Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

gerbrith wrote:I would mention that both definitions of efficiency are correct. Efficiency means getting the most output for the least input. In a business sense, that would mean getting the most profit for your work or investment. It also applies to other subjects though. In the sense of inputs per output of meat, the chicken industry does beat the seal industry, in that it takes less effort/work/money to slaughter ten caged chicken than it takes to hunt a wild seal.

The problem with that is that people aren't in a meat-producing caste. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to spend part of their time in the production of a luxury good and part of their time in the production food, just as it's acceptable to spend all of your time in the manufacture of a luxury good. "Efficiency" only makes sense in the context that a person has an imperative to produce as much food as they can in an hour. Producing as much food as they can in one animal's death makes some sense, producing as much food in as little time as possible doesn't.

Let's say Jim and Joe are two guys. Jim is a seal hunter, Joe is a high-end fashion designer, but he farms pigs on the side. I don't know why.

So, at the end of the day, both Jim and Joe have spent 9 hours working. Jim has spent 9 hours hunting seals, Joe has spent 3 hours tending to his pigs, and 6 hours designing clothes that only an idiot would actually try to wear.

Now, Jim has killed 10 seals, and got 200 pounds of meat from them. Joe has killed 10 pigs, and got 200 pounds of meat from them. The seals were killed quickly and efficiently, the pigs were raised decently, neither one has more animal cruelty than the other. The pig's feed came from a good farm and their waste was disposed of well. The seals were numerous enough to be hunted without endangering their population. Neither act is an environmental concern.

Now, this 200 pounds of meat sells for $500, for both Jim and Joe. Then Jim sells his seal pelts for $1,000. Joe sells his expensive dress for $1,000.

What has Jim done in this situation that is wrong? What harm has he caused that Joe didn't?

This really, really reminds me of the big discussion of why raping a woman who is a dangerous criminal is still a bad thing..

BrookM wrote:This really, really reminds me of the big discussion of why raping a woman who is a dangerous criminal is still a bad thing..

Jesus H. Christ... there was actualy someone who argues that this wasn't a bad thing?

Also, how does this thread bear any resemblance to that? All this thread is about is "Hypocrites vs. People who recognise Killing a Cow and Killing a Seal are the exact same thing and to ban one product because the suits in power have no idea how it actually works is idiotic to the extreme. Also one animal is cute and the other isn't."

BrookM wrote:This really, really reminds me of the big discussion of why raping a woman who is a dangerous criminal is still a bad thing..

Um... sounds like you've had some bad experiences with seals, then.

efarrer wrote:Could a mod please change the title of this thread to "EU moves to increase poverty and despair in the Eastern Canada." or perhaps "EU moves to finish the job colonists failed to do right by destroying the native industry in the North Atlantic region."

No.

Frazzled wrote:

efarrer wrote:Could a mod please change the title of this thread to "EU moves to increase poverty and despair in the Eastern Canada." or perhaps "EU moves to finish the job colonists failed to do right by destroying the native industry in the North Atlantic region."

No.

Well, that sure told them eh?

Yes.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

gerbrith wrote:I would mention that both definitions of efficiency are correct. Efficiency means getting the most output for the least input. In a business sense, that would mean getting the most profit for your work or investment. It also applies to other subjects though. In the sense of inputs per output of meat, the chicken industry does beat the seal industry, in that it takes less effort/work/money to slaughter ten caged chicken than it takes to hunt a wild seal.

The problem with that is that people aren't in a meat-producing caste. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to spend part of their time in the production of a luxury good and part of their time in the production food, just as it's acceptable to spend all of your time in the manufacture of a luxury good. "Efficiency" only makes sense in the context that a person has an imperative to produce as much food as they can in an hour. Producing as much food as they can in one animal's death makes some sense, producing as much food in as little time as possible doesn't.

Let's say Jim and Joe are two guys. Jim is a seal hunter, Joe is a high-end fashion designer, but he farms pigs on the side. I don't know why.

So, at the end of the day, both Jim and Joe have spent 9 hours working. Jim has spent 9 hours hunting seals, Joe has spent 3 hours tending to his pigs, and 6 hours designing clothes that only an idiot would actually try to wear.

