A Self-Proclaimed Faroe Islands Ambassador

Dear Anonymous Australia and everyone else

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:59:00 +0000

Well, this really takes the biscuit!

This morning a number of Faroese websites were hacked by some people who call themselves Anonymous Australia in an attempt to harm the Faroese because of their pilot whaling practice. Now these people are threatening to do the same to a number of Faroese people and institutions - here: http://pastebin.com/aaPp5XKK - at least that is how I understand this claim: "To those who support killing whales we only have one thing to say, expect us". Subsequently, they've put up a long list of names (including mine!) whom this warning, allegedly, is addressed to.

Once again I've been named an "advocate" of the pilot whaling...! (The first time was by Capt. Paul Watson on the SSCS site. In fact he called me an "APOSTLE" of whaling....!) My goodness! And thus I'm an enemy of ... well, who? They are anonymous ... and if I get them right, they say that I can count on being the target of their hacker attacks.

I must say, I am completely baffled.

For everyone with an open and non-judgmental mind, who bothers to read what I've really written on this blog and elsewhere about the issue of pilot whaling, it should be totally obvious that I first and foremost have tried to create understanding both ways.

I have advocated for establishing dialogue between those who oppose each other in this matter and not be so judgmental. And I have defended the Faroese against arbitrary attacks.

I have never said that I supported pilot whaling unconditionally. On the contrary. I myself have advocated – mostly in articles written in Faroese to the Faroese public – for stopping the killing, IF it is not possible to continue this tradition on a sustainable and non-commercial basis. I have also urged people to take the health warnings seriously, and asked the Faroese authorities to issue stricter rules in regard to the pilot whale killings.

I have also pointed out, that as long as the health authorities in the Faroe Islands still claim, based on scientific research, that it is within safe limits to eat a certain amount of pilot whale meat and blubber, many Faroese have a hard time understanding why they should stop eating food they have been used to eating for more than a thousand years.

What I'm trying to do is to help outsiders understand the way many Faroese people think about this. The Faroese are not driven to do this because they are "evil" or "bloodthirsty" - or what ever bad things people might call them - not any more so than any other meat eaters and butchers in this world. As long as outsiders believe that the Faroese are somehow only killing pilot whales as some kind of "sick fun" just to be cruel, you will never reach the Faroese and make them understand YOU, because these assumptions about the Faroese are simply not true – and not fair.

You can only win this "war" with reasonable arguments and scientific facts. Only that way you might be able to convince people in the Faroes that you are right. NOT by name-calling, threats, hate-speech, attacks and hacking. All this has been tried for more than 30 years now, and with no result. It will only postpone a solution. It might take some time to reach mutual understanding, but the respectful way is the only way.

This world is insane enough as it is. Please, check your facts, be a good example to the Faroese and let reason prevail.

Ber til at liva stórbýarlív í Føroyum?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:14:00 +0000

Føroyskur samleiki í nýggjum tíðum -
annar partur av tveimum greinum, skrivaðar í sambandi við ráðstevnu um hvalaveiðu, hildin á Hotel Hafnia 5. juni 2012:

Føroyingar lata seg í stóran mun ávirka av alheimsgerðini og eru farnir at líkjast øllum øðrum vesturlendingum. Summi tykjast eisini hava skund við at taka frástøðu frá tí at vera føroyingur ella frá føroyskari siðvenju. Men hvussu áhugavert er tað, um allir føroyingar gerast meinlíkir øðrum í vesturheiminum á øllum økjum? Er tað hetta, vit ynskja? Hvørjar fylgjur kann alheimsgerðin fáa fyri lív og mentan okkara her á klettunum? Hesar og aðrar spurningar tekur hendan greinin støðu til.

Eftir Elina Brimheim Heinesen, 24. mai 2012

Av og á havi eg tosað við fólk um, at hóast oyggjar okkara sjálvandi mugu menna seg við tíðini, so eiga vit kortini at virða tað, sum vit hava arvað frá okkara forfedrum, meira enn vit ofta gera, og varðveita tað, sum vit kunnu av bygdamentanini í Føroyum. Tá eg tosi soleiðis, havi eg kensluna av, at summi halda meg vera afturhaldssinnaða, fyri ikki at siga eina fornaldarleivd. Men kanska er tað júst umvent. Kanska eru tað tey, sum eru bangin fyri at vera øðrvísi.

Spurningurin er, um nógv av tí vísdómi, vit hava fingið frá forfedrum okkara, ikki er nógv skilvísari og veruligari, enn nógv av tí hópmentanini, vit hava fingið t.d. við tí dreymakendu Hollywoodsku mentanarflóðaldu, sum floymir um heimin í dag, og sum eisini føroyingar so glaðbeintir tykjast vilja lata seg gloypa av. Men eg haldi ikki, vit skulu lata alt gamalt fara, bara tí tað er gamalt, og vit noyðast ikki at skifta alt út, sum vit hava, bara fyri at skifta út. Tað eigur at bera til at víðariføra tað gamla á ein nýggjan hátt, so vit ikki missa røturnar, men standa sterk.

Gott at líkjast øllum øðrum?

Alheimsgerðin merkir, at øll verða ávirkað av tí sama og gerast tí alt meira eins. Alheimsgjørda stórbýarlívið verður hildið at vera so spennandi, tí tað skal eitast fyri at vera so fjølbroytt. Men fjølbroytni er kortini rættiliga avmarkað – og stórt sæð tað sama allastaðni. Ein stórbýur í Asia, ein stórbýur í USA ella ein stórbýur í Evropa eru farnir at líkjast so nógv hvørjum øðrum, at tað næstan kann vera ilt at kenna mun. Nuansur eru sjálvandi, men úrvalið av matstovum er nøkurlunda tað sama í øllum býunum. Tú finnur tær somu kinesisku, indisku, japansku, mexikansku og thailendsku matstovurnar. Tú gongur somu oyðimarkargongd í øllum býunum fyri at finna næstan tað sama avmarkaða úrvalið av undirhaldstilboðum. Fólk ganga í sama úrvali av klæðum, síggja sama úrval av filmum, lurta eftir sama úrvali av tónleiki allastaðni – meira ella minni.

Hóast fólk í nógvum stórbýum kring heimin, sum føroyingar hámeta, hava eitt lutvíst stórt úrval av undirhaldstilboðum, líða nógv stórbýarfólk kortini av keðsemi, strongd og friðloysi, ið tey royna at 'lekja' við enn meira undirhaldi. Men tað tykist einans at skapa meira kenslu av einsemi, tómleika, týdningarloysi og meiningsloysi. Ikki harvið sagt, at tað ikki ber til at liva eitt gott stórbýarlív, men tað er eingin loyna, at tunglyndi er eitt serliga vanligt fyribrigdi júst í stórbýum. Byggja fólk sítt lív einans á eina grunna, innantóma og óstøðuga hópmentan, tykist hetta føra við sær, at fólk í stóran mun kenna, at tey missa grundfestið og kensluna av felagskapi. Tey missa síni sereyðkenni og sín serliga samleika – og tey leita tí ofta eftir onkrum øðrum at samkenna seg við – okkurt sum er heilt øðrvísi, enn tað, tey kenna til, og sum onkusvegnað kennist ektað og upprunakent.

Fólk fara í dag longur og longur út í ytstu mørk og til heimsins útjaðarar fyri at finna tað, tey sakna. Summi halda seg finna tað her, tí enn tykjast Føroyar at vera nógv øðrvísi enn tað, tey kenna til. Tey síggja Føroyar sum 'eksotiskar' og virða land okkara – ikki fyri tað, ið líkist tí, tey koma frá, men fyri tað, sum tey aldrin hava sæð fyrr, og sum sjálvt fyri tey kennist meira ektað og upprunaligt. Eg havi ikki tal á, hvussu ofta eg havi hoyrt utlendingar siga, at tað er sum at "koma heim", tá tey vitja Føroyar, hóast tey ongantíð hava verið her fyrr.

Men hvussu við føroyingunum sjálvum? Virða vit sjálvi okkara egnu serkenni?

Herma ístaðin fyri at vera egin
Fleiri og fleiri føroyingar – serliga yngri og havnarfólk – eru blivnir meira ella minni "dansk-amerikanarar", mentalt í øllum førum, tí vit verða ávirkað av tí somu amerikaniseraðu hópmentanini, sum floymir yvir heimin gjøgnum sjónvarp, tónleik, internet, spøl og aðrar miðlar. Mong okkara eru í dag nógv meira ávirkað av alheimsgjørdu mentanini, enn vit verða ávirkað av tí mentanini, sum vit sjálvi spruttu úr upprunaliga. Men hvussu gott er tað?

Tað er sjálvandi gott at fáa íblástur av tí fremmanda. Tað elur tolsemi millum fólkasløg. Eg haldi eisini, tað er spennandi t.d. at smakka fremmandan mat, og lati meg sanniliga eisini sjálv ávirka av útlendskari mentan. Eg eri helst millum tey allarmest kosmopolitisku, tá tað kemur til mín egna lívsstíl, og havi í ártíggjundi trivist væl við at liva í stórbýi. Eg haldi eisini, tað er sunt fyri føroyingar í heila tikið at lata seg íblása av tí fremmanda, og at taka tað besta við sær inn í føroyska samfelagið.

Men tað merkir ikki, at eg t.d. ynski, at Havnin skal vera eins og Keypmannahavn, tí tað verður hon kortini ongantíð. Hóast – ella kanska júst tí – at eg havi búð 26 ár av mínum lívi uttanfyri Føroyar, tey flestu í Keypmannahavn, síggi eg eisini virðini í at varðveita í øllum førum nakað av tí gamla, sum enn ger okkum føroyingar til nakað serligt í mun til onnur. Eg síggi onga orsøk til heilt at sleppa nøkrum, sum onnur øvunda okkum, og sum er við til at styrkja sjálvkensluna, skapanarlyndið og eitt innihaldsríkt lív hjá mongum føroyingi – enn í lutvíst stóran mun – bæði so og so. Tvørturímóti.

Onkur heldur kanska: Kom víðari! Hetta er órealistisk nostalgi. Men hví nú tað? Tað serføroyska lyndiseyðkennið finst enn í nógvum føroyingum. Og hetta eyðkennið er ikki meira fornaldarligt, enn vit sjálvi vilja gera tað til. Tann niðurarvaða mentanin anir í okkum og í tí umhvørvi, føroyingar hava skapt her á oyggjunum, men eg óttist fyri, at hon doyr út, um vit hugsa niðursetandi um hana og ikki læra okkara børn at virða hana heldur. Nógvir føroyingar lata seg heldur tøla av tí innantómu, glæsiligu, Hollywoodsku undirhalds- og actionmentanini enn at virða og hjúkla um okkara egnu mentan. Vit eru sostatt ringast at seta fótonglar fyri okkum sjálvi.

Føroyar ikki nakar stórbýur
Misskil meg ikki. Eg sigi ikki, at føroyingar skulu liva sum fyri 50-100 árum síðani. Íblástur uttanífrá er sunnur, sum sagt, menning skal til, og broyting er fín, um hon er til tað betra. Partar av tí menning, sum er farin fram í Føroyum seinastu árini – m.a. at tolsemi er við at vinna meira frama – er at gleðast um. Sjálvandi mugu føroyingar endurnýggja seg í ávísan mun allatíðina.

