The change in public opinion about whaling has been dramatic.
Thirty years ago Australian vessels would hunt sperm whales with the government's blessing -- but just last week an Australian customs ship, in Antarctic waters to video Japanese whaling activities, played a key role in winning the freedom of two anti-whaling activists.
The hostage crisis began when the activists boarded a Japanese harpoon boat on Tuesday last week. Because Paul Watson, the leader of the conservation group Sea Shepherd, refused to cease his disruption of the whaling fleet, the Japanese refused to return the two men. But the stalemate was broken two days later when the Australian ship agreed to accept, and transfer, the activists.
In 1977, the Australian government, in the face of Greenpeace protests, appointed the retired judge Sydney Frost to head an inquiry into whaling. As a concerned Australian and a philosophy professor working on the ethics of our treatment of animals, I made a submission: Whaling should stop not because whales are endangered, but because they are social mammals with big brains, capable of enjoying life and feeling pain -- not only physical pain, but distress at the loss of group members.
Whales cannot be humanely killed: They are too large. Even with explosive harpoons it is difficult to hit the right spot. And because whalers are reluctant to use large amounts of explosive, which would destroy valuable oil or flesh, harpooned whales typically die slowly and painfully. If there were some life-or-death need that humans could meet only by killing whales, perhaps the ethical case could be countered. But everything we get from whales can be obtained without cruelty elsewhere. Thus, whaling is unethical.
Frost agreed that the methods were inhumane, remarking on "the real possibility that we are dealing with a creature which has a remarkably developed brain and a high degree of intelligence."
Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser's conservative government accepted his recommendation that whaling be stopped, and Australia soon became an anti-whaling nation.
While Japan has suspended its plan to kill humpback whales, its whaling fleet will still kill a thousand whales, mostly smaller minkes. Japan justifies this as "research" -- but the research seems to be aimed at building a scientific case for commercial whaling; so, if whaling is unethical, then the research is both unnecessary and unethical.
The Japanese say discussion of whaling should be carried out on the basis of evidence, without "emotion." They think that humpback numbers have increased sufficiently for the killing of 50 to pose no danger to the species.
On this narrow point, they might be right. But no amount of science can tell us whether or not to kill whales.
Indeed, the desire to kill whales is no less motivated by "emotion" than opposition to it. Eating whales is not necessary for health or nutrition; it is a tradition some Japanese are emotionally attached to.
They have one argument that is not easily dismissed. They claim that Western countries are just trying to impose their cultural beliefs on the Japanese. The best response to this argument is that the wrongness of causing needless suffering to sentient beings is not culturally specific. (It is, for instance, a precept of Japanese Buddhism.)
But Western nations are in a weak position to make this response, because they inflict so much unnecessary suffering on animals -- through culling, such as the Australian slaughter of kangaroos, to hunting and factory farms. The West will have little defense against the charge of cultural bias until it addresses needless animal suffering in its own back yard.
Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, is the author of Animal Liberation and, with Jim Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS