IB ESS HL 4.3.16 Marine Mammal Harvesting Ethics Question Bank

Arguments against may include: ethical issues arise over biorights of the aquatic species; harvesting may contravene international conservation agreements; species may be endangered/threatened with extinction; some may consider the harvesting method as cruel/unethical; if unsustainable, whole regions of the ocean may deplete of fish; ecocentrics may promote veganism and oppose harvest of animal species; ecocentrics would oppose any large scale harvesting/food production systems;

Arguments in favour may include: harvesting necessary for some societies for subsistence/survival; whole economies may be based on harvesting aquatic species; fishing as a recreation/hobby brings people closer to nature; aquaculture may allow harvesting without endangering the species; if harvesting is within sustainable limits it poses no threat to others; anthropocentrics would support sustainable harvesting; technocentrics would support achieving maximum yield/greatest economic return; .and whatever technology/harvesting method will be most efficient in achieving this; eg whales hunting methods are cruel; unethical to kill animals;
modern technologies are very efficient allowing no chance to the whale to escape (so it's "unfair"); populations are declining / many whale species are now endangered; conflicts arise over territorial rights among fleet of different nations; other species (eg dolphins) may be killed in the process / by-catch kill; large parts are thrown back to sea (so wasting the kill); increase in illegal whale hunting of endangered species (along with hunting of non

endangered species); usually harvesting is not sustainable (as it is economic profit that counts); in most countries (Norway, Japan, Iceland) whaling is not necessary for their subsistence nowadays; conflicts arise with ecocentric NGOs opposing whaling (eg Greenpeace);

Marking guidance:

Award [6 max] if no named aquatic species.
Award [4 max] if response only addresses "arguments in favour" ("controversial" strongly implies arguments against).
If more than one species is addressed, credit only the highest scoring example.