Men tað merkir tó ikki, at vit skulu taka frástøðu frá øllum føroyskum og taka alt útlendskt til okkum ístaðin – heilt ókritiskt. Ivasamt er, hvussu gott tað veruliga hevði verið fyri trivnaðin á hesum klettum, um vit gjørdu tað. Halda vit, at um vit umskapa Føroyar til nakað, sum líkist einum avriti av øðrum londum, so forðar tað fyri, at tey ungu flyta av landinum? Halda vit, at vit fáa fleiri fólk heimaftur á henda hátt? Hvør sigur, at føroyingar uttanlands tíma at flyta heim til Føroya, bara tí Føroyar eru farnar at líkjast tí, tey hava vant seg við aðrastaðni, um tey eins væl kunnu verða verandi uttanlands, har tey fáa nógv meira av tí sama? Kunnu allir føroyingar yvirhøvur liva í Føroyum, sum um vit livdu í einum og hvørjum øðrum útlendskum stórbýi?

Eg haldi heldur, vit eiga at spyrja okkum sjálvi: Missa vit ikki júst tað burtur, sum ger okkum føroyingar og land okkara serliga spennandi, um vit bara herma eftir øðrum? Ber ikki til at gera føroyska samfelagið dragandi á sín heilt egna hátt? Noyðast vit at vera so óoriginal, at vit bara herma eftir hinum? Hvørki føroyingar ella útlendingar verða drigin at Føroyum, tí Føroyar líkjast øðrum londum. Nei, tey verða drigin hendan vegin, tí Føroyar eru nakað serligt, sum ikki ber til at fáa aðrastaðni. Tað mátti borið til at skapt eitt livandi, frælst, tolsamt, fjølbroytt og opið samfelag, sum er føroyskt – og ikki bara meinlíkt øllum øðrum. Hevði tað ikki verið nógv kulari? Eg spyrji bara.

Er amerikaniserað hópmentan betri
Veruleikin er bara, at summi av okkum vilja næstan ikki kennast við tað føroyska longur, sum ofta fær spjaldrið "gamaldags", "bygdasligt" ella beint fram "fornaldarligt", bara tí tað er føroyskt, sama ger hvat. Um føroyskt snævurskygni fór í gloymibókina, er tað ikki at gráta um, men tað er so nógv annað, sum er vert at halda fast í. Mong tykjast kortini uttan himpr at lata alt, sum kemur uttanífrá, skumpa tað burtur, sum áður var egið fyri okkum føroyingar.

Alt fleiri eru so við og við farin at kenna seg meir ella minni fremmand fyri tí, sum fyrr var heilt náttúrligt á hesum klettum. Okkara viðurskifti við djór t.d. eru blivin "disneyfiserað" og sentimentaliserað. Fólk hava mist jarðfestið og kunnu ikki dálka hendur sínar við blóði longur. Vit skumpa hesa 'menning' enn meira fram fyri – í navni alheimsgerðarinnar – at laga okkum eftir øðrum londum. T.d. hevur verið roynt at innføra altjóða reglur, sum forða frælsinum hjá einstaklinginum t.d. at selja fisk á kaiini ella slakta ein seyð heima í kjallaranum. Tíbetur hevur tað ikki eydnast – enn.

Er "the American Dream" fyrimyndin, sum nógv okkara eru farin at stremba eftir, veruliga betri, tryggari og haldbærari, enn tað lívið, vit fyrr hava livað her á oyggjunum uppá gott og ónt við og av náttúruni? "Money makes the world go around" í dag. Nú er náttúran ikki ein partur av okkum longur, men er vorðin eitt tilfeingi, sum verður ognartikið av nøkrum fáum, ídnaðargjørt og umsett til pengar, sum síðani skal fíggja ein innfluttan, dýran lívsstíl við innfluttum, dýrum matvanum. Men hvussu leingi, hava vit ráð til ein slíkan lívsstíl? Hvussu haldbært er grundarlagið undir hesum lívsstíli? Tvs. hvussu leingi heldur náttúran til tað? Hvussu ynskiligt er tað at liva so atskild frá náttúruni kring okkum? Og hvussu gott er tað fyri CO2 útlátið, dálkingina og heimin sum heild, at vit liva eitt innflutt lív, fremmandagjørt frá okkara egna nærumhvørvi her mitt úti í Norðuratlantshavinum?

Tann ónda góðskan
Vilja vit heldur liva í eini Disney-kendari dreymaverð, har øll lýðin "fylgja EU-reglum" og eru so fitt og elskulig og professionelt fólkalig, at eingin drepur fitt og elskulig djór longur (í øllum førum ikki, har sum onnur síggja tað)? Og har tað at drepa tey fittu djórini er 'ónt' yvir ein kamb... líkamikið undir hvørjum umstøðum og á hvønn hátt, tey verða avlívað. Ja, hvat skulu vit gera við 'tey óndu', ha? Alt meðan vit lata eyguni aftur fyri, at ídnaður okkara rænir náttúruna og misnýtir djórini uppá tað grovasta handan glæsiligu leiktjøldini. Er tað ein slíkan falskan pyntidukkuheim, sum tey hava so nógva aðrastaðni, vit vilja vera við til at skapa? Hvar hevur hesin svart-hvíti Bambi-mentaliteturin í veruleikanum ført heimin – soleiðis grundarleggandi? Er heimurin blivin reinari og friðaligari av tí? Eru vit øll blivin betri av tí?

Fólk kunnu gerast so "góð" og so sjálvrættvís, at tey sígga ikki sítt egna sjálvrættvísi, og tí altíð halda, at tað eru hini, sum eru tey óndu – og at hetta tí gevur teimum rætt at berjast móti teimum "óndu". Tað óhugnaliga er, at tá menniskjan strembar eftir tí fullkomna, so megnar hon ikki at viðurkenna tað ónda í sær sjálvum, og tað er júst tá, hon veruliga megnar at gera óndar gerðir móti øðrum, kanska heilt uttan at varnast tað sjálv í síni sannførdu sjálvgóðsku. Eins og Sea Shepherd og allir sjálvrættvísir fascistoidir einaræðisharrar heimsins altíð hava gjørt.

Í mínum heimi er tað at lúgva fyri sær sjálvum at halda, at náttúran – eisini náttúran í okkum sjálvum – bara skal vera yang og ikki yin. Náttúran kann ikki vera í javnvág uttan bæði. Eg veit ikki, hvussu góðan hug, eg havi til at liva í tí surreella, glæsiliga, utopiska heimi, sum hesi fólkini tykjast droyma um at gera verðina um til, har menniskjan bert er vorðin hugtikin áskoðari til tað sindrið, sum er eftir av villari náttúru, og ikki partur av henni sjálv. Tí royni eg sum best at verja rætt okkara til enn at hava ein lívsstíl í samljóði við náttúruna, sum eg kenni sum nógv meira veruligan og ektaðan.

At blaka seg sjálvan burtur
Tað at eta fiskin, vit sjálvi fiska, seyðakjøtið av egnum seyði og grindina og spikið, vit sjálvi hava veitt, kann enn vera eitt nógv betri alternativ, enn at fáa sær hópframleiddan mat av verri viðfarnum djórum av handilshyllunum, fullan av íblandingarevnum. Útlendingar flest skilja væl, at vit sum egið fólk hava rætt til at hava valmøguleikar í egnum landi, ikki minst tí mong teirra sakna tað, vit enn hava møguleika til.

Hvussu ofta hoyrast fólk í ídnaðarlondunum tosa íheimliga um "okkara neyt", "okkara seyð" og "okkara kjøt"? Flest fólk í vesturheiminum hava lært at hugsað í smærri køssum heldur enn í heildum, og hava mist kensluna av at hoyra saman við tí, sum matur teirra kemur frá. Og samhaldsfesti – ja, hvat er tað? Men í føroyskari veiðu- og bygdamentan er sambandið millum fólk, djór, plantur, jørðina, vit liva á og luftina, vit í felag anda í okkum, enn til – ella er í øllum førum ikki heilt burtur enn. Enn kemur hesin gamli føroyski hugburðurin næstan av sær sjálvum inn við móðurmjólkini hjá mongum føroyingi.

Tí haldi eg, at tað er syrgiligt, at vit gerast alt meira fremmandagjørd í mun til tað, sum fyrr var náttúrligt og vanligt í Føroyum, og at vit gerast so ávirkað av býarmentanini í vesturheiminum, at partur av okkara unga fólki – umframt fólk í Havn og á stórplássunum – eru til reiðar at blaka alt tað burtur, sum fyrr hevur átt lívið í føroyinginum. Spurningurin er, um fólk gerast eydnusamari av tí – ella um tey ikki bara blaka seg sjálvi burtur.

Ein meira veruleikakend verð
Eftir mínum tykki ber illa til heilt at skilja mátan, vit liva í hesum samfelag, sundur frá mátanum, vit útvega okkum føði. Okkara siðbundna matmentan er enn ein íbúgvandi partur av mentan okkara sum heild – av góðum grundum. Tí tað er enn nógv gjøgnum matmentanina, vit víðariføra virði okkara til nýggju ættarliðini og gamla gagnliga vitan um, hvussu vit bera okkum at við at yvirliva her á klettunum.

Tá vit fara út við ommum, abbum, mammum, pápum, mostrum, fastrum, mammu- og pápabeiggjum okkara at fiska, at reka seyð, at handfara ullina, at dyrka jørðina, at veiða fugl og onnur djór, og at drepa grind, so læra vit heim okkara: føroysku náttúruna at kenna – luftina, luktirnar, vindin, streymin, og hvussu jørðin og havið broytist eftir árstíðunum. Tú lærir, hvat tú kanst fáa tær til matna, til klædna, og hvussu tú kanst liva í javnvág við náttúruna.

Er hetta vert at blaka heilt burtur bara í ótta fyri at vera "bygdasligur" og "gamaldags"? At liva so tætt at – og av náttúruni, hevur verið partur av lívi og mentan okkara her á oyggjunum alla ta tíð, fólk hava búð her – serliga í teim smærru bygdunum, har fólk enn ikki so lætt sleppa at gloyma, hvørjum náttúruumhvørvi, tey eru partur av. Á bygd eru fólk kanska eisini enn lutvíst tætt samanknýtt í mun til á størru plássunum. Tey luta í størri mun mat millum sín og gera hvørjum øðrum sínámillum tænastur uttan krav um gjald. Tey eldru og tey veiku verða vird, t.d. við at fáa part í matinum, sum bygdafólkini útvega til samfelag teirra.

Fólk eru takksom fyri tey djór, sum hava latið lív teirra, so vit menniskju kunnu liva. Fólk fáa eisini nógva heilsugóða kropsvenjing við at heysta teirra egnu føði. Tey fáa ágóðan av øllum teim sosialu aktivitetunum, ið fylgja við at útvega og býta føðina millum sín og hagreiða matin – og alla ta andaligu nøktan, ið eisini fylgir við hesum aktivitetum. Alt hetta fært tú sanniliga ikki, tá tú keypir tær liðugt pakkaðan mat í einum handli.

Mugu virða grundarlag okkara
Vit eru enn fólk í Føroyum, sum síggja virðið í at verja tað, sum eftir er av okkara gomlu bygdamentan. Tað er ígjøgnum gomlu bygdamentanina, at vitanin er varðveidd um, hvussu vit kunnu liva og arbeiða í hesum landi – eisini í smáum, fjarskotnum bygdum – í samljóði við náttúruna og so frælst og óbundið sum gjørligt av dálkandi flutningsskipanum og svikafullum alheims búskaparkervum.

Føroyingar hava sjálvandi gott av íblástri uttanífrá í ávísan mun og kunnu sameina seg við tað, sum hóskar inn í okkara mentan. Vit kunnu krydda lív okkara við at læna eitt sindur burtur av øllum tí góða, sum sjálvandi eisini er til í útlendskari vitan, mentanum og siðvenjum. Vit kunnu bjóða gestum uttanífrá vælkomnum. Og vit kunnu gera lívið makligari við tíðarhóskandi hentleikum. Men líkamikið hvussu vit bera okkum at, verða Føroyar aldrin til eitt annað Keypmannahavn, London ella New York.

