I am the RIVER DOLPHIN!!!
Good morning from Headgraphics.net, my name is Patrick Yurick
Today we will be talking about the path to peace being forged in the world of
whaling.
The greeting of the day:
What whale/dolphin do you feel like today and why? (i.e. Humpback whale, blue whale, bottle nosed dolphin, killer whale, or another kind)
River Dolphin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_dolphin
Article of the day - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7472228.stm
The International Whaling Commission has decided to reform its past stances on whaling in hopes of decreasing whale deaths. This means in countries such as Chile, Japan, New Zealand, and others. This would allow permits for some acceptable forms of whaling in hopes of decreasing illegal whaling, which almost all of the whaling in recent years has been.
My stance – while this is a tricky subject to deal with, I cannot condemn the efforts of the IWC for trying to make peace. Personally I believe in nonviolence, but I do condone traditional forms of hunting. I agree with hunting if people who are honoring the life they are taking by being extremely conscious of their intrinsic involvement in the food chain. This article does not address the motives underlying in the percentages of who is whaling and who is not so I cannot judge who the IWC is allowing to whale.
The article did mention trying to provide a solution to the impasse that had currently been locked in with whaling countries and this move towards a solution may be indicative of the beginning of moving towards a long term solution. When we compromise, or forgive, we are not giving up – we are evolving and this has to be the goal of man’s mission towards coexistence on this earth – otherwise there will be no end to the violence committed by those who are unwilling to compromise.
Word of the day - Whaling – Oxford American dictionary the practice or industry of hunting and killing whales for their oil, meat, or whalebone.
Wikipedia on whaling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling
Music of the day:
“You Can Call me Al” by Paul Simon
“Prince of Parties” by Flight of the Concords
June 25th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Don’t hate on me, but I’m not a fan of you reading your answer. I much prefer the whimsical pat, stutters and all
June 25th, 2008 at 11:36 am
P.s. I’d kill the bunkmate.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I understand what your saying and agree that peace comes through compromise. I also agree with condoning traditional forms of whale hunting. The tribal people that can take a canoe out and actually catch a whale is pretty amazing. The problem is the people that take out huge ships and kill just as many whales as possible in one trip. These people can’t be compromised with because if you give them an inch they will take a mile. They don’t respect nature and the ecosystem and couldn’t care less if they wipe out every whale on the planet as long as they make a buck. They’ll only care when they have nothing left to hunt. These are the people that scare me when the IWC tries to compromise on whaling sanctions. There is a reason that almost all native marine mammal species that lived along the coast of Japan and China are extinct. Unfortunately there is so much crap going on in the world that animals being illegally hunted to the brink of extinction ranks pretty low on the world’s governments priority list.
June 25th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I feel like a Minke Whale today. Relaxed, under-the-radar (since few people are familiar with this species), and I am rather small. And Minkes are small (for whales). And I like to say “Minke”.
I remember when I was 8 or 9 or 10, my friends and I would walk around the neighborhood with clipboards and lists in the attempt to “Save the Whales/Dolphins/Seals!”. Somedays I still think I’d like to be a marine biologist.
As for whaling, I do not condone it. We have found other oil resources for lipsticks and other cosmetics. We no longer use baleen in tooth or hairbrushes. And considering the high toxin levels present in whale blubber and meat, it seems best to omit either as a food option. However, much of what the rest of the world does is difficult for any individual country to account for. Look at the Soviet Union. Even with regulations they only reported about approx. 2,000 humpback whales killed when in reality that number was over 40,000. And that’s only one species! I agree with Jessica in that it seems regulating only gives people the idea they can push the perimeters.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
So because I actually do have time to respond to the comments, I will. (I talked a little about them in the latest v-log post.) I think the problem with any sort of judgement is that we need to ask ourselves very very accurately why we seek to judge and look very closely at whom we seek to judge. I am not defending the rights for perpetrators of whaling to continue to do so, I am merely asking that before we attack them we ask ourselves what that attack really accomplishes in the bigger picture. The whales who have died have died. We cannot bring them back. The atrocities have been committed. In order to progress as rational evolved beings we need to engage problems with a clear and peaceful mind, because only then can we reach clear and peaceful results. Attacking whalers is you condoning the attacking action as reasonable. Violence is then perpetrated. The cycle of violence is contributed to once again. The illusory monster is fed, and its power grows.
In order to grow beyond the monster we need to honor the lives that have been taken and forgive those who committed the crime. It is only then that we may bring our minds out of the gutter that is attack and criticism and into that of compassion and caring.
Not to make fun of myself - but - whalers need hugs too. (ha - but seriously)
Opinions?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Oh - Amanda - Working on it I swear…
June 26th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Who said anything about attacking whalers? I’m not going to go out and attack their ships or cause physical violence to stop whaling and I have never condoned the use of violence to achieve a goal (unless you are a UFC fighter or something its pretty much a job requirement there). Your right the whales that have died have died and they can’t be brought back, but don’t we have a responsibility to protect the whales we have now and future generations? Not just whales but all wildlife? I mean if we just sit by and let people kill off all the wildlife because we don’t want to cause violence then what have we actually accomplished. Could you really stand by and watch a poacher shoot an elephant rip out its tusks and leave without feeling guilty at your inaction. You question our authority to judge one another. But why would we have been given the capacity to choose if we aren’t meant to use it. Why would we ponder “wrong vs. right” if we are suppose to stay indecisive? There are places that its hard to find your way out of the gray area but in the case of the protection of the earth’s delicate ecosystem shouldn’t we take a stand so that generations from now people won’t only know elephants, tigers, frogs, and whales from pictures in a text book?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Jessica, I really appreciate your response.
My use of the word attack was not clear, I was referring to the action of criticism. You raise an interesting point when you say:
“Could you really stand by and watch a poacher shoot an elephant rip out its tusks and leave without feeling guilty at your inaction?”
My response to this is not immediate to me. It would be terrible to witness the slaughtering of any being. More than guilt over my own inaction I would undoubtedly feel overcome with empathy having witnessed such an immense amount of pain being brought into the world in such abundance before my own eyes. I doubt whether or not I would have much of a choice in feeling this pain if witness to it.
Anger is not a response to pain. It is a temporary, illusory, relief to pain. Enacting anger allows us to believe that we can alleviate pain by violently ripping out the source. We cannot extract evil from the world by fighting it. This fantasy is one that has been so pervasive in mankind that it has led to wars and deaths and catastrophic amounts of genocide, not only on our fellow mankind but on our ecosystem as well.
I do not question your own authority to judge another. Of course you have it. I seek to question the act of judgment over others as a viable solution to any epidemic.
Is it ever OK to commit violence on another being? I would say no. The answer “No” to that question is a practice I try at every day of my life. Judgment over others engages that question. When we judge we knowingly enable ourselves to potential hurt, cause pain, or even commit murder (capitol punishment) to others through our actions.
We have the ability to commit violence in this way. We always, constantly, have the option to commit to conscious violence in our practice of living on this earth. While committing an act of violence, whether mental or physical, may seemingly solve a problem that is being faced, we have seen time and time again that violence does nothing to solve any problem.
We are at war. We are at war with our ever decreasing capacity for compassion and love towards one another. Forgiveness is rarely taught. Love is alluded to. If we do not command ourselves to attend to spreading peace throughout ourselves first how can we possibly give peace to others?