Arguments Against Whaling And Transnationalism

Whaling has been a Native American tradition for over 2,000 years, incidentally the International Whaling Commission and many other nongovernmental organizations are trying to change that tradition. These types of organizations such as Greenpeace, IWC, and NAMMCO, entail transnationalist views. Whereas on the other hand, states like Japan, Norway, and Iceland, have nationalist perceptions. The transnationalist argument against whaling mainly deals with animal rights and also the impact on the environment of losing specific whale species. The nationalist’s argument on the other hand, involves experimentation and tradition in cultures, and supporting some economies. The two sides have compelling reasoning. However, the nationalist arguments are more substantial and cogent. With the regard of these two contrasting views, they do have the possibility of being reconciled with a great deal of compromise. In the view of the nationalist outlook, the main objectives of whaling are to keep certain economies growing, preserve traditions, and also to experiment. For instance, in Point Hope, Alaska, hunting seals, belugas, walrus, and whales is what …show more content…
Whales are slow to reproduce, making it hard to keep up the population if they are constantly being hunted and killed. Without the whale population, it will disturb other ocean wildlife. Losing a species completely throws off many life systems. The transnationalist want to ban whaling completely and restore the whale population. Another argument that is brought up, is animal cruelty. There is a lot of debate about if how whaling is traditionally executed is inhumane. Whales are large animals that take a long time to kill off, and by harpooning the whales this slows the process. With these two arguments in mind, the nationalist have more arguments to back up their stance on