The debate is raging on whaling after a suspected hybrid whale was caught and cut in Hvalfjörður.
You're truly, Lord Pepe, decided to do some research into whaling.
I have always been somewhat sympathetic to them but I'll try to approach this with an open mind.
and learn something about whaling.
but I'm going to begin with allowing Bogi [news anchor] to speak.
A whale was caught that is likely the offspring of both a blue whale and a fin whale, and has attracted a lot of attention in foreign media.
The prime-minister wants to evaluate the sustainability of whaling.
A whale that was caught by Hvalur [whale] Inc. has attracted a lot of attention here and abroad.
the matter has been scrutinized by various foreign media outlets.
judging by the pictures this appears to be a hybrid, that would make it the fifth one...
whale that is caught and brought in for processing. [marine biologist from the Ocean research institute]
The media can make headlines like "it's suspected that a rare whale was caught".
which aren't wrong per se but however paint a bleak picture.
because hybrid whales hold no imperative for conservation efforts, not unlike mules.
horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes so it is impossible that they have fertile offspring.
a blue whale and a fin whale however have the same number of chromosomes, but it doesn't mean that they'll have fertile offspring
the species would non the less need to be closely related.
for example there are antelopes with the same number of chromosomes as humans, but our evolutionary path diverged far too long ago.
when it comes to blue whales and fin whales it is believed that 3.5 million years separate the species.
This is an imperfect comparison but the difference might be similar to that of humans and gorillas.
I don't know whether it can have offspring but I doubt it.
It would be interesting to know whether or not biologists can answer that.
When we look at the polls people seem divided on whaling.
There are a lot of people on the fence and rather predictable variables have a lot to say about whether or no one is likely to support it.
on the whole there seems to be similar numbers in opposition to whaling as there are in support of it. [in Iceland]
31% are on the fence, that's quite a lot.
A lot more men support whaling or 43%
but only 25% of women support whaling
The opposition to whaling is more among left leaning parties.
When it comes to the social democratic alliance, it might be explained by the fact that women are more likely to support that party.
It can also be deduced that the personality traits that make people likely to support these parties make them also unlikely to support whaling.
leftists are often occupied with people having positive opinions about them.
and more concerned with popularity.
that also applies to women so these factors go hand in hand.
among the leftist parties the opposition to whaling is the smallest in the leftist green movement [misspoke, it's marginally lower in the pirate party]
which might surprise some.
the support for them is however also the smallest [also wrong, it's the 2nd smallest] among it's voters.
This might be explained by the fact that the leftist green party enjoy widespread support in the countryside.
Where whaling generally enjoys more support.
People that vote for the the right leaning parties are more likely than leftists to support whaling.
The support and the opposition is smallest in the Independence party. [the opposition is the greatest sorry, among these parties sorry]
The support is noticeably strong among the voters of the center party and the opposition is very small in that camp.
the same applies to the people's party.
I'd however be a little suspicious of research with a sample size this small, that is 961, especially when it comes to the smaller parties.
without me computing the reliability.
but now we'll look into the international whaling commission.
That is a peculiar institution.
If you're not familiar with it or international law you might think it had any powers at all.
If nations want to exploit whales they can simply resign from the commission.
or like Iceland, join it with the caveat that they will not observe bans.
Three nations stick out in the commission and form what I'd like to call the Axis of whaling.
and give all PR consultants cancer while I'm at it.
It's formed by Japan, Iceland and Norway.
The opposition of these three states to various proposals has been a reoccurring theme in its sessions.
The lobby-ism of Japan has been criticized but its position is usually backed up by states such as...
Antigua and Barbuda, The Dominican republic, Grenada, Guinea, Morocco, Panama, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Salomon islands.
support for whaling in the commission seems limited to this "axis of whaling"...
and also small states in the Caribbean and the pacific that get foreign aid from Japan.
The ban on whaling however stems from similar tactics.
also one might ask oneself what Swiss and Mongolia are doing in the international whaling commission.
in short this institution is as much of a joke as the UN.
Then let's look into what whales are caught, because not all species of whale are in risk of extinction.
First of all Minke whales are not endangered.
The IUCN Red List labels the common minke whale as Least Concern.
Icelanders, Norwegians, Greenlanders and the Japanese first and foremost hunt Minke whale.
thus most whaling concerns whaling of minke whales.
the matter gets a little more complicated when it comes to fin whales.
because within the species there are different sub groups and not all of them are endangered.
Fin whales (in the north atlantic) do not belong on the CITES list of endangered species according to the scientific committee of NAMMCO
as was concluded in its annual meeting in Tromso Norway.
The committee addressed the matter at the behest of Icelandic authorities concerning populations of fin whales in the so called mid north atlantic.
The conclusion is that no scientific reasons are for keeping the sub population of the appendix I list of the CITES treaty on trade in endangered animals.
Next we'll look into the economic effects of whaling.
Katrín Jakobsdóttir (The PM) had this to say when asked about this mysterious whale.
It's clear on my behalf that the whaling conducted along the coast of Iceland ....
