I have a hard time believing that people actually cared about that whale. It seems more likely to me that it's an excuse for lonely people to band together against a common enemy, which gives a sense of community. This has more explanatory power than taking the environmentalists at their word: If it was about animals being intelligent and murder being immoral, people wouldn't wish the kid dead because the loss from that would surely be >= the loss from the whale.
It could also be trolls pretending to be environmentalists, though that would be very easy to confirm or deny by looking at a few profiles in more detail.
It seems counterintuitive that the most environmentally conscious way to live might be to stack everyone in extraordinarily dense cities, and leave the rest as wilderness or farmland. Does this Paul Watson guy consider it immoral to live outside of a modern transportation/supply network?
I wonder if the EPA lets you raise endangered species to be sold for food or parts, if on average more are created than killed. Imagine being able to eat a panda at a restaurant, but you see a bunch of "protect the wildlife" stickers everywhere, and you tell yourself you're doing your part by eating there.
It could also be trolls pretending to be environmentalists, though that would be very easy to confirm or deny by looking at a few profiles in more detail.
It seems counterintuitive that the most environmentally conscious way to live might be to stack everyone in extraordinarily dense cities, and leave the rest as wilderness or farmland. Does this Paul Watson guy consider it immoral to live outside of a modern transportation/supply network?
I wonder if the EPA lets you raise endangered species to be sold for food or parts, if on average more are created than killed. Imagine being able to eat a panda at a restaurant, but you see a bunch of "protect the wildlife" stickers everywhere, and you tell yourself you're doing your part by eating there.