19th-century weapon found in whale

Quick question, is it possible this spear could have been found by an Inuit in a more modern time and recycled and used more recently?

Sorry if this has been addressed, I was trying to backtrack but found it difficult.


[edit on 15-6-2007 by earth2]

Originally posted by sensfan
Tell me junglelord. Are you a Vegan, do not eat any meat/dairy/fish products? Do not wear or have any leather accessories of any kind? If so, I applaud you for your beliefs, but to state that you hate people that kill animals is a little extreme do you not think? I enjoy a good steak or nice juicy lobster. I love my leather jacket.

It's called survival of the fittest. do you cringe every time an animal kills another animal for food? We, as humans, are animals too...we are carnivorous by nature.

Now I want a bbq'd steak!!!

Survival of the fittest is a law of nature that applies to species that are in competition for an ecological niche. Perhaps I'm just really strange, but I don't believe I have ever felt the least desire to filter tiny crustaceans through my gums for several hundred years and then die and sink to the bottom where my fat-rich bones will create an island of scavenger paradise.

Again, maybe I'm abnormal. Maybe you want to float along the world's ocean surfaces, straining seawater for krill and humming really loudly, and thus consider whales competitors. I don't. Haven't met too many people who think that sounds like a great lifestyle choice, tell you the truth. So. Where hte heck does "survival of the fittest" come into play?

Or is this just another "yee haw I love my all-American colon cancer beef and killin' animals makes my genitals feel good" take on natural laws?

Fro information sake, here is a list of ingredients that are derived from animals...this is just the start, click the link for the entire list.

# A Acetylated Hydrogenated Lard Glyceride
# Acetylated Lanolin
# Acetylated Lanolin Alcohol
# Acetylated Lanolin Ricinoleate
# Acetylated Tallow
# Albumen
# Albumin
# "Amerachol"(TM)
# Ammonium Hydrolyzed Protein
# Amniotic Fluid
# AMPD Isoteric Hydrolyzed Animal Protein
# Amylase
# Animal Collagen Amino Acids
# Animal Keratin Amino Acids
# Animal Protein Derivative
# Animal Tissue Extract - Epiderm Oil R
# Arachidonic Acid

Ingredients derived from Animals

Originally posted by selfless
How long have you been a vegetarian? I'm just trying to raise your awareness on certain foods that have meat in them that they don't tell the public about.

I don't really call myself a "vegetarian". I'm not against eating meat, I just don't do it.

I haven't eaten meat, aside from a few experimental occassions here and there, my whole life.

By NOM

I don't really call myself a "vegetarian". I'm not against eating meat, I just don't do it.

Are the vegetarians sidetracking the thread?? Aren't there diet threads where you can discuss your unique activities?

Agreed. What has vegetarianism got to do with Whales?

Completely unrelated. I mean, I am a proud carnivore and will happily munch my way through a herd of cows, but that doesn't have any relevance to my own personal beliefs on Whale hunting.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by selfless
How long have you been a vegetarian? I'm just trying to raise your awareness on certain foods that have meat in them that they don't tell the public about.

I don't really call myself a "vegetarian". I'm not against eating meat, I just don't do it.

I haven't eaten meat, aside from a few experimental occassions here and there, my whole life.

Yeah i agree with you, I don't really believe in labels either but it's a way to describe the intended question.

Originally posted by plumranch
By NOM

I don't really call myself a "vegetarian". I'm not against eating meat, I just don't do it.

Are the vegetarians sidetracking the thread?? Aren't there diet threads where you can discuss your unique activities?

Since when is the killing of a whale not related to the ideological concept of not eating animals in this reality?

It's very much all related in the broader perspective.

Originally posted by selfless

Since when is the killing of a whale not related to the ideological concept of not eating animals in this reality?

It's very much all related in the broader perspective.

Ok, if you insist, I shall play along.

What, pray tell, vegetation are Inuit's supposed to eat in the Arctic circle that would sustain them enough that they would not have to eat meat?

Answer that question satisfactorily and the Veggie's might have a case here.

Originally posted by stumason
Ok, if you insist, I shall play along.

You might be here to play but I'm not...

Originally posted by stumason
What, pray tell, vegetation are Inuit's supposed to eat in the Arctic circle that would sustain them enough that they would not have to eat meat?

If we are talking about what's natural here, it's not exactly natural to live a place where it's so cold that you have to superficially construct your self a second skin just to live.

So since I personally think they shouldn't even be living there in the first place, I won't defend them when they have to kill whales to survive.(Just my personal opinion)

Originally posted by stumason
Answer that question satisfactorily and the Veggie's might have a case here.

While I personally think that humans are herbivores, I am not forcing my views on anyone.

It's a matter of perception and personal choice, so I'm not here to build a case of veggies.

Originally posted by selfless
You might be here to play but I'm not...

Figure of speech, chap.

