Political Crossfire Forums

[connermt]

John Galt wrote: Pebble wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: John Galt wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Whaling is fine for the aboriginese and tribes that rely on it for food. Regular joes shouldn't whale.

Why, just cause?

Becasue I feel it is wrong to kill a species that can't reproduce fast enough to keep up with demand.

I wouldn't venture into the realm of what's right or wrong about it, i'd just stick with the loss of biodiversity and it being pretty bloody stupid.

Why is biodiversity important? Why are whales important?

Every animal species is important to its ecosystem. Removing one species is just one more step towards screwing up the ecosystem.

[connermt]

Gogo Yubari wrote: Axismaster wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Whaling is fine for the aboriginese and tribes that rely on it for food. Regular joes shouldn't whale.

What makes natives better than the rest of us?

It is part of their tradition and herritage dating back thousands of years.

Not only that, but they typically have a better understanding & respect for nature & don't 'over hunt' a species because it is economical to do so

[Canada_Rocks]

Manturin wrote:


this is basic ok, im america you have to come up with a good reason to ban something

Just like all policy, it is carefully wieghed and voted upon

Quote: i got an idea, lets ban all names that start with the letter T
do you really need to name your kid todd? there are plenty of other names

Quit using outragous comparisons. It will get you nowhere.

Quote: regardless of need, if someone wants to kill a whale and the population will not be put in jeopardy, you need to have a good reason to say no, i havent seen one yet, the closest thing to one would be intelligence bordering on sentience

I do have a good reason. It is wrong. I believe it is wrong and policies are often based on that.

Quote: btw, do you mean poach? poaching implies hunting illegally, for example if i shoot a deer out of season or without a license it is poaching, it has nothing to do with how much of the animal is used. unless poch is a word i havent heard before

Yes, many whales are poached. They are poached becasue it is illegal, one of the reasons it is illegal is becasue people don't use the whole portion of the whale.

Again, is this about inalienable rights?

[John Galt]

connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: Pebble wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: John Galt wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Whaling is fine for the aboriginese and tribes that rely on it for food. Regular joes shouldn't whale.

Why, just cause?

Becasue I feel it is wrong to kill a species that can't reproduce fast enough to keep up with demand.

I wouldn't venture into the realm of what's right or wrong about it, i'd just stick with the loss of biodiversity and it being pretty bloody stupid.

Why is biodiversity important? Why are whales important?

Every animal species is important to its ecosystem. Removing one species is just one more step towards screwing up the ecosystem.

What would be so bad for humans if whales were removed? Do we even know? Whjy can't we cross that creek if and when we come to it. I stipulate we would never come to it, as whales are too elusive and expidtions too expensive to kill them all, as much as some of us may want to do it.

BTW, you did not answer why biodiversity is important. While ecosystems may be damaged, they adapt. Millions, if not billions, of species have come and went from this planet.

[John Galt]

connermt wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Axismaster wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Whaling is fine for the aboriginese and tribes that rely on it for food. Regular joes shouldn't whale.

What makes natives better than the rest of us?

It is part of their tradition and herritage dating back thousands of years.

Not only that, but they typically have a better understanding & respect for nature & don't 'over hunt' a species because it is economical to do so

How could it be that a people who have the best scientists in the world have less of an understanding than some natives living in igloos? I submit your position is completely wrong.

[Canada_Rocks]

John Galt wrote: connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: Pebble wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: John Galt wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Whaling is fine for the aboriginese and tribes that rely on it for food. Regular joes shouldn't whale.

Why, just cause?

Becasue I feel it is wrong to kill a species that can't reproduce fast enough to keep up with demand.

I wouldn't venture into the realm of what's right or wrong about it, i'd just stick with the loss of biodiversity and it being pretty bloody stupid.

Why is biodiversity important? Why are whales important?

Every animal species is important to its ecosystem. Removing one species is just one more step towards screwing up the ecosystem.

What would be so bad for humans if whales were removed? Do we even know? Whjy can't we cross that creek if and when we come to it. I stipulate we would never come to it, as whales are too elusive and expidtions too expensive to kill them all, as much as some of us may want to do it.

BTW, you did not answer why biodiversity is important. While ecosystems may be damaged, they adapt. Millions, if not billions, of species have come and went from this planet.