So leingi vit liva í einum lítlum, fámentum landi mitt í Norðuratlantshavi, kunnu vit ikki renna undan, at vit mugu liva undir teimum treytum, sum náttúran gevur okkum her. Um vit ikki fara skynsamt við tí náttúru, sum vit í veruleikanum búgva mitt í (hóast onkur helst roynir at billa sær okkurt annað inn), so oyðileggja vit okkara egna lívsgrundarlag. Um vit ikki læra okkara ungu at vera errin av tí, sum vit fyrst og fremst mugu liva av, so kenna tey seg ikki aftur í tí. Hvussu kunnu tey læra at virða grundarlagið, tá ikki ein gang tey vaksnu gera tað sjálvi? Tey ungu missa virðingina fyri náttúruni og missa hugin at vera her. Og fara tey með alla, so verður einki eftir til okkara her í framtíðini.

Forfedrarnir virdu grundarlagið undir lívi okkara og góvu sína vitan víðari um, hvussu hetta grundarlagið kundi viðlíkahaldast. Men nútíðarinnar ættarlið er í ferð við at blaka tær gomlu dygdirnar fyri borð, og síggja ikki, at á tann hátt missa vit eisini grundarlagið undir samleika og lívið okkara í heila tikið her á klettunum. Hin vegin, um vit ikki nútímansgera okkum, so missa vit ungdóm okkara. Vit eru tí noydd onkusvegna at føra virðingina fyri hesum grundarlagi víðari til komandi ættarlið, men á ein hátt, sum hóskar betur inn í nútíðina, og sum tey ungu kunnu samkenna seg við eisini í eini alheimsgjørdari verð. Vit mugu fáa tey ungu at kenna seg heima í Føroyum aftur, hóast tað má vera undir teim treytum, sum oyggjaland okkara setur. Tað er sera týdningarmikið ikki at polarisera og seta mentaninar ov nógv upp móti hvørji aðrari sum mótsetningar. Vit mugu og skulu hava alt til at hóska saman onkusvegna. Annars verður okkum ikki lív lagað framyvir, og oyggjarnar verða avtoftaðar so við og við.

Vit hava enn møguleikan tilvitað at kennast meira við okkum sjálvi sum oyggjabúgvar aftur, varpa ljós á okkara serkenni og gerast errin av tí – ja, ganga fatt og hevja tað serliga fram, heldur enn at drýpa høvur sum útskammaðir hundar, tí vit ikki eru eins og hini. Vit kunnu læra av forfedranna vísdómi, og taka alt tað besta við okkum inn í ein endurnýggjaðan veruleika, lagaðan fyrst og fremst til okkum føroyingar í dag – og ikki til eina tóma ímynd av eini stórbýarmentan, sum í botn og grund aldrin kann blíva okkara fult og heilt kortini. At varðveita teir góðu, gomlu siðir, sum enn eru eftir, er tískil avgjørt ikki "bygdasligt " ella "fornaldarligt" á nakran hátt. Nei, tvørturímóti. Tað er framsíggið. Tað er kul.

Til ber eisini at "'menna" seg sjálvan heilt út av eggini, men eydnast tað okkum at skapa eina menning, har vit fáa fortíð, nútíð og framtíð at ganga upp í eina hægri eind, so vit fáa trivnað aftur á oyggjunum bæði fyri ung og gomul í samljóði við hvønnannan og náttúruna, fer allur heimurin at hávirða okkum fyri lívsvilja og styrki okkara.

Til ber at lesa ta fyrru greinina í hesi røð av tveimum her.

Er grindadrápið vert at varðveita?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:51:00 +0000

Føroyskur samleiki í nýggjum tíðum

- fyrsti partur av tveimum greinum, skrivaðar í sambandi við, at ráðstevna um hvalaveiðu verður hildin á Hotel Hafnia tann 5. juni 2012:

Hvørjar orsøkir eru til at halda fast við at drepa grind? Kann hetta gerast á burðardyggan, skynsaman hátt, har djórini verða avlívað so humant sum gjørligt? Kann tað gerast við atliti at heilsuni hjá fólki? Kunnu vit etiskt standa inni fyri tí, vit gera? Skaðar henda siðvenja ikki umdømi okkara? Ella kann henda siðvenjan kanska tvørturímóti gera Føroyar til eitt gott fyridømi fyri restina av heiminum? Hesar og aðrar spurningar tekur hendan greinin støðu til.

Eftir Elina Brimheim Heinesen, 24. mai 2012

Ivasamt er, hvussu leingi ber til at verja áskoðanina um, at vit skulu varðveita grindadrápið, tá kanningar vísa, at tað at eta grind kann hava fleiri negativ árin á heilsuna hjá fólki. Niðurstøðurnar um heilsuárinini eru hesar:

Kyksilvur í grind hevur negativt árin á menningina av nervalagnum hjá fostrum.
Kyksilvurárinið sæst enn í ungdómsárunum hjá somu børnum.
Kyksilvur í kostinum hjá móðurini ávirkar blóðtrýstið hjá børnunum.
Dálking í spiki hevur negativt árin á immunverjuna hjá børnum, soleiðis at børnini ikki taka so væl ímóti vaccinum.
Dálking í grind tykist at økja vandan fyri at fáa Parkinson sjúku hjá teimum, sum ofta eta grind og spik.
Vandin økist fyri, at vaksin, sum eru fyri størri kyksilvurárini, fáa høgt blóðtrýst og æðrakálking.
Fólk í 70'árunum við typu 2 diabetes tykjast hava størri miðsavnan av PCB í kroppinum, serliga um tey hava etið nógvan siðbundnan mat í barna- og ungdómsárunum. Samanhangur tykist sostatt vera millum typu 2 diabetes og dálking í matinum.

Tí siga heilsufrøðiligu myndugleikarnir, at tað er betri at vera fyrivarin enn eftirsnarin og tilmæla tí fólki at minka munandi um nýtsluna. Pál Weihe og Høgni Debess Joensen, landslækni, hava tilmælt, at føroyingar heilt eiga at gevast við at eta grind og spik. (Til ber at at lesa meira um árinini í hesum ritið: http://setur.fo/fileadmin/user_upload/NVD/Horaldur/Workshop_Report.pdf).

Eg haldi, at føroyingar eiga at taka hesi tilmæli í álvara, og eg vil tí ikki viðmæla, at børn, yngri kvinnur og barnakonur eta henda kostin. Men eg fari tó ikki so langt sum at siga, at vit heilt skulu banna grindadrápinum, tí eftir mínum tykki, eiga fólk rætt til frælsi sjálvi at gera av, hvat tey vilja eta.

Má kannast til botns
Eg ivist samstundis í, um nógv av tí matinum, sum vit eru farin at eta ístaðin fyri grindina, veruliga er betri fyri heilsuna, ella um hesin matur ikki er minst líka vandamikil. Eg sakni meira vitan og samanberandi kanningar. Árinið eigur at verða kannað enn betri og vitanin breidd út, so fólk vita júst, hvussu skaðiligt tað er at eta so og so nógva grind í mun til annan mat. Fara fleiri vísindaligar kanningar at vísa á, at grind við fullari vissu veruliga er nógv meira vandamikil enn annar matur – eisini í smáum mongdum, so gevist eg sjálv at eta grind og spik við brestin.

Víðgongd hvalaveiðumótstøðufólk hava lyndi til at gera nógv av, tá tey vísa til vísindaligar heilsukanningar sum part av grundgevingunum móti grindadrápi. Tey geva fólki fatan av, at grindamatur er tað reina eitur. Slíkt hóskar jú sum fótur í hosu til teirra dagsskrá. Uttan at undirmeta álvaran av árininum, so er veruleikin, at árinið ikki er heilt so ógvusligt, sum tey vilja vera við. Allar kanningar eru heldur ikki komnar til líka radikalar niðurstøður, sum kanningin hjá Pál Weihe. Vísindin hevur jú eisini víst á heilsugóðu eginleikarnar, sum grind og spik hevur. Og kanska eiga fólk at fáa at vita meira um, at ikki allir partar av grindini eru líka dálkaðir – tað veldst t.d. um kyn og aldur á hvalinum, og hvar av hvalinum, tvøstið er.

Heilsufrøðiliga Starvsstovan hevur enn ikki mælt fólki heilt frá at eta grind og spik. Sjálv óttist eg tí ikki fyri at eta henda mat av og á, um tað er við máta. Í hvussu er, til heilsufrøðiligu myndugleikarnir koma til aðrar niðurstøður.

Grind í mun til grís
Etiski spurningurin um djórapínslu verður ofta drigin fram í kjakinum um grindadráp. Eitt dráp er eitt dráp, og dráp eru ongantíð dámlig, líkamikið hvørji djór verða dripin. Mær hevur ongantíð dámt grindadrápið í sær sjálvum – í øllum førum ikki soleiðis, sum framferðarhátturin var, tá eg var barn, har stungið varð frá hond. Eg skilji væl, at fólk hava rópt tað, sum fór fram tá, "barbariskt".

Eg fegnist tí um, at grindamenn hava sett meira humanar drápshættir í verk, sum vónandi sum skjótast verða einastu loyvdu hættirnir at drepa grind. Eg haldi, at føroyingar mugu prógva, at vit gera alt, sum er menniskjansligt møguligt fyri, at djórini ikki verða óneyðuga pínd. Kunnu vit ikki vísa hetta umhugsni fyri djórunum, haldi eg, vit eiga at gevast við grindadrápinum. Tað skaðar ikki minst umdømi okkara ov nógv ikki at gera tað, og so kunnu eg og onnur, sum alment hava vart hendan siðin, eisini uttanlands, ikki longur verja hann.

Eg haldi tó ikki (longur), at grindadráp okkara á nakran hátt er verri, enn tað, sum fer fram aðrastaðni, har djór í milliónatali verða ald til at vera dripin – eisini grísar, sum verða sagdir at vera líka so klókir sum grindahvalir, um ikki klókari. Hesi djórini verða stúgvað saman á so lítlum plássi sum gjørligt, har tey liva eitt stutt og pínufult lív, ofta undir skelkandi vánaligum umstøðum, og ofta uttan nakrantíð at síggja dagsins ljós. Tey verða fylt við t.d. penicillini og vakstrarhormonum og verða fitað ónátturliga upp við einstáttaðum kosti, sum mong av teimum gerast so sjúk av, at tey ikki eingang megna at ganga inn í skafottið, har tey skulu avlívast. Ofta gongur avlívingin so skjótt fyri seg, at nógv av djórunum ikki eru deyð, áðrenn tey verða skáldað, og skinnið verður skrætt av teimum.

Eg skilji ikki rættiliga, hví summi siga, at tað IKKI gevur meining at samanbera grind við innilæst neyt, grísar og høsnarungar. Sjálv haldi eg, at hesin spurningur er serstakliga viðkomandi, tí hetta hópframleiddað kjøtið er tað alternativið, vit í stóran mun fáa bjóðað ístaðin fyri okkara siðbundna mat – og eg haldi meg hava góðar grundir til at ivast í, um tað, vit keypa í handlinum, veruliga er so nógv betri matur. Fyri mær at síggja er nógv av tí hópframleidda kjøtinum eftir øllum at døma ikki betri – hvørki etiskt ella heilsuligt. Hygg t.d. eftir filmunum um hópframleitt kjøt í USA undir hesi grein.

Tí sigi eg, at tað ikki gevur meining t.d. at vera ímóti ella at banna grind, tí grindin skal eitast fyri at vera dripin inhumant og/ella vera ring fyri heilsuna, um ein ikki eisini er ímóti ella bannar alla aðra ósunna og inhumana kjøtframleiðslu.