Originally posted by selfless
If we are talking about what's natural here, it's not exactly natural to live a place where it's so cold that you have to superficially construct your self a second skin just to live.

The word your looking for is "artificially".

So, by your logic, humans should only live in temperate zones? Your logic could be applied to desert dwelling people as much as those in the Arctic.

Originally posted by selfless
So since I personally think they shouldn't even be living there in the first place, I won't defend them when they have to kill whales to survive.(Just my personal opinion)

And a very odd opinion it is too.... But hey, ho...

Originally posted by selfless
While I personally think that humans are herbivores, I am not forcing my views on anyone.

We are not. We have canines, which are for tearing flesh. Our digestive tract used to be able to accomodate raw flesh, but with the advent of fire, this has dwindled in capacity. Our closest relatives, Chimpanzees, eat flesh as a very important part of their diet.

I would be willing to bet that, without modern "veggie" foods (such as Soya), you would find it hard to survive on a diet of natural vegetables for an extended period. Just not enough protein and certain minerals and vitamins.

Originally posted by TheComte
From the link in OP.

Whaling has always been a prominent source of food for Alaskans, and is monitored by the International Whaling Commission. A hunting quota for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission was recently renewed, allowing 255 whales to be harvested by 10 Alaskan villages over five years.

While it is sad that such a magnificent creature, that has survived for so long, is now dead, it's wrong to pass judgment on a particular culture's means of survival. Like the seal hunt, it doesn't appeal to our Western sensibilities. It is, however, an ancient, traditional means of feeding their families that, despite our modern world, survives to this day.

this point was made earlier, but i'll rephrase and re-iterate:

the tradition of whale hunting does not live to the day 'despite' anything.
point one: the weapon used in the original attempt was modernized, and in fact not traditional.
point 2: the weapon actually used to kill the whale was also modernized.
point 3: i am assuming that the hunt was not traditional either, im sure it was done with a steel boat, GPS, etc etc...

in other words, if this culture can afford modernized whale hunting weapons there is no need to hunt whale.

as far as the actual find goes, it is amazing to realize that a creature can live so long and fruitfully. we as humans could learn a lesson from our whale cousins.

Quick question, is it possible this spear could have been found by an Inuit in a more modern time and recycled and used more recently?

Sorry if this has been addressed, I was trying to backtrack but found it difficult.

Originally posted by junglelord
That sickens me

Still whale hunting today

I hate people that kill animals when there is no need

The way we treat the earth and the enviorment and the animals is disgracefull

This majestic creature of great age....shot for what??????

[edit on 13-6-2007 by junglelord]

Well you've got to make a living somehow. You shouldn't judge people because this may be the only means of making a living for some. I'd much rather kill a whale and feed my family instead of starving.

It is a good find, does anyone know if this is the oldest known whale or are these ages common for whales?

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by selfless
You might be here to play but I'm not...

Figure of speech, chap.

So i guess chap is a figure of speech too?

I don't know about it.

Originally posted by stumason

The word your looking for is "artificially".

Yeah, thanks I'm not English.

Originally posted by stumason
So, by your logic, humans should only live in temperate zones? Your logic could be applied to desert dwelling people as much as those in the Arctic.

No I don't think you got my logic at all.

You can survive in the desert and not die with only natural resources.

You can't survive in the Arctic with out artificial means so therefor it's not exactly natural. (My perspective)

Originally posted by stumason
And a very odd opinion it is too.... But hey, ho...

To me it's very odd to kill living creatures for the taste while we can easily survive with out having to kill any living beings.

It's no longer about survival, it's about the pleasure of killing and the pleasure of the taste of eating an animal.

But that's just my personal opinion, I don't force others to agree with that perspective of reality.

Originally posted by stumason
We are not. We have canines, which are for tearing flesh.

Actually, that's not proven. There are some people that says we are herbivores and there are some people that says we are carnivore.

www.stevepavlina.com...

While you choose to believe that you are a carnivore, I choose herbivore. For where I am in my existence it feels unnatural to eat animals while where you are in your existence it feels natural for you to eat animals.

No one is superior, we just follow our inner selves natural perceptions.

Originally posted by stumason
I would be willing to bet that, without modern "veggie" foods (such as Soya), you would find it hard to survive on a diet of natural vegetables for an extended period. Just not enough protein and certain minerals and vitamins.

That would be a bet you would loose.

Also keep in mind that Soya is all natural ingredients and I personally don't consider combinations of ingredients that are all natural to be a bad thing.

Inventions are not a bad thing when the purpose is a natural purpose and is not chemically altered.

An invention is a very bad thing when the purpose is just to make money and the risks to our humanity is not cared for or waged.

Certain foods have been experimented in such ways that caused many diseases like certain cancers.

When we mess with nature, the results are not good. We create our own diseases by trying to alter our nature.

