At 09:54 AM 4/23/99 -0500, John Nitrox wrote: >At 08:16 PM 4/23/99 +1300, J.M. Vitoux wrote: > >>Indeed. My understanding is that Cousteau wasn't particularly >>proud of those things and said something along the lines that if >>he could change the past, he wouldn't do such things again. >little effeminate. Now 45 years later people seem to think he was a brute. >In the 50s the dominant opinion (in America anyway) was that one of man's >struggles was against nature. What seems cruel now didn't cause an eye >blink forty-five years ago; times have changed dramatically. Certainly lots of truth to that. On the other hand, you can't always judge the world by how American's think. It was then, as it is now, that some culture/religion/people would consider it rather brutal to step on an ant, or any living species as to deprive their natural livelihood of being eaten by some other creatures. John, you were the one who pointed out Cousteau's brutality. You now seem to take the opposite position in his defense. I am flexible. :-) I'll take the opposite side, for the sake of mental calisthenics. >If you look >at him through the eyes of the world in the 50s, Cousteau was as concerned >about the ecology then as he was in the 90s. He was, and has always been, concerned and did admirable deeds on CERTAIN ecological issues. He was concerned (and did much) to salvage toxic material (in barrels) dumped into the ocean. He did not kill any dolphin or whale unnecessarily doing so. He certainly helped the dolphins and whales indirectly, if not directly by his deed. >Certainly Cousteau changed, >but the world changed as much or more, and if Cousteau had anything to be >embarrassed about the world has more to be embarrassed about. Non sequitur. Increased killing does not excuse a single killing. It is that kind of mentality that contributed to the Colorado shooting incident that is not found in any other country other than this, and in INCREASING frequency too. We are insensitized. I am not a religious person (though I was at one time <G>), but I still think the intent of "thou shalt not kill" does not have a clause attached it that if it meant politically correct to some, then it's okay to bomb the hell out of some other country and kill people there, innocent or otherwise. Well, that's getting a bit heavy and into the tangent ... so let's get back to the dolphins, whales, and ... tuna. > For myself, I believe that fisheries should be sustainable and I >feel tender hearted towards the fish I photograph. I share your selfishness. >Nonetheless, when I hear >the term "animal rights," I think the only "natural" right a blue fin tuna >has is to have his belly carefully sliced, put on a elliptical ball of >sticky rice and wasabi, and wrapped in a band of kelp. If the inferior human would free dive to the blue tuna's realm, and kill the tuna with his bare hands (hell, I'll even allow him the handicap of carrying a knife or two), while giving the blue tuna at least an unequal chance of biting the hell of the attacker or swimming away, then the carefully slice tuna may indeed be game, from my point of view of playing the devil's advocate against your turncoat argument behind Barnum Jacques. :-) >DPTNST, > > >John DPTFT, -- Bob.