This is the last year of a 5 year quota that was decided on 4 years ago.
Before this can continue we have to look into the sustainability of them.
that it their effect on nature, economics, and societal... one of the things that need to be addressed is...
for example incidents such as this one.
well this might have been a whale of a protected species
That is not certain at this point. We'll have to find out, to evaluate it.
we need to take seriously our responsibilities when it comes to endangered species.
This evaluation has in large part already been conducted.
for those interested I point to report on the economic effects of whaling by the economic council of the University of Iceland.
Many people have pointed out that indirect costs are incurred by whaling.
that is incurred with tourists not coming to Iceland because of their opposition to whaling.
but that is only one side of the issue.
since there are also indirect benefits to whaling.
Which includes increased stocks of cod, haddock and capelin.
an excerpt of of the report states.
in view of the assumptions about the consumption of fin whales of capelin and minke whales of cod, haddock and capelin, the size of these fish stocks would be significantly expanded by hunting 150 minke whales and 150 fin whales per year. in the long term 2200 additional tons of cod could be fished along with additional 4900 tons of haddock and 13,800 tons of capelin. Profit from these increased catches of fish could measure around 12,1 billion ISK [121 million dollars ten years ago]
It's expanded upon this excerpt in the report.
like had been stated before, increased gain is defined as the sum of profit before deuctions, interest expenditures and saleries. the aformentioned increased gains from fishing cod, haddock and capelin thus only reflects part of the increased economic gain that is incurred by whaling 150 fin whales and 150 minke whales per year. The gains could thus be a lot more.
The increased economic gains is considered to be much greater if we tried to reduce the populations of minke whales and fin whales around the country.
the report states.
the difference becomes greater however if we choose to reduce the populations of fin whales and and minke whales and then keep their stocks as a precentage of their maximum size. For example by reducing these populations down to 80% of their current size. To achieve this we would have the whale 600 minke whales and 250 fin whales per year. Whaling of this scale would result in the population size growing smaller much faster than if only 150 of each species was caught each year.
in the year 2060 it is predicted that populations of minke whale had been reduced by 9000 animals and 3750 of fin whales. the stocks of cod, haddock and capelin would grow faster than before and it is predicted that in 2030 we could fish 7500 more tons of cod, 15000 more tons of haddock and 31000 tons more of capelin. these increased yields would further increase with each passing year. The present value of these increased stocks of cod, haddock and capelin until equilibrium is achieved is estimated at 48,5 billion ISK [roughly 0,5 billion USD ten years ago] and assuming 5% rate of return.
the report also states
Gunnar Stefánsson et al made preliminary research on the interconnection of minke, fin and humpbackwhales, and their effect on the profits of cod, capelin and shrimp around Iceland. the effect on cod, capelin and shrimp was estimated with the assumption that whale populations grow to their maximum. the findings were that the long term profitability of cod would reduce by 20% or around 75000 tons per year. similar results were found in regards to capelin.
It must be said however that increased whale populations might have a benefit when it comes to shrimp.
because minke whales eat cod and cod eats shrimp.
also it can be assumed that whaling is a foundational economic concern that has economic multiplication effects for the economy [sorry don't know the exact term]
also the issue concerns the right of the nation to exploit its resources in a sustainable manner.
they also have cultural value based on their centuries long history.
I'm all for exploiting resources that God has granted us. [idiosyncratic Icelandic youtuber]
we cannot however ignore the possible negative effects.
I think it is perfectly clear that whale watching and whaling don't go together and the same time and place.
It's perfectly reasonable to grant those interests some weight.
That should be quite possible.
The fact that whaling is a thorn in the side of a particular industry is hardly grounds for banning it.
and would hardly be moderate.
It is however a valid point that IF whaling has a significant negative effect, they must at least be looked into.
unfortunately this report is dated.
mostly because tourism has increased greatly here.
the number of tourists has increased a lot over the years and the numbers on the gains of economic gain from whale watching are obsolete.
if we look at the perception of foreigners when it comes to whaling, well find that...
in the year 2007 a curvey was conducted in Sweden, Germany, Britain, France and on the east coast of the US on their perceptions on Iceland and whaling. The results were that 59% thaught that whaling by icelanders for commercial gain had rather or very bad effect on the perception of the country. More than 34% said that whaling would reduce the the probability of them visiting the country. Perceptions of whaling however only had a very weak correlation with probability of traveling to Iceland in the next five years. Thus it can be concluded that those that have decided to visit the country don't really seem to mind commercial whaling.
Id we look at this through the lens of political philosophy it is in accordance with the western liberal tradition not to ban anything unless it harms others.
so it should be clear that the burden of proof lies with those that want to ban whaling.
simply because bans and commands need justification and not liberty.
so that it can be justified to ban whaling on utilitarian grounds
then it has to be justified.
which could for example be that the indirect economics costs incurred by whaling are significantly more than the benefits.
because if the benefit of banning whaling is similar to the benefit of whaling, then there is no netto benefit.
I say significantly more than the effects of allowing whaling since bans could only be justified in light of significant benefit.