Cancer is natures way of telling us that what we are doing is none compatible with our natural selves.(That's just my opinion)

Also, I don't think we should be killing whales, which is all related...



[edit on 15-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
It is a good find, does anyone know if this is the oldest known whale or are these ages common for whales?

This was a bowhead whale, and they are suspected to live up to 200 years. It's not so much that the whale was about 130 years old, but that we are able to determine it's age due to the harpoon head that it'd been carrying around since the 1880s.

Incidentally, according to the report I read last night, they're guestimating it's age as 130 because the reason it survived the original harpooning was not that it was somehow able to escape, but because that it was likely a just calf at the time and, as is still the custom, was released.

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Incidentally, according to the report I read last night, they're guestimating it's age as 130 because the reason it survived the original harpooning was not that it was somehow able to escape, but because that it was likely a just calf at the time and, as is still the custom, was released.

So they shoot at it with out knowing if it's big enough to keep and then once it's been pierced through, they decide to keep it or to let it go?

I think that's seriously sickening, are you sure this is how they proceed?

Originally posted by selfless
So i guess chap is a figure of speech too?

Yup. Like mate, or dude..

Originally posted by selfless
Yeah, thanks I'm not English.

No worries. Just being helpful.

Originally posted by selfless
No I don't think you got my logic at all.

You can survive in the desert and not die with only natural resources.

You can't survive in the Arctic with out artificial means so therefor it's not exactly natural. (My perspective)

If I dumped you naked in the desert you would die in very short order.

Same in the Arctic.

They use (or at least, did use) natural means to exist. Using animal fur to keep warm for example. In the desert, you would need to cover yourself from the sun, find food and water etc exactly the same as you would in the Arctic.

Originally posted by selfless
To me it's very odd to kill living creatures for the taste while we can easily survive with out having to kill any living beings.

Not really. Every veggie I know is anemic. Very little dietary iron in their food, so they need supplements. This is just one thing that can go wrong just surviving off veg.

Originally posted by selfless
It's no longer about survival, it's about the pleasure of killing and the pleasure of the taste of eating an animal.

It is. Do an experiment for me. Just eat fresh fruit and veg for a month. No soya products, just the veg you would expect to find in your local environment. Not only is the energy content in veg much lower, causing you to eat much more, thus dwindling your food supply, but you would be lacking in essential fats, vitamins and minerals need for survival.

Originally posted by selfless
But that's just my personal opinion, I don't force others to agree with that perspective of reality.

Thats fine. My girlfriend is a veggie and I have this discussion with her frequently. I respect your opinion, but I do enjoy the debate

Originally posted by selfless
Actually, that's not proven. There are some people that says we are herbivores and there are some people that says we are carnivore.

Hmm. There are many that say we're carnivores and a very small percentage that claim we're not.

Originally posted by selfless
While you choose to believe that you are a carnivore, I choose herbivore. For where I am in my existence it feels unnatural to eat animals while where you are in your existence it feels natural for you to eat animals.

Okey dokey.

Originally posted by selfless
No one is superior, we just follow our inner selves natural perceptions.

Didn't mean to give that impression. Apologies if I did.

Originally posted by selfless
That would be a bet you would loose.

Also keep in mind that Soya is all natural ingredients and I personally don't consider combinations of ingredients that are all natural to be a bad thing.

Soya is farmed. Can you farm?

If, say, society collapsed and there was no organised farming, could you honestly grow AND process soya to provided for the dietary protein, fat and energy requirements for you and your family to keep you going through the winter?

If not, then you must rely on just the local veg. This will not provide sufficient nutrients to keep you alive.

Originally posted by selfless
Inventions are not a bad thing when the purpose is a natural purpose and is not chemically altered.

An invention is a very bad thing when the purpose is just to make money and the risks to our humanity is not cared for or waged.

Agreed, mostly.

Originally posted by selfless
Certain foods have been experimented in such ways that caused many diseases like certain cancers.

When we mess with nature, the results are not good. We create our own diseases by trying to alter our nature.

Cancer is natures way of telling us that what we are doing is none compatible with our natural selves.(That's just my opinion)

Cancer has been around for as long as humanity and can be found in the animal kingdom as well. Whilst modern living undoubtedly contributes to an increased risk of cancer, it is not the root cause.

Same with other diseases.

Originally posted by selfless
While you choose to believe that you are a carnivore, I choose herbivore. For where I am in my existence it feels unnatural to eat animals while where you are in your existence it feels natural for you to eat animals.

No one is superior, we just follow our inner selves natural perceptions.

Actually, we are omnivores. We eat everythang, baybayyyy!

It's no longer about survival, it's about the pleasure of killing and the pleasure of the taste of eating an animal.

Just curious... Is being a vegetarian no longer about survival, but just about the pleasure of killing and the pleasure of the taste of eating a vegetable?