Not everything is based on "what will it do to humans" Sometimes the simple fact of having it around is justifacation enough to keep it around. Not everything this is based on YOUR BELIEF that rights are inalienable and that you should do anything you want that doesn't hurt a fellow human animal. :wink:

[John Galt]

Gogo Yubari wrote: John Galt wrote: connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: Pebble wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: John Galt wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Whaling is fine for the aboriginese and tribes that rely on it for food. Regular joes shouldn't whale.

Why, just cause?

Becasue I feel it is wrong to kill a species that can't reproduce fast enough to keep up with demand.

I wouldn't venture into the realm of what's right or wrong about it, i'd just stick with the loss of biodiversity and it being pretty bloody stupid.

Why is biodiversity important? Why are whales important?

Every animal species is important to its ecosystem. Removing one species is just one more step towards screwing up the ecosystem.

What would be so bad for humans if whales were removed? Do we even know? Whjy can't we cross that creek if and when we come to it. I stipulate we would never come to it, as whales are too elusive and expidtions too expensive to kill them all, as much as some of us may want to do it.

BTW, you did not answer why biodiversity is important. While ecosystems may be damaged, they adapt. Millions, if not billions, of species have come and went from this planet.

Not everything is based on "what will it do to humans" Sometimes the simple fact of having it around is justifacation enough to keep it around. Not everying this is based on YOUR BELIEF that rights are inalienable and that you should do anything you want that doesn't hurt a fellow human animal. :wink:

So "just because" is your "reason"?

It is immoral to base something off of this "justification" of "just because I said so." It is immoral to hold animals more important in any way shape or form than humans. It is therefore extremely important that everything does relate to how it will effect humans. One human life is worth more than all the whales in the world. My "beliefs" are based on objective reasoning of rights -- which only moral (reasoning) beings have and that means only humans have. Sorry, but "just because" is not a good reason, let alone a reason at all. There has to be a reason why we wouldn't hunt whales to get the oil to use for car differentials, which is superior to synthetic. Becuase we signed some treaty? No that isn't a reason -- why did we do that? In the end it all comes down to "just because I said so." Whales: what are the good for? Car differential oil, that's what. And perfume.

[the_doctor]

John Galt wrote: connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: Pebble wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: John Galt wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Whaling is fine for the aboriginese and tribes that rely on it for food. Regular joes shouldn't whale.

Why, just cause?

Becasue I feel it is wrong to kill a species that can't reproduce fast enough to keep up with demand.

I wouldn't venture into the realm of what's right or wrong about it, i'd just stick with the loss of biodiversity and it being pretty bloody stupid.

Why is biodiversity important? Why are whales important?

Every animal species is important to its ecosystem. Removing one species is just one more step towards screwing up the ecosystem.

What would be so bad for humans if whales were removed? Do we even know? Whjy can't we cross that creek if and when we come to it. I stipulate we would never come to it, as whales are too elusive and expidtions too expensive to kill them all, as much as some of us may want to do it.

BTW, you did not answer why biodiversity is important. While ecosystems may be damaged, they adapt. Millions, if not billions, of species have come and went from this planet.

Biodiversity? My thoughts are that there is a reason for everything on this planet. Take the Huntsman spider for instance (big (15cm) but harmless spider), found all over Australia (I think). If we took to to removing that then we'd be overrun by insects, especially cockroaches and populations of insectivores would increase and possibly upset the natural balance.

Not sure what would happen if whales were "removed", then see connermt's comments about the environment. What this would do to the sea, I don't know. But it could mean more undesirables on the beach and coastal waters like blue bottles/ jelly fish as there would be again a huge abundance of food.

[Canada_Rocks]

John Galt wrote:
So "just because" is your "reason"?

Basicaly. Cant you debunk that without using Libertarian philosphy that is unrecognized by an authory?

Quote: It is immoral to base something off of this "justification" of "just because I said so."

No it isn't. I could argue the fact that it is immoral to kill aliving being, but I won't ever do that becasue morals are subjective.

Quote: It is immoral to hold animals more important in any way shape or form than humans.

No it isn't. That is ridiculous. Since we are throwing around morals here..."it is immoral to be a Libertarian". See how much of a rdiculous statement that is. Stick to the topic.

Quote: It is therefore extremely important that everything does relate to how it will effect humans.

"Therefore". You cannot use a false argument to come to a conclusion.

Quote: One human life is worth more than all the whales in the world.

Subjective.

