commercial whaling.
If my feeling was correct, can you tell us what you think Senator Campbell’s real motivation is?
Or were you casting doubt upon his moral consistency?
Hi Production line,
More questions.
I sometimes post on this blog as a way of helping to clarify my thoughts on an issue. The ‘Eating Whales’ blog was written quickly after I read Campbell’s comments in The Australian. I found his comments all over the place and a bit embarrassing – in that he is speaking internationally on behalf of the Australian Government and seems to lack an understanding of the cultural dimension of food.
I suspect he has somewhat naively taken on the cause in the belief that it could help define him in the eyes of Autralians as caring, and Australia internationally as caring i.e. as a profile building exercise. It might already be back firing see,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389130.htm .
Then again maybe he really cares about whales?
This has had me thinking. I don’t like the thought of killing whales, but not from the viewpoint of a vegetarian. If they are not endangered and are a renewable resource then I would feel better, although still uneasy as they are such large and long lived creatures. In that sense there is absolutely no comparison with sheep or cattle which are bred in their millions by us. Andrew, would you deny them there ‘right to a happy carefree life’??. And that is another point….vegetarians tend to believe all the animals in the production system are living terribly sad and tormented lives wishing they were ‘carrots’ or ‘butterflies’.
The reality is they spend blissful, contented days walking around a paddock eating grass and are completely unaware of what may or may not be in store for their offspring. Nature is like that.
I do however draw the line at intensive factory like industries such as battery hens, piggeries etc.
Also, although I am in the livestock industry I really am not in favour of cattle feedlots. They are very inefficient converters of energy, but Jennifer don’t feel bad about being healthy, just eat ‘grassfed’.
Graham – as a vegetarian for around 20 years, I don’t think I’ve ever thought that production animals sit around wishing they were carrots.
The ethical and environmental arguments for vegetarianism are different (although overlapping) and everyone will give different weight to different arguments. I am putting it forward as much as a philosophical view as I am a policy proposal – but there are valid policy reasons to try to encourage reduced consumption of foods which have the greatest environmental impact to produce.
Personally, I don’t eat meat because I don’t need to to survive and therefore don’t see why some animal should have to die just to entertain my taste buds. However, I accept that other people feel differently – in that context, arguments about suffering become more pivotal, which is why your distinction between intensive farming and ‘natural’ methods is important (assuming slaughter methods are as humane as possible (and by and large the codes of practice aren’t too bad now, assuming they are actually met)).
It is also where whaling does stand out from most, because there’s a lot of studies which conclude that it is almost impossible to slaughter whales relatively humanely – unlike most (although not all) other mammals.