Moderator: Community Team
Not decimation, controlled hunting. Sperm whales multiply quicker than most others so they can be hunted, many others though, like humpbacks and blue whales, should be spared.Gypsys Kiss wrote:And which whales are deserving of decimation?unriggable wrote:Depends which whales - for the most part yes.

spurgistan wrote:I say let indigenous peoples who value the whale culturally keep their ceremonial hunts, but commercialized hunting of whales like the Japanese and Norweigans do is (I believe) and should be illegal. There is actually a global moratorium on the commercial processing of whales, but the major whaling nations (Japan and Norway) say they're taking the whales for "scientific research". Which is little more than flipping the bird to the international anti-whaling movement, but they've gotten away with it for 20 years now.
Nah, don't really care to be honest.unriggable wrote:You really have no idea how much humanity has fucked up the world's ecosystems do you?Wayne Kerstain wrote:You guys know nothing about wildlife...it is self-contained.
That's because those animals don't think like we do. If you want to make the natural selection argument, then you say we should use the conscious we were given, and not intellectualize it like that.Wayne Kerstain wrote:Nah, don't really care to be honest.unriggable wrote:You really have no idea how much humanity has fucked up the world's ecosystems do you?Wayne Kerstain wrote:You guys know nothing about wildlife...it is self-contained.
The way I see it is, if chimpanzee's managed to wipe humanity off of the face of the earth, they wouldnt care either.
Or if whales were the mosty dominant creature, they would probably find some meagre mineral within our bodies to produce a meaningless and mildly satisfying peice of clothing out of us.
It's swings and roundabouts.
I love chewing gum.
Why yes, by that argument, you could. But then again, I was making the point that you seemed to be bringing in natural selection into the argument. What I basically understood from you was, "Nature gave us the ability to dominate, so why shouldn't we?" So I basically responded, "Nature also gave us the ability to consider the consequences of our actions, so why shouldn't we?"Wayne Kerstain wrote:Bollocks to that.
From your arguement, I could argue then, that I was given an urge to burn down buildings, piss in peoples drinking water and fart on old paraplegic mens heads for a laugh....does this mean I am bad, since I'm following my instincts?