Quote:
My "beliefs" are based on objective reasoning of rights -- which only moral (reasoning) beings have and that means only humans have.

Your right, they are your beliefs. And again with the morals.

[/quote]
Sorry, but "just because" is not a good reason, let alone a reason at all. [/quote]

And Libnertarian philosophy on inaleiable rights is justifacation? Last time I checked your Belief in inalienable rights wasnt fact or legal, therefore it is a moot argument.

Quote:
There has to be a reason why we wouldn't hunt whales to get the oil to use for car differentials,

Becasue I like looking at them, I enjoy the biodeversity. I think it is wrong to kill an animal that we need not kill. These are all reasons. Subjective beliefs that are equal to your subjective beliefs.



Quote: Becuase we signed some treaty? No that isn't a reason

The rule of law is always a good reason.

Quote: why did we do that? In the end it all comes down to "just because I said so."

Your point?

Quote: Whales: what are the good for? Car differential oil, that's what. And perfume.

Subjective.

[John Galt]

I will sumbit to you my last comment about the value of whales is subjective (but then again, so is your position of "just because I said so"), but most everything I said here is objectivley true. I am an Objectivist and morals are concrete, and whales are meaningless in regards to morals as they are amoral creatures. I value whales for theirunmatched oil in cardifferentials. You value them to... I don't know, think about. But no one is asking you to kill them. What gives you the right to tell a man that they cannot do this? This is why"just because I said so" is not a valid "reason."

On the open ocean, the Captian makes the rules and it is law. On the open ocean, man is not under any governmental authority. On the open ocean, any laws that you cite as "good reason" do not matter, and the slaughtering of whales is "permissible" in that it cannot be denied. How could it? No nation owns the water. If a Captian wants to go on a Nantucket sliegh ride, he goes. What is he harming? A whale? That's his peroggative. Unless someone can proveto me that the events of Star Trek IV will come to pass there really is no reason why I see a need to care about whales. There are lots of them and it would be impossible to kill them all, try as we might (not only would they become increasingly harder to find, many sink after they are hunted), but I don't really care. They are whales. If you want to contribute to afund wheresome people care for whales or pay people to NOT whale then be my guest. That's your peroggative. It is mine to find ambergris, the gold of the ocean, inside the Sperm Whale, if I ever desire to do so.

[Canada_Rocks]

John Galt wrote: but most everything I said here is objectivley true.

If you say so John. I do not see opinion as truth.

Quote: I am an Objectivist and morals are concrete, and whales are meaningless in regards to morals as they are amoral creatures.

Do you know what morality means? Just becasue whales don't have a moral code, doesn't mean that killing them is moral. In fact, I beg you to prove that is is. I believe that killing whales is immoral.



Quote: . What gives you the right to tell a man that they cannot do this?

No, Rights don't give me the ability. The law does.

Quote: This is why"just because I said so" is not a valid "reason."


And assuming that you have a right to kill whales is not a fact, it is a belief.

Quote:
On the open ocean, the Captian makes the rules and it is law. On the open ocean, man is not under any governmental authority.

Then go for it, kill a whale. I can;t stop you :lol:

Quote: On the open ocean, any laws that you cite as "good reason" do not matter, and the slaughtering of whales is "permissible"


Becasue their is no LAW in the middle of the ocean. Go have a michael jackson party out there for all I care,

Quote: in that it cannot be denied. How could it? No nation owns the water.


I never said there was LAWS in the middle of the ocean. A lot of whale hunting happens close to shore, where there are laws however.

Quote: If a Captian wants to go on a Nantucket sliegh ride, he goes. What is he harming? A whale? That's his peroggative. Unless someone can proveto me that the events of Star Trek IV will come to pass there really is no reason why I see a need to care about whales. There are lots of them and it would be impossible to kill them all, try as we might (not only would they become increasingly harder to find, many sink after they are hunted), but I don't really care.


I got your point dude. Relax.

Quote: They are whales. If you want to contribute to afund wheresome people care for whales or pay people to NOT whale then be my guest. That's your peroggative. It is mine to find ambergris, the gold of the ocean, inside the Sperm Whale, if I ever desire to do so.

If you can't admit that this argument is based on subjective beliefs we are in a rut. Killing whales..killing seals...killing ggiant squids....killing zebras..killing dinosaurs...these threads are retarded. There is not right or wrong, they are based on peoples preference. I never once claimed I was right, You howver aren't correct as well..