Vistfrøðiliga forsvarligt
Sæð frá einum etiskum sjónarmiði, haldi eg, at vit øll hava líka stóra skyldu til at halda okkum til at keypa sunnan, heilsugóðan – vistfrøðiligt framleiddan – mat, soleiðis at vit øll eru við til at tryggja, at djórini, sum vit eta, eru væl viðfarin – og soleiðis at vit øll stuðla matframleiðslu í hesi verð, sum ikki pínir djór, og heldur ikki dálkar og oyðileggur umhvørvið.

At velja at eta lokalan mat av djórum, sum hava livað úti í Guðs fríu náttúru alt lívið og av tí føði, sum er at finna í náttúruni, man helst vera tað mest vistfrøðiliga og minst náttúruoyðileggjandi, vit kunnu velja at gera. Tí haldi eg, at vit skulu royna at varðveita okkara aldargomla siðbundnu mátar at útvega okkum føði uppá á hesum oyggjum – bæði tá tað kemur til fisk og seyð og eisini grind. Grindin skal bara drepast við humanum drápsháttum og ikki í størri mongdum, enn at tað kann gerast á burðardyggum grundarlag, og sjálvandi við atliti at heilsu okkara.

Tá grammleiki kemur uppí
Grindadrápið í sjálvum sær hevur ikki altíð verið líka tespiligt, men alt tað, sum hendir í sambandi við grindina aftaná – so sum mátin, grindin verður býtt millum tey, sum luttaka, og til onnur í nærumhvørvinum, sum treingja – er ein einastandandi og dámlig siðvenja. Hetta at býta fongin út millum fólk er ikki nakað, vit annars uppliva nakra aðrastaðni í pengagrammu ídnaðarverðini. Eg haldi, at tað hevði verið stórt spell, um vit vóru noydd at geva upp hesa sosialu siðvenju, har umsorganin fyri og atlitið at heildini er størri enn atlitið at vinninginum hjá tí einstaka.

Mær dámar tí serstakliga lítið, at pengar eru við at koma inn í siðvenjuna at drepa grind í dag, og at til ber t.d. at keypa tvøst bæði í Miklagarði og aðrastaðni. Í Rótikassanum á Facebook selja fólk kaggar av spiki og turrum tvøsti. Slíkt økir tíverri um vandan fyri, at grammleiki kemur uppí, tá tvøstið og spikið skal býtast eftir drápið, og hetta er ein óheppin menning, sum eg vænti, kemur okkum aftur um brekkur. Hetta gongur ímóti øllum tí, sum siðurin at drepa grind annars hevur staðið fyri.

Eg haldi ikki, at føroyingar skulu hava loyvi til at drepa fleiri hvalir, enn luttakarar í grindini og nærmasta familja teirra kunnu eta – og so nøkur eldri fólk aftrat í bygdini, sum av góðum grundum ikki sjálvi megna at vera við í grindini. Um fólk halda seg kunna selja nakað burturav sínum parti, so sigur tað nakað um, at fólk hava ov nógva grind um hendi – og tá er ov nógv dripið! Tað er ikki í lagi, og eg haldi, at myndugleikar eiga at stegða hesum ósiði beinanvegin.

Mugu endurskoða reglur
Tey, sum selja grind, eru beinleiðis við til at smíða líkkistuna til grindadrápið, tí slík atferð máar grundarlagið undan einum av teimum allarsterkastu grundgevingunum, vit sum føroyingar hava at verja hesa siðvenju við. Um vit veruliga ynskja at varðveita grindadrápið uttan at vekja ov stóra mótstøðu bæði uttanífrá og innanífrá, haldi eg, at tað er neyðugt at endurskoða verandi regluverk galdandi fyri grindadrápið sum skjótast og íverkseta strangari reglur á summum økjum.

Vit fara ikki í longdini at kunna varðveita siðin at drepa grind, um vit etiskt ikki kunnu standa 100 % inn fyri tí, vit gera – bæði í mun til umheimin og ikki minst í mun til okkara egnu yngru ættarlið, sum vaksa upp í eini nógv meira alheimsgjørdari mentan – og eisini við atliti at øllum teim føroyingunum, sum búgva ella ferðast uttanlands, og sum ofta mugu verja hesa siðvenju fyri útlendingum.

Spurningurin er tí, um til ber at áseta nakrar grundreglur, sum tryggja, at etiska grundstøðið er í lagi. Reglurnar skulu helst vera galdandi í øllum landinum, so tað ikki bert er upp til einstøku sýslumennirnar og grindaformennirnar at meta hvørja ferð, hvussu drápið skal fara fram. T.d. eru her nøkur uppskot:

at kvotur verða ásettar ár fyri ár – t.d. fyri ymisk øki – og at loyvt verður ikki at drepa fleiri hvalir, enn fólk í økinum kunnu eta, og sum tað er ráðiligt hjá fólki at eta í mun til heilsuna.
at føroyingar binda seg til at luttaka í altjóða góðkendum kanningum av stovninum, sum verða gjørdar regluliga og títt, so vissa fæst fyri, at grindin sum djóraslag ikki er hótt, og at vit ikki drepa grind, um ivi er um hetta.
at føroyskir granskarar hava skyldu at stuðla ella luttaka í kanningum av heilsuliga árininum av at eta tvøst og spik, og at fylgt verður væl við í úrslitum av kanningum, eisini aðrastaðni, at atlit verður tikið at úrslitunum, sum hesar kanningar vísa, og at fólk verða væl og virðiliga kunnað um hetta.
at greiðari avmarkan verður sett á, hvørjar hvalvágir kunnu brúkast í mun til støddina av grindini.
at tað ikki má ganga meira enn ávís tíð frá, at rákið byrjar, til grindin verður hildin til, so hvalirnir ikki verða óneyðuga strongdir.
at avmarkan verður sett á, hvør sleppur at luttaka í rakstri og drápi, og at bert roynd fólk hava loyvi at drepa hvalin.
at tað verður álagt grindamonnum bert at brúka blásturkrókar, tá talan er um at hála livandi hval, meðan hvøssu sóknaronglarnir einans mugu brúkast til at hála longu dripnar hvalir...
at hvalir bert verða dripnir við mønustingara, sum tryggjar, at hvalirnir verða avlívaðir á so skjótan og so humanan hátt sum gjørligt.
at einki av fonginum verður blakað burtur, sum á nakran hátt kann brúkast til mannaføði ella annað.
at alt burturkast frá drápinum verður søkt á djúpum streymasjógvi.
at tað verður bannað at handilsgera fongin við at selja burtur av pørtunum, fólk fáa tillutað.

Um vit áseta reglur sum hesar, so er siðurin at drepa grind etiskt forsvarligur í allar mátar, og so dugi eg ikki at síggja nakra grund til, at henda siðvenja ikki kann halda fram í langa tíð framyvir. Um ikki, tað ber til, so haldi eg, at føroyingar skjótt ikki hava annað val enn at gevast við at drepa grind.

Grindadráp kann marknaðarføra Føroyar
Fer alt fram á ein 100 % forsvarligan hátt, kundi siðvenjan at drepa grind í roynd og veru verið fyrimyndarlig – og harvið eisini verið við til at gjørt okkum øll errin av at vera føroyingar. Vit kundu marknaðarført Føroyar, sum eitt av teimum serstakliga fáu støðunum í vesturheiminum, sum hevur varðveitt eina aldargamla siðvenju, har fólk útvega sær lokalan, vistfrøðiligan mat á fult burðardyggan og humanan hátt úr villu, ódyrkaðu náttúruni, vit liva mitt í. Hetta er jú matur, ið IKKi skal flytast yvir langar frástøður í dálkandi fraktskipum/fraktflogførum. Og har vit eisini hava varðveitt eina aldargamla, einastandandi siðvenju kring býtið av grindini, ið snýr seg um umsorgan og samhaldsfesti, og sum helst ikki sær sín líka nakrastaðni í vesturheiminum í dag. Tað er nakað, sum eg veit, nógvir útlendingar virða og síggja nógv upp til.

Drepa føroyingar grind undir hesum treytum, haldi eg ikki, vit hava so nógv at óttast fyri í mun til umheimin. Við grundarlag í øllum tí, eg havi sæð og lisið av viðmerkingum nógva staðni, nú Føroyar eru í brennidepilinum orsaka av "Whale Wars – Viking Shores" røðini, so sæst týðiliga, at tað als ikki er allur heimurin, sum er ímóti tí, sum vit gera, eins og hvalaveiðumótstøðufólk vilja vera við. Heldur hevur tað býtt áskoðararnar í tvey – tey, sum eru fyri og tey, sum eru ímóti.

Í mun til, hvussu nógv eru komin til at kenna Føroyar ígjøgnum røðina – og nú hava sæð, hvussu vakurt her er – so eru øll tey, sum eru fyri, helst fleiri enn tey, sum yvirhøvur kendu til Føroyar, áðrenn røðin varð víst á sjónvarpi. So helst er hetta, tá samanum kemur, ein ikki so galin lýsingarherferð fyri Føroyar, sum vit kanska óttaðust.

Søpla vælvild burtur
Men... tann vælvild, vit hava ein tjans fyri at vinna okkum í útheiminum við at halda okkum á etisku síðuni, kann øgiliga skjótt koppa tann skeiva vegin, um vit leggja ov lítið í at betra um framferðarháttin við t.d. ikki at gera álvara av at herða reglurnar, sum skulu tryggja eitt humant dráp, ella um vit loyva hesum nýggju óhepnu, handilsligu siðvenjum framat. At føroyingar eru farnir at keypa og selja grind – hóast tað bert er í lutvíst lítlan mun – er tíverri ein nýggjur ódámligur og gramligur máti at bera seg at, sum er fylgdur við nýggju tíðini. Hetta var ikki gamalt, sum tikið verður til.

Tað tænir okkum ikki væl á nakran hátt at loyva hesi atferð, men tað hevði tænt okkum til miklan sóma, um vit varðveiddu tað besta av tí gamla, og góvust við øllum tí, sum ikki er forsvarligt – etiskt ella av øðrum ávum. Hetta snýr seg í botn og grund um at dyrka ein samleika, føroyingar kunnu vera ernir av, og ikki bara spilla ta góðu siðvenju t.d. at býta fongin sundur millum fólk, ið júst er ein av teimum allarmest dámligu siðvenjum, sum vit higartil hava bygt okkara serføroyska samleika á. Spilla vit tað, so framskunda vit byrjanina til endan av grindadrápinum.

Matmentan og samleiki
Tann samleiki, vit sum fólk hava, hongur saman við, hvussu vit hava yvirlivað á hesum klettum so leingi, og hvat vit eru blivin mett av alla hesa tíð. Tað hevur nakað við at gera, hvussu vit útvega og fáa matin til høldar júst í okkara lítla norðalaga horni av heiminum, hvussu vit býta matin millum okkara, hagreiða og goyma matin og matgera.

Øll mentanin kring matin – til dagligt og til veitslur – hevur sjálvandi havt stóran týdning fyri, hvussu vit hava livað okkara dagliga lív í heila tikið her í hesum landi. Tað sermerkta fyri okkum – tvs. hvat tað merkir at vera føroyingur í mun til at vera dani, amerikanari, italienari ella okkurt annað – hongur nógv saman við hesi matmentanini, eins og matmentan eisini ger í øðrum londum. Eins og "stegt flæsk og persillesovs", frikadellur og livurpostei hevur nógv við at vera dani at gera, ella burgarar og BBQ hevur nógv við at vera amerikanari at gera, ella spaghetti og pizza hevur nógv við at vera italienari at gera, so hevur skerpikjøt, ræstur fiskur og grind og spik rættiliga nógv við tað at vera føroyingur at gera. Hetta eru tjóðarrættir okkara, og tað er ikki bara sum at siga tað at fáa føroyingar at gevast við einum stórum parti av hesi matsiðvenju, tá hon hongur so nógv saman við samleika okkara.