Now, Jim has killed 10 seals, and got 200 pounds of meat from them. Joe has killed 10 pigs, and got 200 pounds of meat from them. The seals were killed quickly and efficiently, the pigs were raised decently, neither one has more animal cruelty than the other. The pig's feed came from a good farm and their waste was disposed of well. The seals were numerous enough to be hunted without endangering their population. Neither act is an environmental concern.

Now, this 200 pounds of meat sells for $500, for both Jim and Joe. Then Jim sells his seal pelts for $1,000. Joe sells his expensive dress for $1,000.

What has Jim done in this situation that is wrong? What harm has he caused that Joe didn't?

Nothing, however you made a bunch of assumptions that make the situation even for both guys. Which assumptions could be incorrect.

True. Tell me which assumptions are illogical, then.

(This example was mostly in response to ph34r's claim that it was wrong to spend more time producing less food. I disagree with this, as most people produce no food whatsoever.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:

gerbrith wrote:I would mention that both definitions of efficiency are correct. Efficiency means getting the most output for the least input. In a business sense, that would mean getting the most profit for your work or investment. It also applies to other subjects though. In the sense of inputs per output of meat, the chicken industry does beat the seal industry, in that it takes less effort/work/money to slaughter ten caged chicken than it takes to hunt a wild seal.

The problem with that is that people aren't in a meat-producing caste. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to spend part of their time in the production of a luxury good and part of their time in the production food, just as it's acceptable to spend all of your time in the manufacture of a luxury good. "Efficiency" only makes sense in the context that a person has an imperative to produce as much food as they can in an hour. Producing as much food as they can in one animal's death makes some sense, producing as much food in as little time as possible doesn't.

And I only pointed out that both definitions of efficient were correct. I actually agree with you.
In my eyes, Jim and Joe are exactly equal.

Gwar! wrote:

BrookM wrote:This really, really reminds me of the big discussion of why raping a woman who is a dangerous criminal is still a bad thing..

Jesus H. Christ... there was actualy someone who argues that this wasn't a bad thing?

Also, how does this thread bear any resemblance to that? All this thread is about is "Hypocrites vs. People who recognise Killing a Cow and Killing a Seal are the exact same thing and to ban one product because the suits in power have no idea how it actually works is idiotic to the extreme. Also one animal is cute and the other isn't."

Ethics. Morals. Maybe some other things.

Bah. I hate that sort of thing. It really does come down to "seal cub cute! Cow notcute. Bwahahaha!"

Cows are cute, and tasty!

Frazzled wrote:Cows are cute, and tasty!

Does that mean Seals are Ugly and Non-tasty? because I have found them to be Cute and tasty too! (And trust me, I know it's tasty)

Nothing is as tasty as beef. Or chocolate. But chocolate on beef is not tasty. Crazy I know, but its one of the great mysteries of the universe.

Bison is tasty.

Bison is just beef that got uppity.

They make for good carpets and cheap indian casino decorations.

True. Tell me which assumptions are illogical, then.

The part where you got only 200 pounds of meat on 10 pigs... If memory serves, the current price for one pig to slaughter is ~145$, which is offset by the feeding and housing costs. (Which goes up in effeciency the more pigs you have.) So total net gain for the farmer should be around 100-40 $ if the market is healthy. (not sure on the numbers right now will check with my dad in the morning.) Currently the sealer makes ` 15$ a seal fur. (down from 108 in 2003) and lets say 20 bucks for meat. The expenses of killing that seal are transportationg and storage. (again costing less themore you kill) Lets assume an average of 10 bucks a carcass. If you both slaughter 10 animals at peak effeciency, the pig farmer would probably make more. (But thats only due to the current market value of a seal fur due to bans and other protests against the hunt.) And the hog farmer would produce more money per animal. Likely 50$ more. But, go back to when the seal fur cost 108 $ each if you slaughtered 10 seals you would get both the meat from the seal and the fur and then both animals sell for roughly the same price, and seals have a lower operating cost. Leaving the sealer with a higher profit bracket than the hog farmer.