[John Galt]

Gogo Yubari wrote: John Galt wrote: but most everything I said here is objectivley true.

If you say so John. I do not see opinion as truth.

Quote: I am an Objectivist and morals are concrete, and whales are meaningless in regards to morals as they are amoral creatures.

Do you know what morality means? Just becasue whales don't have a moral code, doesn't mean that killing them is moral. In fact, I beg you to prove that is is. I believe that killing whales is immoral.

I never said it was "moral," nor "immoral" for that matter, so I will not prove something I did not say nor know to be true. Killing an amoral creature is nothing in regards to morals. It is neither right nor wrong, it just is.

Quote: Quote: . What gives you the right to tell a man that they cannot do this?

No, Rights don't give me the ability. The law does.

The law? The law that does not respect rights is no law I care for.

Quote: Quote: This is why"just because I said so" is not a valid "reason."


And assuming that you have a right to kill whales is not a fact, it is a belief.

I am not assuming anything. I know that animals have no rights since rights come from our ability to reason. Rightless organisims do not have the "right not to be killed." Since they have no rights, you cannot claim that I do not have a right tokill as I please. Now, I couldn't kill an animal on your property, but every animal that invades my space is taken out.

Quote: Quote:
On the open ocean, the Captian makes the rules and it is law. On the open ocean, man is not under any governmental authority.

Then go for it, kill a whale. I can;t stop you :lol:

Quote: On the open ocean, any laws that you cite as "good reason" do not matter, and the slaughtering of whales is "permissible"


Becasue their is no LAW in the middle of the ocean. Go have a michael jackson party out there for all I care,

Quote: in that it cannot be denied. How could it? No nation owns the water.


I never said there was LAWS in the middle of the ocean. A lot of whale hunting happens close to shore, where there are laws however.

OK, well I would only want to hunt the sperm whale, which would not be close to shore at all.

Quote: Quote: If a Captian wants to go on a Nantucket sliegh ride, he goes. What is he harming? A whale? That's his peroggative. Unless someone can proveto me that the events of Star Trek IV will come to pass there really is no reason why I see a need to care about whales. There are lots of them and it would be impossible to kill them all, try as we might (not only would they become increasingly harder to find, many sink after they are hunted), but I don't really care.


I got your point dude. Relax.

Quote: They are whales. If you want to contribute to afund wheresome people care for whales or pay people to NOT whale then be my guest. That's your peroggative. It is mine to find ambergris, the gold of the ocean, inside the Sperm Whale, if I ever desire to do so.

If you can't admit that this argument is based on subjective beliefs we are in a rut. Killing whales..killing seals...killing ggiant squids....killing zebras..killing dinosaurs...these threads are retarded. There is not right or wrong, they are based on peoples preference. I never once claimed I was right, You howver aren't correct as well..

You said that "regular joes" shouldn't be able to whale yet supposed tribal people should be able to because of their "traditions." Just because someone stops doing something or continues to do something does not mean your society is pigeonholed in that position for the all eternity. You basedthis position on "just because I said so" and then claimed you had the law on your side. I claim the law (which would be so-called "international law") is not legitament because it places whales above humans. No one can saywhy whales need to be above humans. Sure, an ecosystem might "suffer" but it willadapt. Why should we care? -that is the question that is never really answered. We should care because if we don't the ecosystem might be harmed. So what? Does anyone seriously think that whaling could user in the apocalypse? If not, then I am sure whatever problems MAY come about because of whaling (and all evidence points to.... nothing of any importance.... since whales were heavily hunted for years and years) can be overcome. So in sum, since whales are amoral creatures we should be able to hunt them all we please, for better differential oil and cheaper perfume among other products.

[Canada_Rocks]

Quote:
You said that "regular joes" shouldn't be able to whale yet supposed tribal people should be able to because of their "traditions."

Yep, that's what I said



Quote: Just because someone stops doing something or continues to do something does not mean your society is pigeonholed in that position for the all eternity. You basedthis position on "just because I said so" and then claimed you had the law on your side. I claim the law (which would be so-called "international law") is not legitament because it places whales above humans.