Í næstu greinini fari eg at skriva meira um júst hetta - hvør tann føroyski samleikin er í nýggjum tíðum, og hvat alheimsgerðin merkir fyri nútíðar samleikabygging okkara sum føroyingar. Sí greinina her.

Dokumentarfilmar um hópframleiddan mat
Today's Modern Food: It's not what you think it is - 1. partur:

Today's Modern Food: It's not what you think it is - 2. partur:

Food Inc. 1. partur:

Food Inc. 2 partur:

Food Inc. 3. partur:

Food Inc. 4. partur:

Food Inc. 5. partur:

Food Inc. 6. partur:

Food Inc. 7. partur:

Food Inc. 8. partur:

Food Inc. 9. partur:

Food Inc. 10. partur:

.

If we lose our foods we lose who we are

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 21 May 2012 23:56:00 +0000

I was born in the late 50'ies in the Faroe Islands. At that time we pretty much had a subsistence way of life in this remote place on earth with a hostile climate and an environment that humans could never hope to survive in without eating animals.

In winter, our region is stormy and dark for months on end, and the summer is very short. There are no trees outside sheltered areas in towns and villages and just a few edible plants. And yet, somehow we, the Faroese people, have survived here for more than a thousand years, relying on an intimate knowledge and understanding of our environment for our survival, constantly walking a tightrope between life and death.

In my childhood the Faroese still harvested most of our own food, integrating healthy, wild edibles into our diet. Most of our food supply was right outside our front door, and we used time-tested methods for living off the land and the sea. Our people were unencumbered, only depending on nature’s resources and the skill in our hands. Sudden food cost increases or empty grocery shelves caused by turmoil on the international market were not our biggest concerns. The only uncertainties were the whims of nature.

I remember the foods of my childhood. We ate mostly fish, some sheep meat and quite a lot of whale meat and blubber, served with homegrown potatoes. And afterwards we would have porridge made from homegrown rhubarbs, for instance. Our storage of dry and salted food and our new freezer were filled with fish, sheep meat and whale meat and blubber, my family had provided directly from natures larder. Our dairy products were from local farmers. But the grains, flours and sugar we used for baking bread and cakes were imported. And we only eat vegetables and fruits, if we could afford it. They were very expensive, because they came from far away, so they were luxury foods, we could not have everyday.

Times they are a'changing
But things changed. Our fishing became industrialized. We got money on our hands. And suddenly we were able to import exotic foods from countries far away, like oranges and bananas. When I was a teenager in the 70'ies, we probably already eat fifty-fifty, half traditional Faroese food, half regular European food. Today the division is more like eighty-twenty, at least for people living in the bigger towns, while people in smaller and less affluent villages still try to reduce food costs by holding on to the old traditional diet.

No one, not even indigenous residents of the northernmost arctic villages on Earth, eats an entirely traditional northern diet anymore. Not even the Eskimos—which include the Inupiat and the Yupiks of Alaska, the Canadian Inuit and Inuvialuit, Inuit Greenlanders, and the Siberian Yupiks––or the Sami people in the northern parts of Norway, Sweden and Finland. They have probably seen more changes in their diet in a lifetime than their ancestors did over thousands of years.(1)

But it's very doubtful whether the modern foods replacing the traditional foods, are any better or healthier. The opposite is more likely. The closer people live to towns and the more access they have to stores and cash-paying jobs, the more likely they are to have westernized their eating. And with westernization comes processed foods and cheap carbohydrates—soda, cookies, chips, pizza, fries and the like. The young and urbanized are increasingly into fast food. So much so that type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other diseases of Western civilization are becoming causes for great concern in our country too.

An inadequate diet?
Up until the 60'ies the Faroese people mostly subsisted on what they hunted and fished. We were island people exploiting the sea and the little land we had in a sustainable way. The main nutritional challenge was avoiding starvation in late winter if primary meat sources became too scarce or lean. But how did people get along eating so much meat and so few vegetables and fruit? How could such a diet possibly be adequate? This diet hardly makes up the “balanced” diet most other people elsewhere have grown up with. It looks nothing like the mix of grains, fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs, and dairy as seen in conventional food pyramid diagrams.

Still, Faroese people have been quite healthy––healthier than they are today now that modern foods have replaced much of their traditional food. Now, when almost everyone in western societies is on some kind of a fancy diet and nobody seems sure of what to eat to stay healthy, it’s surprising to learn how well northern people like the Faroese did on a high-protein, high-fat diet, even though this diet had little in the way of plant food, not many agricultural products and a few dairy products, and it was also relatively low in carbohydrates.

Well, it seems that there are no essential foods—only essential nutrients. (2) And humans can get those nutrients from diverse sources. One might, for instance, imagine gross vitamin deficiencies arising from a diet very scarce on fresh fruits and vegetables. People in southern climes derive much of their Vitamin A from colorful plant foods, constructing it from pigmented plant precursors called carotenoids (as in carrots). But vitamin A, which is oil soluble, is also plentiful in the oils of cold-water fishes and sea mammals, as well as in the animals’ livers, where fat is processed.

These dietary staples also provide vitamin D, another oil-soluble vitamin needed for bones. Those living in temperate and tropical climates, on the other hand, usually make vitamin D indirectly by exposing skin to strong sun—hardly an option in the long and dark winters in the north.

How to overcome vitamin deficiensies
As for vitamin C, the source in northern peoples' diet was long a mystery. Most animals can synthesize their own vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, in their livers, but humans are among the exceptions, along with other primates like guinea pigs and bats. If we don’t ingest enough of it, we fall apart from scurvy, a gruesome connective-tissue disease.

In southern climes the people can get ample supplies from orange juice, citrus fruits, and fresh vegetables. But vitamin C oxidizes with time. Getting enough from a ship’s provisions was tricky for people living far away out in the ocean, like the Faroese, or in other not easily accessible northern regions. Scurvy—joint pain, rotting gums, leaky blood vessels, physical and mental degeneration—are known to have plagued European and U.S. expeditions in the arctic area even in the 20th century. However, natives in these arctic and subarctic areas living on fresh fish and meat were free of the disease.

If you have some fresh meat in your diet every day and don’t overcook it, there will be enough vitamin C from that source alone to prevent scurvy. In fact, all it takes to ward off scurvy is a daily dose of 10 milligrams (3). Native foods, like in the Faroes for instance, easily supply those 10 milligrams of scurvy prevention, especially when organ meats are on the menu. As you might guess from its antiscorbutic role, vitamin C is crucial for the synthesis of connective tissue, including the matrix of skin. Wherever collagen’s made, you can expect vitamin C (1). Traditional Faroese practices like freezing or drying meat and fish and frequently eating them raw, conserve vitamin C, which is easily cooked off and lost in food processing, so eating dry fish, sheep or whale meat and blubber is as good as drinking orange juice.

Hunter-gatherer diets like those of the Faroese and other northern groups, as well as other traditional diets based on nomadic herding or subsistence farming are among the older approaches to human eating. Some of these eating plans might seem strange to others—diets centered around milk, meat, and blood among the East African pastoralists, enthusiastic tuber eating by the Quechua living in the High Andes, the staple use of the mongongo nut in the southern African !Kung—but all proved resourceful adaptations to particular eco-niches.

Fat is very important
No people, though, may have been forced to push the nutritional envelope further than those living at Earth’s frozen extremes. In general, hunter-gatherers tend to eat more animal protein than people do in their standard Western diet, with its reliance on agriculture and carbohydrates derived from grains and starchy plants. Lowest of all in carbohydrate, and highest in combined fat and protein, are the diets of peoples living in the Far North, where they make up for fewer plant foods with extra fish.

The simplest, fastest way to make energy is to convert carbohydrates into glucose, our body’s primary fuel. But if the body is out of carbs, it can burn fat, or if necessary, break down protein. Arctic and subarctic people had plenty of protein but little carbohydrate, so they often relied on fat. Protein can’t be the sole source of energy for humans. (4) Anyone eating a meaty diet that is low in carbohydrates must have fat as well, or else they will weaken over time and eventually die even though they have lots of food, high in protein, but low in carbohydrates and fat.

No discussion about diet these days can avoid the "Atkins diet". You can say that the northern way of eating is the “original Atkins". Just like the diet in the arctic-subarctic area, Atkins is low in carbohydrates and very high in fat. But numerous researchers point out that there are profound differences, though, between the two diets, beginning with the type of meat and fat eaten.

Healthy and unhealthy fats
Fats have been demonized in modern western cultures. But all fats are not created equal. (5) This lies at the heart of a paradox. In the northern areas, people on a traditional fatty diet don’t die of heart attacks at nearly the same rates as other people in Europe or America. The cardiac death rate is about half as high in the arctic region as it is in the US or in most northern European countries. So what causes that reduced risk? It is intriguing because the arctic-subarctic diet is nothing like the famously heart-healthy Mediterranean diet, with its cornucopia of vegetables, fruits, grains, herbs, spices, olive oil, and red wine.

A key difference is that more than 50 percent of the calories in native foods in the arctic-subarctic areas come from fats. Much more important, the fats come from wild animals or domestic animals living in the wild all year round. Wild-animal fats are different from both farm-animal fats and processed fats. Farm animals, cooped up and stuffed with agricultural grains (carbohydrates) typically have lots of solid, highly saturated fat. Much of the processed food is also riddled with solid fats, or so-called trans fats, such as the reengineered vegetable oils and shortenings cached in baked goods and snacks. A lot of the packaged food on supermarket shelves contains them. So do commercial french fries. (5)

Trans fats are polyunsaturated vegetable oils tricked up to make them more solid at room temperature. Manufacturers do this by hydrogenating the oils—adding extra hydrogen atoms to their molecular structures—which “twists” their shapes. These man-made fats are dangerous, even worse for the heart than saturated fats. They not only lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL, the “good” cholesterol) but they also raise low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL, the “bad” cholesterol) and triglycerides. In the process, trans fats set the stage for heart attacks because they lead to the increase of fatty buildup in artery walls.

Wild animals provide healthier fats
Wild animals and / or animals that range freely and eat what nature intended have fat that is far more healthful. Less of their fat is saturated, and more of it is in the monounsaturated form (like olive oil). What’s more, cold-water fishes and sea mammals are particularly rich in polyunsaturated fats called n-3 fatty acids or omega-3 fatty acids. These fats appear to benefit the heart and vascular system. But the polyunsaturated fats in most Europeans and Americans’ diets are the omega-6 fatty acids supplied by vegetable oils. By contrast, whale blubber consists of 70 percent monounsaturated fat and close to 30 percent omega-3s. (5)

Omega-3s evidently help raise HDL cholesterol, lower triglycerides, and are known for anticlotting effects. These fatty acids are believed to protect the heart from life-threatening arrhythmias that can lead to sudden cardiac death. And like a “natural aspirin", omega-3 polyunsaturated fats help put a damper on runaway inflammatory processes, which play a part in atherosclerosis, arthritis, diabetes, and other so-called diseases of civilization.

Needless to say, the subsistence diets of the north are not “dieting.” Dieting is the price people pay for too little exercise and too much mass-produced food. Northern diets were a way of life in places too cold for agriculture, where food, whether hunted, fished, or foraged, could not be taken for granted. They were about keeping weight on.

This is not to say that the Faroese or other people in the north were fat: Subsistence living requires exercise—hard physical work. Indeed, among the good reasons for native people to maintain their old way of eating, as far as it’s possible today, is that it provides a hedge against obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.

The real threats to the food chain
Unfortunately, no place on Earth has escaped the spreading taint of growth and development. The very well-being of the northern food chain is under threat from global warming, land development, and industrial pollutants in the marine environment.