Ratbarf wrote:

True. Tell me which assumptions are illogical, then.

The part where you got only 200 pounds of meat on 10 pigs...

Ah, good point, I just made up the numbers there.

However the actual amount of meat you get doesn't matter so much as the fact that you can get a similar amount of meat from a seal. The animal being a hog doesn't really matter either, it could just as easily be switched out with a turkey, or a chicken, or anything else that doesn't produce more meat than a seal.

Mostly what I'm trying to say is that if you wouldn't condemn someone for spending a third of their time producing meat and two-thirds of their time producing luxury goods, there's no reason to condemn someone for spending all of their time producing 1/3 food and 2/3 luxury goods. The net result is the same. Same number of animals killed, same number of people fed, the person in the industry is able to stay in business and support himself.

It's supposed to be more of an ethical analysis than a simulation.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:

True. Tell me which assumptions are illogical, then.

The part where you got only 200 pounds of meat on 10 pigs...

Ah, good point, I just made up the numbers there.

However the actual amount of meat you get doesn't matter so much as the fact that you can get a similar amount of meat from a seal. The animal being a hog doesn't really matter either, it could just as easily be switched out with a turkey, or a chicken, or anything else that doesn't produce more meat than a seal.

Mostly what I'm trying to say is that if you wouldn't condemn someone for spending a third of their time producing meat and two-thirds of their time producing luxury goods, there's no reason to condemn someone for spending all of their time producing 1/3 food and 2/3 luxury goods. The net result is the same. Same number of animals killed, same number of people fed, the person in the industry is able to stay in business and support himself.

It's supposed to be more of an ethical analysis than a simulation.

That's why I said it was fine as it stood.

The whole argument is about the perception of inhumane killing. Your theoretical analysis says that if the killing of the seals is not inhumane, there is nothing wrong.

The key thing is, the EU has judged that the manner of killing the seals is inhumane. I don't know how this was decided, I assume it was based on the lack of stunning before killing.

But then you go into, once again, the hypocrisy concerning the conditions that chickens and pigs are frequently raised in, etc, etc.

Now we're back at the beginning of the thread again.

Orkeosaurus wrote:But then you go into, once again, the hypocrisy concerning the conditions that chickens and pigs are frequently raised in, etc, etc.

Now we're back at the beginning of the thread again.

Not precisely. The EU has a lot of regulations governing the conditions in which farm animals can be raised, transported and slaughtered, which are intended to reduce their suffering and make the whole thing humane. This is consistent with growing popular opinion in the EU that factory farming methods are ethically wrong and also unhealthy (see mad cow disease, etc.)

It's pointless to say that seal clubbing is all right because the EU has battery chicken farms. The EU is trying to get rid of battery chicken farms, and has a right to make the same point about imported produce.

There is an argument about what does actually constitute inhumane treatment.

Perhaps it would be easier to accept the decision made by the EU suits if all of them went to seal-hunting areas, spoke to the people doing the hunting and saw for themselves whether it is humane or not.
As long as they don't, it is very difficult to believe that they know what they're doing. If they are allowed to make decisions which can devastate entire regions that aren't under their jurisdiction without even giving that region a chance to defend itself, that is a hostile act. In a business sense it is in fact incredibly hostile to ban imports. Also, placing restrictions such as tolls, embargoes, tariffs, bans, price- floors and -ceilings is always detrimental to both the sellers and the buyers. (I am studying business and this is part of our curriculum) By imposing these artificial barriers, both sides loose.
I am not saying that this will have any significant effect on the EU economy, but it brings up the proverb: "Many small streams will make a river" also in my opinion it is yet another thing to resent about the whole organization.