Just because I said so..... Milking this dry arent you? I gave other reasons but fundementally yes. I wasn't placing whales above humans in fact, the aboriginese depend on whales to survive...that is why I say that should be able to hunt whale. I am putting them above whales(according to your reasoning). Regular Joes though, don't rely on whales to survive, therefore, to say I am putting whales above humans in that case is a little far stepping. I am still not putting the regular Joes bellow whales. I don't see where you are getting this from. Just because you don't murder something, doesn't mean it is above you. That statemne tis one crazy bean below nazi ideology...Sorry for bringing in the good ol' nazi comparrison but it sticks. Asserting that something below you deserves or should be murdered.

Quote: No one can saywhy whales need to be above humans.

No one can say why humans are above whales :wink:

Quote: Sure, an ecosystem might "suffer" but it willadapt. Why should we care?

Caring is a human condition. I care about a lot of things. As far as the ecosystem adapting, sure it will but why should it have to?

Quote: that is the question that is never really answered. We should care because if we don't the ecosystem might be harmed. So what?

You are free to not care about the ecosystem but I care about the ecosystem and so do millions of other people.

Quote: Does anyone seriously think that whaling could user in the apocalypse?

WHat an outragous statement. Just becasue something doesn't usher in the apocalypse doesn't mean we should do it.

Quote: If not, then I am sure whatever problems MAY come about because of whaling (and all evidence points to.... nothing of any importance.... since whales were heavily hunted for years and years) can be overcome.

There are plenty of extinct animals out there that would beg to differ with you. Whale meat isn't even close to being half of a percentage of a necessity. We shouldn't put the environment and a species in danger in order to satisfy our desires.

Quote: So in sum, since whales are amoral creatures we should be able to hunt them all we please, for better differential oil and cheaper perfume among other products.

I am still missing your point about this amoral thing. whether something has morals or not does not justify murdering it.

[Canada_Rocks]

[quote="John Galt"]

Quote: I never said it was "moral," nor "immoral" for that matter, so I will not prove something I did not say nor know to be true. Killing an amoral creature is nothing in regards to morals. It is neither right nor wrong, it just is.

I disagree.

Quote:
The law? The law that does not respect rights is no law I care for.

To each his own.

Quote:
I am not assuming anything. I know that animals have no rights since rights come from our ability to reason. Rightless organisims do not have the "right not to be killed." Since they have no rights, you cannot claim that I do not have a right tokill as I please. Now, I couldn't kill an animal on your property, but every animal that invades my space is taken out.

Your rights come from the constitution. Since when do rights come from your ability to reason? My rights come from the sugar plumb faerie :lol:

Fight fire with fire.

Quote:
OK, well I would only want to hunt the sperm whale, which would not be close to shore at all.

Again, go for it. Nobody is stopping you.

[John Galt]

You cannot "murder" an amoral creature, for that would go against the defintion of "murder." You can only kill it, as it is morally of no consequence whether it lives or dies. Humans on the other hand are of grear moral importance. We do not "get our rights from the Constitution" as if it is some magical document that created something from nothing; the Constitution merely said truisms (and not all of them, which is why it says that the enumeration of rights does not imply that there are no more than just the ones stated, as opposed to the enumeration of powers, which are succinct. Rights were reasoned by man after he gained knowedge of good and evil (became rational and as a consequence, moral). Animals are not human and are not moral creatures, which is why we are above them. One human life is worth infinantly more than every other non-human life on the planet. Why? Because humans are moral, and only our desires should matter. But my part in this thread because Godwin's Law has struck.

[Canada_Rocks]

John Galt wrote: You cannot "murder" an amoral creature, for that would go against the defintion of "murder." You can only kill it, as it is morally of no consequence whether it lives or dies.

Fair enough, poor word choice. KILL.

Quote: Humans on the other hand are of grear moral importance. We do not "get our rights from the Constitution" as if it is some magical document that created something from nothing; the Constitution merely said truisms (and not all of them, which is why it says that the enumeration of rights does not imply that there are no more than just the ones stated, as opposed to the enumeration of powers, which are succinct. Rights were reasoned by man after he gained knowedge of good and evil (became rational and as a consequence, moral).

I believe your constitution grants rights. for Rights need to be recognized and enforced to be consisdered rights.


Quote: Animals are not human and are not moral creatures, which is why we are above them.

That is not the definition of being above them. That is simply how you justify your claim. Doesn't mean it is accurate. Becasue A has C, and B doesn't, doesn't mean A is above B.


Quote: One human life is worth infinantly more than every other non-human life on the planet. Why? Because humans are moral, and only our desires should matter. But my part in this thread because Godwin's Law has struck.

