I do not agree with the Norwegian and Japanese position about permiting the hunting for fun. Actually, I don’t agree with cultures that allow the hunting of species, endangered ones or not. Hunting, in my opinion, is not a nice thing, since it can disturb the hole environment and, hypothetically, could even give an end to some species.
But maybe this opinion I have is cultural, too. In my country it’s forbidden to hunt. This way, I grew up learning that this is a not real good thing, and my mind kept this information for all my life until now. So, in the same way, I understand people that agree with that, and may think it’s a normal thing, since they could be born in a country that this is the culture, and this way always found it a normal thing.
I think the whaling ban does not constitute a violation of the nation’s sovereignty, because I think it’s just like the human rights, but with animals. The human rights, it doesn’t matter the culture, the country and the region, are there to protect everybody from cultural abuses. It warrantees the minimum rights a person must have, the ones you can’t deny. And, this same way, the world’s activism may protect the environment with the minimum to preserve species and wild life.
In my opinion, an international committee should …show more content…
World’s opinion is a lot more people than single opinion. So, it should always be considered. What a huge amount of people think is much more important and should have much more impact than what a single group or community thinks. And that’s why we have so many organizations that work among people’s rights, instead of looking for only someone’s rights and cultures. This is why we have security about our lives and do not depend on specific cultures to survive, have our rights, and have things organized. Instead, we would be slaves of governments that would be able to do whatever they wanted, even ban humans