home > scientific farming > when hunger rules
The Plus of Conservation: When Hunger Rules
IWMC World Conservation Trust Newsletter
By Eugene Lapointe
September, 2001
A striking contrast was noted this past summer, between those at
the IWC who spoke either for or against the human consumption of
whale meat, and another situation on the coast of east central Africa,
where a blue whale washed up near Lagos, Nigeria. In the former
case, the issue was whether or not humans "should" take
advantage of a healthy population of minke and other species of
whales, by setting quotas, hunting a fixed number of animals, and
distributing the products in a market system for human consumption.
All very orderly and with scientific justification. Surely, the
result of such a scenario would be an additional source of food,
the sustainable use of abundant species, and the satisfaction of
cultural needs through the use of a traditional food source. Those
opposed to that concept, have a cultural preference that no whales
be used at any time by anyone for food. It has come down to which
side has the most votes, not which course of action is scientifically
or socially justifiable.
In stark contrast, when a blue whale washed up near Lagos, Nigeria,
pandemonium broke out. The poverty stricken people there are so
protein-deprived, so hungry, that they descended on the carcass
and stripped it. Imagine the degree of hunger that must exist there,
for people who have never had a cultural tradition of whale use,
to be so avid as to descend upon such a windfall, and reduce that
massive tonnage to meals for thousands. It may not even have been
fresh, but was reduced to bones on the beach by the time anyone
could report on it. The Associated Press ran a short piece describing
the scene as one of mayhem, as local youths even charged admission
to those who wanted to get close enough to receive a fist-sized
piece of meat.
This should give us all pause. Desperate hunger is perhaps the most
terrible drive that a person can have. When foods are readily available,
when harvests are demonstrably sustainable, then people should not
be deprived of opportunities to eat by others who "prefer"
or "insist" that they not partake of a particular food
source just because others wish they would not, or have the voting
power to prevent them from doing so.
In the case of the windfall for the people of Nigeria, they turned
a potential health hazard on the beach into a godsend of food abundance
for a short while. It was truly a gift from the sea. Some charged
both admission and for the small portions that were cut off and
distributed to eager hands. It appears that Nigerians, at least,
would not be averse to more such gifts from the sea, even if they
had to pay for such a non-traditional food source. Would it be such
a bad thing, if a whaling nation brought in a load or two of minke
product to a port where such desperate hunger is a daily fact of
life?
We most fortunate of people in the western world need to think about
ways to alleviate human hunger on a regular basis, in a safe and
sustainable manner, so that no people shall live their lives in
such a desperate state as was evident this summer in Lagos. The
resumption of commercial whaling would not be an environmental crime,
because the mechanisms are in place to make it an orderly, transparent,
wholly beneficial activity. Perhaps the nations of the world shall
soon come together in agreements to solve the interrelated problems
of ecological imbalance, and cultural and nutritional need.
Finding new sources of food is an absolute necessity and everyone's
responsibility. Depriving starved human beings of an abundant source
of food is a crime against humanity.
|
Cherry Products