It's not justified because of minor or insignificant interests.
They must be significant.
now we'll look into the vegans.
the following footage is taken from the youtube channel of vegan Iceland.
Why do you oppose whaling?
I'm against them because the means used in whaling are very painful and slow.
I'm against them because whales are very important to the ecology of the sea.
and most of the species are endangered.
I've addressed this before. The minke whale and fin whale populations around Iceland are not endangered.
no one is talking about whaling other species.
end of story!
and these are very noble animals.
but you know... they are also very delicious!
and our conduct towards them is not noble in any way.
we are also threatening their habitat. we are throwing garbage in the ocean.
whales are dying because they eat too much plastic.
then we are also sending out these whaling ships and killing them in a terrible way.
It is reasonable to demand that justifiable means are employed while hunting or slaughtering animals.
that comes closest to being without pain.
the vegans seem to be against harming animals in any way even though we employ the best means at our disposal.
but they look past the opportunity costs for the animals themselves.
for example the suffering of whales is increased by not engaging in whaling.
how can that be? imagine that you are a minke whale...
do you want to be torn apart by killer whales?
do you want to be beached or die from disease?
or do you want to be harpooned?
these environmental extremists seem to ignore that animals suffer in nature!
humans do not decrease this suffering by not doinga anything.
if the goal was to limit the suffering of animals.
Well, then I think I have reached a conclusion.
originally by position was motivated by traditionalism.
also the right to exploit resources and my liberal outlook on life.
but last but not least I enjoy eating whale meat.
like I suspect is the case with many others.
It's a little nostalgic.
for example I remember when the ban was in place there was a news story about a minke whale that got caught in a net.
then you could run to the store and buy a piece of it.
that was a windfall for my old man.
i was however surprised by the fact that the economic argument for whaling was much stronger than I anticipated.
especially considering that whaling can increase fish stocks significantly.
it also surprised me that the economic arguments against whaling are rather weak and based upon conjecture.
It would however be good to get a new and holistic evaluation of its effects.
do get me to change my mind.
someone would have to demonstrate that whaling incurrs dozens of billions in economic damage.
It's fine to point out the flaws, but you have to demonstrate the impact of the downside.
It's useless to point out the downsides if you can't demonstrate their effect.
what didn't surprise me are the extreme environmentalists.
it's terribly predictable.
I have reconsidered my position and it has strengthened my belief in them.
I think it might be good for the economy to engage in even more whaling.
There are however conflicting interests that need to be considered.
thank you for watching! goodbye!
For more infomation >> Lancia Ypsilon 1.2 BLACK & RED AIRCO/BLUETOOTH - Duration: 0:53. 
For more infomation >> 小伙iPhone X换OPPO Find X兰博基尼版划算吗？ - Duration: 4:46. 
For more infomation >> ⛅️best cookies and art gallery (ASMR) - Duration: 4:34. 
For more infomation >> Công Phượng: Hãy làm nguội cái đầu nóng! - Duration: 5:06. 
For more infomation >> I PUT COCK ON HIM?! - Duration: 10:27. 
For more infomation >> Honda Jazz 1.3 i-VTEC Comfort / incl. Parelmoer lak - Duration: 1:08. 
For more infomation >> 39歲胡杏兒推掉千萬酬勞不拍劇：我一定要追生多一個！ - Duration: 5:10. 
For more infomation >> Honda Civic 1.5 183pk i-VTEC Executive 4drs (Navigatie, Leder, Cruise Control, Climate Control) / Ac - Duration: 0:55. 
For more infomation >> Honda Jazz 1.3 I-VTEC COMFORT NAVI RIJKLAAR!! - Duration: 1:07. 
For more infomation >> "퍼펙트 비주얼"…최민호, 매혹적인 눈빛 - Duration: 2:49. 
For more infomation >> Toyota Aygo 1.0 VVT-i x-pose + rood canvasdak *NIEUW 2018* - Duration: 1:09. 
For more infomation >> 杨幂把腿拧成了麻花，网友：这种坐姿她是怎么做到的？ - Duration: 2:54. 
For more infomation >> 주재현, 내 건강이 바뀌었다. 곧 돌아올거야. - Duration: 4:22. 
For more infomation >> Maca x power – Tudo sobre o Estimulante [que FUNCIONA!] - Duration: 12:47. 
For more infomation >> Sibutramina – O que é, ajuda a emagrecer, como tomar, benefícios e também a sua composição. - Duration: 7:56. 
For more infomation >> ¿Se puede comer el tofu crudo? - Duration: 6:08. 
For more infomation >> Lumiclear – Trate de manchas de sua pele com extrema facilidade. - Duration: 11:49. 
For more infomation >> Я хочу иметь высокий доход, но стесняюсь об этом говорить. Урок №4 | Оксана Солодовникова - Duration: 5:56. 
For more infomation >> MARSZ WESELNY zespół/teksty/lyrics/songtexte/info.Koło sala Ligrana DK92/E30 - Duration: 9:01. 
No comments:
Post a Comment