Kill the whales?
As part of a series on the 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day, the Washington Post takes a look at “Save the Whales!”–perhaps the environmental movement’s most successful marketing campaign to date:
And to a significant extent, the campaign worked: A quarter-century after the first anti-hunting regulations were approved, several whale populations have stabilized and a few seem to be rebounding.
Now, in light of that comeback, delegates from around the world will decide in the coming weeks if they should condone commercial hunts once more.
The International Whaling Commission will consider a controversial plan seeking a truce in the battle that has raged since a global whaling ban took effect in 1986. Three nations — Japan, Norway and Iceland — have defied that moratorium, insisting on the right to use the oceans as they always have, and in recent years have expanded their whale hunts.
For people in my generation, protection of whales felt extremely urgent thanks to the efforts around “Save the Whales!” (and the popularity of those whale-singing cassette tapes). But the nations that have opposed bans on whale hunting aren’t “whale-haters” or mercilessly anti-environment:
Now, between 1,800 and 2,200 whales are killed every year. Japan claims a moratorium exemption for scientific purposes; Iceland and Norway have objected to the moratorium and conduct commercial hunts; and aboriginal groups in the United States, Canada, Russia, Greenland and St. Vincent and the Grenadines engage in subsistence hunting under an indigenous exception to the ban.
Norway is among the most eco-conscious nations on Earth. They participate actively in many global environmental causes and actually restrict investment of their sovereign oil fund in environmentally dubious companies.
Yet when “Save the Whales!” first debuted, the gentle giants of the sea were in serious danger of extinction, something that was perceived as morally impermissible.
But why?
For some reason, many people have tended to believe that species are intrinsically worth saving–that our biodiversity has an inherent moral value, even if we humans are the cause of species dwindling.
In the case of whales, that moral urgency was amplified by what philosophers might call “moral phenomenology,” which describes how we experience morality. Listening to humpback whales signing to each other, or learning how intelligent whales are made it feel more important to protect them. That’s why “Save the Whales!” has been a more successful campaign than some others.
Doubtless many environmentalists will oppose any easing of the restrictions on whaling, but perhaps this is a good time to think more critically about why we protect individual species. Exactly how important is some specific number of whales? Do we need to ensure whales thrive, or is survival good enough? And how does the well-being of whales balance against the interests of Japan, Norway, and other nations that continue engage in whaling?
The debate over global warming has cast the environment as an issue of human survival, but “Save the Whales!” reminds us that there is another debate about the environment that is less directly related to our well-being, but that is just as intense.
-Sam
Related posts:
- WWTD? (What would Tiger do?)
- An uncertain climate
- The unpredictable
- Does terror have a nationality?
- What is the opportunity cost of your turkey?
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