Global warming we don’t seem to have control over. But we could reduce the amount of plastics and other pollutants, we release into nature, and we could, for example, do cleanups of communication cables leaching lead into fish-spawning areas. And we can help communities make informed choices. A young woman of childbearing age may choose not to eat certain foods that concentrate contaminants. As individuals, we do have options. And eating our fish, our sheep and our whale meat and blubber might still be a much better option than pulling something processed that’s full of additives off a store shelf.

Kinship with our food sources
How often do you hear someone living in an industrial society speak familiarly about “our” food animals? How often do people talk of “our pigs” and “our beef.” Most people in the modern world are taught to think in boxes and have lost that sense of kinship with food sources. But in the Faroese hunting and farming village culture the connectivity between humans, animals, plants, the land we live on, and the air we share has not been lost––not yet, at least. It is still ingrained in most Faroese from birth.

Many of our young people and people in bigger towns are quite influenced by western urbanized culture and food habits. They are slowly getting alienated to our old traditions. However, it is still not possible, really, to separate the way many of us still get our food from the way we live in this society as a whole. How we get our traditional food is intrinsic to our culture. It’s how we pass on our values and knowledge to the young. When you go out with your father, mother, aunts and uncles to fish in the sea, to heard the sheep, to gather plants, to hunt birds and other animals or catch whales, you learn to smell the air, watch the wind, understand the way the currents move and know the land. You get to know where to pick which plants and what animals to take.

This way of life has been an integrated part of our culture for so long, and it still is to a degree, especially in the smaller villages, where people share their food with the community. They show respect to their elders and the weak in the society by offering them part of the catch. They give thanks to the animals that gave up their life for their sustenance. They get all the physical activity of harvesting their own food, all the social activity of sharing and preparing it, and all the spiritual aspects as well. You certainly don’t get all that when you buy prepackaged food from a store.

That is why some of us here in the Faroe Islands––and people in the Far North as a whole––are working hard to protect what is left of our old way of life, so that our people can continue to live and work in our remote villages, as independently as possible from polluting transport systems and a fraud-ful modern economic infrastructure. Because if we don’t take care of our food, it won’t be there for us in the future. And if we lose our foods, we lose who we are.

This blog post is inspired by the statements of Patricia Cochran, an Inupiat from Northwestern Alaska directing the Alaska Native Science Commission, in an article written by Patricia Gadsby for Discover magazine, October 2004, about "The Inuit Paradox: How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?" (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=).

The scientific facts referred to in this post are based on quotes from the same article from the experts below:

Harriet Kuhnlein, director of the Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment at McGill University in Montreal
Harold Draper, a biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition
Karen Fediuk, a consulting dietitian and former graduate student of Harriet Kuhnlein’s who did her master’s thesis on vitamin C (http://members.shaw.ca/karen.fediuk/VitaminCintheInuitdiet.pdf)
Loren Cordain, a professor of evolutionary nutrition at Colorado State University at Fort Collins
Eric Dewailly, a professor of preventive medicine at Laval University in Quebec

Why most arguments against pilot whaling fail

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:17:00 +0000

People who are against pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands often refer to the following 12 reasons for why pilot whaling should stop. Here is why 10 of them fail to have an impact on the Faroese and why 2 do have an impact, since they are – partially – right.

1. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because the pilot whales are endangered.

The pilot whale is one of the most common whale species in the oceans all over the world, especially the long finned pilot whale. Pilot whales are not endangered according to the authorities in this matter. The NAMMCO (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) is the real authority on all matters regarding the North Atlantic pilot whale. The NAMMCO base their estimation on sightings – and they estimate that the number of long finned pilot whales in the North- and East Atlantic is 780.000, and that’s excluding the West Atlantic, so the number might be, even significantly higher. The ACS (American Cetacean Society) agrees with those numbers and the IUCN also agrees that the pilot whale hunt is, as they say: ‘probably sustainable’. The IWC doesn’t consider itself an authority on small cetaceans, of which the long finned pilot whale is one. So the pilot whale is not on the list of endangered animal species. The Sea Shepherd organization stands alone in its claims that the long finned pilot whale is endangered.

The Faroese have killed pilot whales for at least 1.200 years, so the pilot whales should probably have been extinct by now, if the pilot whaling in the Faroes was a threat to the population as a whole. Since 1584 (that is how long it’s been carefully monitored) the Faroese have killed 850 pilot whales (in later years around 800) on average a year, so that’s a tenth of a percent (0.1%) of the pilot whale population only in the North Atlantic, which is very far from exceeding the pilot whales' reproduction rate at around 2%. There is nothing to indicate that the pilot whale population is in decline. As long as the pilot whale is not endangered, this is not a rational argument. So this is a failed argument.

2. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because the pilot whale slaughter is cruel.

Most images and videos of pilot whale slaughter on the internet are outdated. It doesn’t happen like that any more. The whales are not being stabbed and hacked to death with spears and hooks. Killing methods have improved a lot, especially since the 1980s. Spears are forbidden, and hooks are now rounded and put into the blowholes of the whales to drag them into a better position for a quick kill. New methods have been developed which have decreased the time to death of each whale to 2-4 seconds. The pilot whale slaughters were without a doubt more violent than necessary years ago, but it’s different today. Besides, it is not possible to hunt and kill wild animals in any ‘pretty’ or non-bloody way. No hunting is pretty and bloodless.

People often claim that comparison to other kinds of animal slaughters is not relevant – it is like comparing oranges and apples, they say. But if you accept all animals as equals when it comes to the right not to be killed in a cruel way – and if there is no reason to believe that pilot whale slaughter, as it is conducted today, is crueler than other accepted ways of slaughtering animals, it IS relevant. Because if the slaughter of pilot whales still is labelled ‘cruel’, then many forms of accepted animal slaughter must also be labelled as ‘cruel’. You can’t demand a ban of the slaughter of pilot whales on these grounds, and then NOT demand a ban of other kinds of animal hunting and slaughter just as ‘cruel’.

Furthermore, it wouldn’t be feasible to ban all animal slaughter and therefore, this is not a rational argument. The banning of all hunting of wild animals would also have incalculable consequences for all the indigenous people in this world, who base their livelihoods on hunting. So this is a failed argument.

3. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because the slaughter is bloody and gory.

The killing of animals is bloody. It might look ghastly when the sea turns red during a pilot whale slaughter, but basically it doesn’t make this kind of slaughter much different or worse than the common slaughter of captive animals in slaughter houses. All animals bleed and are emptied of blood when they’re slaughtered. The difference is that slaughter houses have drains that go into underground sewers, but you can’t kill pilot whales in a slaughter house. It must be done in the shallows by a beach, which makes this slaughter seem much bloodier or ‘graphic’ than other kinds of slaughters. Pilot whales are also big animals, so of course there is a lot of blood.

Furthermore, since marine mammals can dive for long periods at a time, there is a lot of oxygen in their blood, which means that their blood is more intensely red than blood in mammals on land. This also contributes to the coloring of the sea. Blood also spreads quickly in water. Just try to put one drop of blood in a glass of water and watch what happens.

It’s not a rational argument to say, the Faroese have to stop killing whales because it is too bloody. This is irrational and a failed argument too.

4. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because such a tradition doesn’t belong to the 21st century. They shouldn’t do this just because it is a tradition.

People in the Faroe Islands don’t kill pilot whales because it is a tradition. They do it for food, as they’ve always done. But opponents call this practice of getting food ‘a tradition’, because this way of living off of the natural resources of the ocean has been common on these islands for more than 1,200 years. Pilot whale meat and blubber is so common and natural for the Faroese to eat that to them this food is no different than beef or bacon is to people in other countries, where they have a tradition for eating cattle or pig meat. It’s just that you can’t breed pilot whales in the same manner as you can breed cattle or pigs. But why would you want to do that, if there is an abundance of pilot whales around the islands living free their whole life? Why would the Faroese deprive the whales of that privilege and somehow cage them or put them in ocean feed lots?

Who’s to decide what belongs to the 21st century or not? Or which traditions are worth keeping for the Faroese or not? It is definitely not for people outside the Faroe Islands to decide. The right word for this is ethnocentrism. That is: judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture. The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion. Ethnocentrism is not rational, so again a failed argument.

5. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because it’s appalling that the Faroese people are so insensitive to these poor animals.

This is a purely emotional, judgmental and also an irrational argument, which also belongs to the category: Ethnocentrism. The Faroese people are not more ‘insensitive’ to animals than other people. If the Faroese are to be labelled ‘insensitive’, every meat-eater in the world must be labelled just as insensitive to the animal he or she eats.

People outside the Faroe Islands tend to forget that they also have ‘insensitive’ butchers in the livestock industry in their own country, whom they do not question in the same way. If you do not question the butchers’ ‘insensitive behavior’ in your own country just as much, this is not a valid argument. It’s not only a failed argument, it is also hypocritical.

6. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because it is not necessary for them to kill pilot whales. They have plenty of other foods they can eat.

It is not up to others to decide, what is necessary for the Faroese and what is not. This is – again: ethnocentrism and shows a lack of understanding or knowledge of the circumstances in the Faroe Islands.

It is also logically inconsistent. With this logic one could just as well claim that it is not ‘necessary’ to breed cattle or pigs for food. Live stock industry depletes and pollutes the earth to a great extent, and the utilization rate of available land for pasture for the breeding of cattle or pigs, for instance, is much lower compared to the utilization rate by growing vegetables directly for human consumption on the same area. But people still feel they have ‘the right’ to have meat for dinner, even if that – from a rational, holistic perspective – is not beneficial nor very sensible, because it means that there is much less food available for the human population as a whole. Therefore, one could just as well say, it is ‘unnecessary’ or even irrational to eat meat from livestock animals in a world on a fast track towards overpopulation.

The fact that the Faroese have access – and the economical opportunity (to a degree) at the moment – to buy (very expensive) imported foods, is not a valid argument against the Faroese utilizing locally available resources. Unlike people living in warmer climates with lots of flatland and space they can use for breeding and feeding livestock, the Faroe Islands is a very limited, quite mountainous area in the middle of the ocean in one of the stormiest areas in the world with almost no flatland or fertile soil, where you only can grow grass for the sheep to eat, a few potatoes and some rhubarb, as well as farm some salmon in the fjords. It’s still not enough food for the inhabitants, though. Summer season is also very short. (We’re in the beginning of May right now and it has been snowing for a couple of days).

Regardless, it’s still not for others to decide, what the Faroese need or don’t need. So a failed argument again.

7. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because the whales are intelligent.

Measuring intelligence is highly complex, and scientists do not agree on how to precisely measure intelligence, even when it comes to people.

Sea Shepherd founder Capt. Watson claims that it is a sign of highly developed intelligence that the whales have figured out how to live in harmony with nature, unlike us humans, so therefore they are more intelligent than people. Okay, if that is his logic, he could just as well claim a squirrel is more intelligent than humans. A squirrel also lives in harmony with nature, and nobody would say that a squirrel is more intelligent than a human being for that reason. Capt. Watson is just being manipulative.

There is no doubt that bottle-nosed dolphins are some of the most intelligent creatures in the animal kingdom. Dolphins are good at learning tricks, especially in captivity – also pilot whales to a degree. Dolphins are proven more intelligent than most other animals, but they are still very far from being as intelligent as people. And not all whales rank that high. The pilot whale is in the dolphin family, but pilot whales are not the most intelligent of the dolphins. Pilot whales are not especially intelligent in comparison to many other mammals either. Other animal species that humans kill for food are also proven highly ‘intelligent’. So this argument is inconsistent, if those who claim it is wrong to kill pilot whales because of their intelligence do not also oppose the killing of other intelligent animals for food.