Over the course of this thread, we've established that hunting the seals is not a key part of maintaining the ecosystem, via the cod argument.
Then, we've established, that as far as we can know, the seals are being killed in a way as humane as possible.
It has been heavily debated whether it is alright to kill animals for any reason other than the meat, and the majority of posters seem to agree that it is in fact fine to kill animals to obtain other products than meat.
This raises the question of whether the policy makers, the "suits", in question, have given the matter as much debate as we have here, whether they have explored the situation in detail or whether they actually have any clue about what they're doing.
A likely answer is that they have not given this more than a moment's thought. They vote to ban seal imports because it will make them popular with all the misinformed people out there who have strong opinions about things they know nothing about.
I get the feeling that the whole thing is about politics. I find that incredibly sad.

Ha, good one! Let's go on an excursion to a glacier and watch a guy plant his hook into a seal. Yeah that's really going to win over hearts and minds.

BrookM wrote:Ha, good one! Let's go on an excursion to a glacier and watch a guy plant his hook into a seal. Yeah that's really going to win over hearts and minds.

The main problem is that the big Agri companies have Bought Politicians, much the same as the Music and Movie Industries do

BrookM wrote:Ha, good one! Let's go on an excursion to a glacier and watch a guy plant his hook into a seal. Yeah that's really going to win over hearts and minds.

Actually, it probably would. Seeing as they would have a chance to see exactly how things work and whether the hunt is humane, rather than just being fed news that may or may not be biased. Then being able to talk to the hunters, see if they really are the demonic animal torturers they're made out to be. Then perhaps seeing the villages or cities these people live in, and the effect the hunt has on the region. And Bamm! It stops being a remote issue that they can win votes over and is turned into an issue of whether to sacrifice people's livelihood or not.
Only by knowing all the facts in a situation can a good judgment be passed.

Kilkrazy wrote:Not precisely. The EU has a lot of regulations governing the conditions in which farm animals can be raised, transported and slaughtered, which are intended to reduce their suffering and make the whole thing humane. This is consistent with growing popular opinion in the EU that factory farming methods are ethically wrong and also unhealthy (see mad cow disease, etc.)

It's pointless to say that seal clubbing is all right because the EU has battery chicken farms. The EU is trying to get rid of battery chicken farms, and has a right to make the same point about imported produce.

Even conventional farming practices are worse than hunting, much of the time. Food choices somewhat unsuited to the animal, castration without anesthetic, beak trimming, etc. Nothing horrific, but there's nothing horrific in seal hunting either. Usually it's immediate unconsciousness from a blow to the head. At worst there's a three second interval of pain and dizziness before the second one connects.

Battery farming is much worse than seal hunting. The fact that battery farming is allowed to continue while seal hunting is not is hypocritical. I don't know if this is the fault of EU, the member states, stupid protesters or what, but it is hypocrisy on someone's account.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Even conventional farming practices are worse than hunting, much of the time. Food choices somewhat unsuited to the animal, castration without anesthetic, beak trimming, etc. Nothing horrific, but there's nothing horrific in seal hunting either. Usually it's immediate unconsciousness from a blow to the head. At worst there's a three second interval of pain and dizziness before the second one connects.

Battery farming is much worse than seal hunting. The fact that battery farming is allowed to continue while seal hunting is not is hypocritical. I don't know if this is the fault of EU, the member states, stupid protesters or what, but it is hypocrisy on someone's account.

It isn't hypocritical at all. Battery farming has a discreet purpose; feeding the glut of humans on this planet. While seal hunting is generally a matter of population control for the sake of population control.

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Even conventional farming practices are worse than hunting, much of the time. Food choices somewhat unsuited to the animal, castration without anesthetic, beak trimming, etc. Nothing horrific, but there's nothing horrific in seal hunting either. Usually it's immediate unconsciousness from a blow to the head. At worst there's a three second interval of pain and dizziness before the second one connects.

Battery farming is much worse than seal hunting. The fact that battery farming is allowed to continue while seal hunting is not is hypocritical. I don't know if this is the fault of EU, the member states, stupid protesters or what, but it is hypocrisy on someone's account.

It isn't hypocritical at all. Battery farming has a discreet purpose; feeding the glut of humans on this planet. While seal hunting is generally a matter of population control for the sake of population control.

LMAYONAISE! You clearly have not read any part of this thread. Seal Hunting is NOT for population control at all! It's so they can sell the meat and furs.