I completely disagree with that. But it brings me back to my initial point. My desire is not to harm whales.

[Canada_Rocks]

I still want a copy of the Libertarian Constitution because I heard that the Libertarians recieved a special copy and the rest of AMerica recived the regular one.

[connermt]

John Galt wrote: connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: Pebble wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: John Galt wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Whaling is fine for the aboriginese and tribes that rely on it for food. Regular joes shouldn't whale.

Why, just cause?

Becasue I feel it is wrong to kill a species that can't reproduce fast enough to keep up with demand.

I wouldn't venture into the realm of what's right or wrong about it, i'd just stick with the loss of biodiversity and it being pretty bloody stupid.

Why is biodiversity important? Why are whales important?

Every animal species is important to its ecosystem. Removing one species is just one more step towards screwing up the ecosystem.

What would be so bad for humans if whales were removed? Do we even know? Whjy can't we cross that creek if and when we come to it. I stipulate we would never come to it, as whales are too elusive and expidtions too expensive to kill them all, as much as some of us may want to do it.

BTW, you did not answer why biodiversity is important. While ecosystems may be damaged, they adapt. Millions, if not billions, of species have come and went from this planet.

Millions of species have come & went, this is ture, but not do to human hands, it was a natural choice & nature determined (for whatever reason) the ecosystem didn't support or need them any longer.
Whales (including dolphins & porpoises) are one of the animals at the top of the food chain. To eliminate them altogether would throw off the balance of life in the oceans. And yes, I am sure EVENTUALLY the oceans would recover somewhat, but that takes YEARS to do so & it would potentially screw up the fishing industry for starters.
The notion to 'cross that bridge when we come to it' is a unresponsible approach to anything when it comes to discussing nature.
Whales are only elusive now because they were hunted almost to extinction (in some species) in the early 1900s, it was not natural selection.
I didn't (& won't) respond to the biodiversity question because if you are honestly asking, then you should go back to your biology text books from high school.

[connermt]

John Galt wrote: connermt wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Axismaster wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Whaling is fine for the aboriginese and tribes that rely on it for food. Regular joes shouldn't whale.

What makes natives better than the rest of us?

It is part of their tradition and herritage dating back thousands of years.

Not only that, but they typically have a better understanding & respect for nature & don't 'over hunt' a species because it is economical to do so

How could it be that a people who have the best scientists in the world have less of an understanding than some natives living in igloos? I submit your position is completely wrong.

Perfect example: Late 80s or early 90s, there was a shark attack in Hawaii. Scientist went on a calling of killing all tiger sharks of a certain size that was THOUGHT to be the killer. The native Hawaiians were against this partly because of their respect (& understanding) of the natural enviroment. Scientist thought this was the best course of action. After several weeks, they (scientist) decided to stop the calling (partially because of public out cry) but also because there was no proof they were making any difference. In 2003-ish, some of the SAME scientist came out publically, after actually RESEARCHING the specific shark & its habits, & said the calling was useless as the sharks that were killed were NOT related in anyway to the original killings. It took 10-15 years of 'scientific' study for them to realize what the native Hawaiians were telling them from day one.
Even with the 'best science in the world' there is more known about space than our oceans. New eco systems (& species) are being found constantly in the oceans - some in places that NO life was thought to exist.
Native people's of certain lands have a more keen general understanding (& respect) of how things work than science does. Granted it is doubtful that they know about the specifics of DNA or RNA & the like, but their basic understanding of how things work is amazing. Native people know what plants can be eaten when to help with sickness for hundreds if not thousands of years BEFORE medical science ever said "Hey, guess what? This plant works to hel[p reduce [insert sickness here]!"
I am not trying to take away from science & what it has done for us. However, it is a mind set like yours (big headed, science knows 'everything') type of attitude that causes issues, not the science itself.

[Korimyr the Rat]

connermt wrote: Not only that, but they typically have a better understanding & respect for nature & don't 'over hunt' a species because it is economical to do so

Don't kid yourself.

The reason they don't overhunt is because they have neither the resources nor the incentive to do so. If they could sell whale products to the cosmetics industry-- like commercial whalers do-- there'd be a whale holocaust like you'd never believe.

And they would milk their "tribal heritage" all the way to the bank.

On the other hand, their lack of resources and lack of commercial incentives is also why it's perfectly safe and acceptable to allow them to practice their customary forms of whaling.