Whether humans should refrain from killing “intelligent” animals or not is a matter of opinion. And there is no rational reason for claiming that one opinion is morally more right than the other. So again a failed argument. (See also under 9. here below).

8. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because the whales are sentient and sociable.

Yes, pilot whales are sentient and sociable, that is true. And so are all other animals too, more or less. Animals, most people in the world eat – like cows and pigs, even chickens – are also sentient and sociable. So you can’t on the one hand say that the Faroese shouldn’t kill whales on these grounds, and at the same time accept the killing of other sentient and sociable animals.

If you are against the killing of animals because they are sentient and sociable, you are inconsistent if you don’t include all animals in the equation – that is: you must also oppose the killing of cattle, pigs and chickens, yes, any animal in fact. That is unrealistic. So… failed argument.

9. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because they kill entire pods. Whales have strong ties to their group and killing entire pods is the same as wiping out a whole culture.

If that is so, then it would have been even more cruel to kill half of the pod and let the other half go free. The whales have strong ties to their group, yes, but to claim that the whales have a culture – and by killing an entire pod, you wipe out a whole culture – is quite far-fetched, and just another one of Capt. Watson’s manipulative claims, manufactured to affect people emotionally who have a tendency to romanticize these “gentle giants” – as if they are some kind of ‘human beings of the sea’. But this is belief – not a fact.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that pilot whales develop any kind of advanced cultures like human beings. They are sociable animals and they communicate with each other, yes, and they might act friendly to people, but so do dogs and pigs for the most part as well. On these grounds you could just as well say these animals have some kind of ‘culture’ too. It doesn’t make the whale any more special than dogs or pigs, for instance, or many other animals.

Whales are wild animals and there are examples of whales attacking people unprovoked, also pilot whales, even though they mostly let humans in peace, probably because humans are not interesting as prey for them. Whales are carnivores. They kill and eat other animal species. In other words, they are nothing special. They are not good, they are not bad. They are just animals, even though they might be fascinating in some ways, because they’re so big and relatively intelligent too – as far as animals are concerned.

Some people, who feel saddened by the alarming development in our ailing world as a whole, just seem to have a strong need for turning the whales into something special: A symbol of something more innocent and more pure than us humans. These people seem to project their hopes for a better world into these animals and thus, they elevate them into something they’re not. Consequently, everyone who kills these animals must therefore ‘commit an evil act’ destroying the best things in this world, and therefore should be strongly opposed. This is romantic, but not rational. So this is also a failed argument.

10. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because, despite of what the Faroese claim, the whaling is commercial. There is evidence that shows that you can buy whale meat in supermarkets and in restaurants.

It is true that one sometimes can buy pilot whale meat and blubber in a supermarket or in a restaurant – in small amounts, but this is not evidence that the pilot whaling is done for commercial purposes. It’s not – and it won’t be in the future either. The pilot whale catch is distributed for free among those assisting in catching the whales and the local village communities in the area, as well as to hospitals, elderly homes and orphanages in the nearby areas.

Sometimes, in small villages with not many inhabitants, there might be a surplus which might end up on the shelfs in a supermarket or in a restaurant in Tórshavn, the capital, but this could never become big business, because – as already stated – the vast majority of the people who want whale meat and blubber can get it for free, so there is no reason for them to go into the supermarket and buy it.

A few restaurants and hotels offer pilot whale meat and blubber to tourists during the summer season, because, of course, there are tourists curious enough to taste the Faroese national dish, but this is done on a very small scale, and could never become a big business. So again, pilot whaling is not done for commercial purposes. It doesn’t and wouldn’t pay in any way. So this argument fails.

11. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because this tradition damages the image of their country in the outside world.

This is partially right. At least it might very well hurt the image some people have of the Faroe Islands and the Faroese people (if they have any image of the islands and their people, that is). It depends, though, on their worldview – and especially their view on whales. It seems that many people, who consider whales to be very special creatures, find it very disturbing and even ‘sick’ that the Faroese kill pilot whales. Based on the thousands of protesting letters the Faroese authorities receive every year, it is obvious that the majority of the protesters are city-dwellers and/or children – not people living directly in nature and off of nature’s larder.

The fact is that the Faroese also get significant support from many people around the world, mainly people who live in parts of the world where they also hunt animals for food. These people have a worldview similar to the Faroese and understand the circumstances in the Faroe Islands. It is also a fact that tourists visiting the islands are curious to taste pilot whale meat and blubber, which is why it is offered usually as a starter on the menu in the summer season in a few restaurants in the Faroe Islands. It wouldn’t seem that these tourists are opposed to pilot whaling.

Though the anti-whaling activists would want everyone to believe that “the whole world” is against pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands, there is reason to believe that the majority is quite indifferent and hasn’t taken a stand on this question. Anti-whaling activists have for many years endorsed that the Faroe Islands should be boycotted by the international community as long as they kill pilot whales. But they have never succeeded in getting any real support for these efforts.

It seems that the series “Whale Wars – Viking Shores” aired in the USA for the time being, which deals with the Sea Shepherd Organization’s interference with the pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands, has divided the viewers. It’s likely that many take the anti-whaling activists side, but judging from all the comments, for instance, on YouTube and Facebook, it seems that just as many take the Faroese side. Among other things the series has revealed natures stunning beauty in the Faroe Islands, and also that the Faroese have a very strong culture. Many of the commentators declare that now that they have had an impression of how it is in the Faroe Islands, these beautiful islands have become one of those places they feel they must visit at least once before they die. So after all, this series might turn out to be an effective advertisement for the Faroe Islands for a lot of people around the world, who never knew this place existed before they saw the series.

12. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because pilot whale meat and blubber are contaminated and it is dangerous for the Faroese people’s health to eat it.

Of all the allegations mentioned above, only this last one is truly a valid point seen from a rational point of view, even though the health dangers are kind of exaggerated. But it does not change the fact that it is still up to the Faroese to decide for themselves, whether they want to eat contaminated food or not.

The Faroese will likely stop the pilot whaling gradually over the coming years, because pilot whale meat and blubber does contain mercury/methyl mercury at levels considered too high. Pilot whales also contain other toxins coming from man-made pollution, like PCB and DTD. And there are indications that exposure to some of these contaminants may affect human fetuses and their development. This fact is absolutely relevant and the majority of the Faroese people recognize this. But the anti-whaling activists often exaggerate the effects of this contamination, which are more subtle than they let people believe. There has, for instance, not been one single reported fatality due to eating pilot whale meat and blubber, not ever.

As was first demonstrated with lead, and then with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and methyl mercury, exposures in early life to neurotoxic chemicals can interfere with brain development and produce long-lasting detrimental effects on cognition and behavior. A new generation of chemicals termed endocrine disruptors – among them phthalates, bisphenol A, and certain pesticides – which can alter the availability and actions of endogenous hormones, is suspected of being capable of interfering with early brain development. It is hypothesized that certain chemical exposures in early life, perhaps acting in concert with genetic and social factors, may impact the prevalence of developmental disabilities across the population, and account in part for the apparent population-wide increases in neurodevelopmental abnormalities observed over recent years.

As stated, these are indications – not finally proven conclusions, but it is, of course, still very important to study this further, and take precautions.

The long-term intakes of total mercury, methyl mercury and cadmium from eating pilot whale in the Faroe Islands have been estimated. The long-term intakes of both total and methyl mercury exceed the Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intakes (PTWI) recommended by WHO. For the general population the PTWI’s are 300 and 200 μg mercury per person per week for total and methyl mercury, respectively. The calculated intake of methyl mercury approaches the lower value (1200 μg/person/week) of the recognized critical level of methyl mercury intoxication in the general population.

It is therefore concluded in several studies that the general Faroe Islands population should significantly restrict the consumption of pilot whale foods. One study (Dr. Pál Weihe’s) concludes the Faroese should totally refrain from it. The Faroese health authorities have looked into this study and also looked at other studies, and what they have come to is not as radical. They recommend that pregnant women, or women who plan on being pregnant, should not eat pilot whale foods at all, as the critical levels for methyl mercury intoxication of pregnant women and fetuses are lower by a factor of 2–5 than for the general population. They do not recommend that pilot whale meat and blubber should be served to younger children, while it seems to be within safe limits for the rest of the population to eat pilot whale meat and blubber once to twice a month.

The Faroese people are not indifferent to this unfortunate development. People are taking action personally – many do not serve pilot whale meat and blubber to their children any longer, and most younger women as well as child-bearing women choose not to eat pilot whale meat and blubber at all. The local authorities in the different whaling districts are making efforts to restrict pilot whaling even more than it was before, making sure that those involved don’t kill more whales than people can eat. The local village whaling associations who manage the catching of the whales agree with these restrictions, because they accept what science has shown.

But as long as the health authorities haven’t recommended that the Faroese population as a whole completely refrain from eating pilot whale meat and blubber (which, by the way, is the Faroese national dish), and, as long as pilot whaling is done in a responsible, sustainable, care-taking manner, the Faroese see no reason for stopping pilot whaling altogether. And they think that there is absolutely no valid reason for others to interfere in Faroese matters, trying to force the Faroese not to utilize this natural resource in their own country.

Media Whale Warfare

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 01 May 2012 23:16:00 +0000

A comment by Elin Brimheim Heinesen to the discussion triggered by the TV series on Animal Planet "Whale Wars - Viking Shores".

I wish this issue was simpler, but it's not. I'm Faroese and I do not condone pilot whale killing in the Faroe Islands unconditionally. I'm absolutely opposed to unnecessary cruelty and the killing of animals just 'for fun' or as part of a 'ritual'. If this really was the case in regard to pilot whaling in the Faroes, I would be against it. I know for a fact it's not. Regardless of what some might claim.

For various unknown reasons some people perceive pilot whale killing as a sport, a celebration or a ritualistic event for the locals in the Faroe Islands. I do not. The purpose of pilot whaling is to put food on the table. People who believe anything else have not really understood or have twisted what Faroe Islanders or others have tried to say about pilot whaling – or they have been misled by people, interested in discrediting this practice.

Pilot whaling in the Faroes is no different – that is: no better, nor worse – than so many other accepted ways of providing meat. I've spoken to many foreigners who have witnessed a pilot whale slaughter. After they've seen it in real life, they aren't opposed to it any more in the same way because they saw with their own eyes, that – in spite of the fact that it wasn't pleasant – it was far from as cruel and dramatic as they had seen it portrayed by biased anti-whaling activists.

Usually a whole pod is killed in a few minutes and each whale is killed within seconds. Of course, it's unpleasant to watch a pilot whale slaughter – just as it would be to visit a common slaughter house for anyone, not used to see such things. Most of us aren't used to see what is going on, when animals are being slaughtered, and react naturally with shock. Watching someone taking the lives of living beings is a harsh reality, we very rarely experience.

Humans are predators
The way we have established ourselves and our communities in the modern world, has led us almost to forget the fact that all meat-eating people are predators. Whether we like it or not, it is the truth. I don't like that fact either. But humans are, and have always been meat-eaters, the vast majority of them. This means that, basically, we're no different than other predators who kill other animal species to have them for food. And that is not pretty.

I'm always shocked when I, for instance, watch a nature program on TV and see a lion catch a zebra and tear it apart – or an orca catch a seal and throw it up in the air before it bites the seal's head of with its sharp teeth. It's brutal and bloody, but I know the lion and the orca don't do this because they're evil. They do it to survive. That's nature, and nature can be gruesome.

Some might say that you can't compare what humans do to animals to what happens in nature, because most humans have 'evolved' (as they call it) and they kill animals more 'humanely' than a lion or an orca does, but to me that's clearly a delusion.

Killing always brutal
No sound and healthy being wishes to die – neither animals nor humans, neither in the wild nor in farm factories. A zebra doesn't want to be eaten by a lion. A seal doesn't want to be eaten by an orca. A whale doesn't want to be killed and eaten by people, neither does a pig. Nobody wants to be killed by anyone else. All living beings want to live and thrive. We might sophisticate our killing methods. But nevertheless, it's still killing. Saying that it is more 'humane' to kill animals in a farm factory slaughter house, corresponds to saying that it was more 'humane' to kill people in gas chambers during the holocaust, rather then, for instance, to hang them or stone them to death.

No matter how we try to bend or twist it – we cannot run away and pretend it is not what it is: It IS brutal to kill animals – any animal, any human – one way or another, regardless of who does the killing – animals or humans – and regardless of how 'humanely' we try to do it. It's still taking another beings life. And ALL animals, including humans, resist to being killed by others.

So I feel sorry for the zebra. I feel sorry for the seal. I also feel sorry for the cows and the pigs. I feel sorry for the chickens and the turkeys. I feel sorry for the sheep, the reindeers, the buffalos. And I feel sorry for the whales. I feel sorry for every single animal on earth that has to sacrifice it's life in order to feed another animal, including us humans. In my fantasies I wish that nobody had to kill any other being and that we all could live just in peace together and love each other. At the same time I know that this is an utterly impossible utopian dream.

A delusional world
The fact is that most people in the world eat meat, which means that people have to kill animals. If humans want to have meat for dinner there must be shed blood. I don't like this fact anymore than most other people who have a heart. I just have to realize that this will be reality as long as people want to enjoy their steaks. Some people also live in barren areas on earth were they have no other choice than to eat meat. And I'm pretty sure this will continue to be reality for a long time to come.

Many people – especially city dwellers who don't live in and directly off nature – seem to have a need to displace these facts, as if they have nothing to do with it, even though they gladly munch burgers themselves. They see themselves as animal lovers and get emotional and sentimental, when they see animals being killed. And they accuse animal killers of being underdeveloped people, who don't live in the 21st century. It's a bad, bad thing they wish would go away. As if they'd like the whole world to turn into some kind of Disney World, where everyone is cute and kind to each other, where animals become almost like humans, and some are even superior to humans.

Even though they love a good steak, most people have likely never been responsible for or been involved in the animal killing process, needed to provide the steak. They probably couldn't stand to kill an animal. Yak! So they must have others do the 'dirty work' for them. And then they can go on pretending the killing doesn't really happen, and that they're really good, innocent 'evolved' people, who never would harm anyone. But no matter what they think or do – deep down they're still predators, responsible for causing pain and death to other earthlings.

These people defend themselves vigorously if anyone tries to tell them that they are in fact kidding themselves if they don't realize that as meat-eaters, basically, they are no better nor worse than, for instance, the Faroese, who kill and eat pilot whales! No, no, no – there's a big difference, they claim. Can't be compared at all. But they can't really explain what the difference is, based on facts, and that's frustrating, so they get angry, point their fingers away from themselves and proclaim the animal killers – or those who defend them – as the only bad guys. But you can't make an unpleasant reality go away by shooting the messenger.

Alienated to the natural
The Faroese fishermen, farmers and hunters don't displace the fact that we as humans prey on other animal species, and they take the full responsibility for that. They do the dirty work. And they are honest about it. They don't – and they have never – hidden from the world what they do. Not even when the world condemns them.

People can claim from now on and forever that the Faroese do what they do for all kinds of unacceptable reasons, but it does not change the fact that the Faroese kill whales for one reason only: to provide food for themselves and the community, just as they've done on these islands for more than a thousand years. The Faroese don't understand why they should stop doing what they do, only because some other people in the world are alienated to something that has been perfectly natural for human beings to do for ever: namely kill animals for food.

Every country on earth kills animals. It's just not common elsewhere to kill exactly this kind of animals. But the Faroese kill pilot whales, because there is an abundance of them around the islands (the pilot whale is not on the endangered animal species list) – and the Faroes are an island nation, dependent on ocean resources.

Decide who's fit for killing
Can anyone make a list of animals, fit for killing, and explain why some animals aren't fit for killing and others are? Where exactly do – or can – you draw the line? Why is it OK to exploit some animals and not others? Is it because it is a 'tradition' to kill cows, pigs, chickens and so on? And why is it that this 'tradition' is more legitimate than the Faroese 'tradition' of killing pilot whales? What's the actual difference between these animals and a whale?

If the degree of intelligence is the criteria, why is it okay to kill 'stupid' animals? If sociability or sentience is the criteria, well... mammals in general are very sociable animals, aren't they? And aren't all animals more or less sentient? So shouldn't we stop killing all animals then? Is it even possible to stop the killing of ALL kinds of animals? What about people living in arctic areas where you can't grow vegetables? Why should they have to import all their food from far away, when there are animals, quite fit for eating, walking or swimming right outside their door?

Why is it 'unnecessary' to kill pilot whales, and not 'unnecessary' to kill other animals for food? Who's to decide what people 'need' and what they don't 'need' to eat? Do the Faroese 'need' to buy meat in the store from enormous polluting farm factory slaughter houses, who don't treat animals any less crueler than the Faroese treat the pilot whales? In fact much crueler, because most livestock animals live a miserable life their whole life and have no chance what so ever to escape being killed for food. Why would the Faroese want to buy more expensive food that has to be transported from far away in polluting freight vessels and not want to use the available food resources they get for free in their own environment?

Disproportionate priority
Shouldn't anyone, who thinks it's their business to demand of the Faroese that they should stay away from the meat they are accustomed to eat, not refrain themselves from buying and eating their own traditional meat, unless they can explain the basic difference between the animals they eat and the animals the Faroese eat – and legitimize why it is more okay to kill these animals rather then the animals the Faroese kill? If they can explain that there really is a significant difference, then they might even succeed in convincing the Faroese...!

But if they have no answer to these questions, shouldn't they take a good look in the mirror first – and then try to put their effort and their money first and foremost into some much bigger problems animals face in this world? They could, for instance, try to improve the lives of some of the billions and billions of unfortunate cows, pigs or chickens, living and dying under gruesome and cruel conditions in farm factories all over the world, before they blow the Faroese pilot whaling way out of proportions and spend millions of dollars on trying to save a few hundred pilot whales that only might be killed by the Faroese during the course of a year. Remember, some years the Faroese do not kill a single whale, because the whales don't always migrate right past the islands.

In my opinion it's a waste of the donators' money, because instead of spending so much money on expensive equipment with highly questionable beneficial effects, couldn't all of this money have been used much more effectively and have helped many more animals which are much worse off, if these people really wanted the money to make any real difference?

Just asking...

And again - I do NOT support pilot whaling unconditionally. I just happen to think that people should look in the mirror before they judge the Faroese for what they are doing, because are you yourselves really that different?

Nýggjur veruleiki ger kanska grindadráp neyðug aftur

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 23:29:00 +0000

Seinna greinin av tveimum, um hvussu alheims skuldarkreppan rakar føroyingar

Búskaparfrøðingar og aðrir serfrøðingar meta, at alheims búskaparkreppan er ein sjálvsøgd og varandi avleiðing av tí sannroynd, at olja ikki longur finst í so "óendaligum", lætt atkomuligum mongdum, sum áður. Í fyrsta umfari førir hetta ósvitaliga til nógv hækkandi oljuprísir, umframt at nógv lond ikki fara at hava atgongd til bíliga olju longur. Hvat fer hetta at merkja fyri føroyska samfelagið?

Nógvir serfrøðingar siga, at núverandi kreppan er so álvarslig, júst tí tað ikki er gjørligt hjá flestum londum nóg skjótt - áðrenn oljan verður ov dýr og/ella ov knøpp - at leggja orkukervið um og gera neyðugu íløgurnar í menning av alternativum, meira burðardyggum orkukeldum, umframt í tólini, sum skulu gagnnýta hesar nýggju orkukeldur, so tey nýggju kunnu viga fult upp ímóti oljuni (Sí keldur: 3, 4 og 5, umframt 4a).

Ein umlegging av núverandi orkukervi er ómetaliga dýr at gjøgnumføra. Alternativini til oljurikin tól og aðrar hentleikar, sum eru gjørdir av oljupreparatum (bara hugsa um asfalt og plastikk), eru kanska uppfunnin, men eru tey nóg bílig, nóg atkomilig og nóg burðardygg? Um tey vóru, vóru tey helst langt síðani á marknaðinum. So spurningurin er, um granskingin nær at koma við veruligum alternativum í nóg góðari tíð. Tá oljan er uppi, er tað ov seint at fara og granska og menna, tí hvat skal fáa hjólini at mala, tá oljan ikki longur kann, og heimurin ikki hevur nátt at menna alternativini?

Alt orkukervið umleggjast
Eingin ivi er um, at neyðugt er sum skjótast at gera seg minni bundnan at dýrkandi oljuni - í tann mun tað yvirhøvur er gjørligt. Allar heimsins stjórnir mugu síggja veruleikan í eyguni, at øll orka má setast inn á at leggja orkukervið um, meðan tíð er. Alternativ mugu finnast til alla orkuveiting, til øll framleiðslutól og til øll flutningstól, sum nú brúka olju - og tað skal henda skjótt.

Tí hóast nýggj olja enn verður funnin - eisini í lutvíst stórum mongdum - so er tað kortini als ikki nóg mikið til at møta tí eksponentielt vaksandi tørvinum. (2a og 2b). Fyrr ella seinni boygnar strikumyndin niðuraftur. At hetta longu kann vera hent – tvs. at vit kanska eru farin framvið “peak oil” punktið - viðurkenna sjálvt partar av oljuídnaðinum alment, men fá tora at tosa so hart um tað, tí øll vita, hvørjar álvarsligar avleiðingar, tað kann hava við sær – og eingin ynskir at loypa ræðslu á marknaðin. (1b, 1c og 1h)

Men flestu stjórnir eru stuttskygdar og hava higartil ikki hildið seg til at taka stigið fult út at royna at gera seg leysar av olju, hóast tær spara nógvar pengar í síðsta enda - helst av ótta fyri, at so tungar útreiðslur ganga út yvir vælferðina her og nú. Spurningurin er, hvørji lond hava ráð til at gera so umfatandi broytingar í nóg góðari tíð, áðrenn ein álvarslig heimsumfatandi búskaparkreppa hevur útarmað londini so mikið, at tey als ikki hava ráð til at gera tað, sum krevst.

Sum er hava øll ilt við at sleppa oljuni, sum higartil hevur verið álitið, men tá oljan verður knøpp, fara oljuframleiðandi londini sjálvandi at vilja brúka ta oljuna, tey hava eftir í undirgrundini til sín sjálvs fyrst og fremst. Tað sindrið, sum tá verður eftir til tey oljuinnflytandi londini, verður ómetaliga kostnaðarmikið. Hetta er ein ræðandi framtíðarmynd, serliga fyri fjarskotin og sárbær útjaðaraøki við arktiskum - ella næstan arktiskum veðurlag sum Føroyar - ið eru enn meira bundin at olju enn flest onnur lond, og mugu innflyta alla oljuna.

Føroyar kunnu gerast avbyrgdar
Minkandi oljutilfeingi, álvarsom dálking og veðurlagsbroytingar, skuldarkreppa, búskaparligt skrædl - you name it. Alt rakar smá lond sum Føroyar hart, ið ikki hava mong bein at standa á. Afturgongdin er longu farin at merkjast. Kreppan fer fram beint nú, hóast føroyingar enn klára seg. Men hvussu leingi?

Føroyar leggja, sum er, fullkomiliga sítt álit á innflutta olju, sum drívur allan fiskiflotan. Sum kunnugt, er fiskur jú føroyinganna fremsta føði- og inntøkukelda og 95% av øllum útflutningi. Men, tá alivinnan er undantikin, hevur føroyska fiskivinnan ikki havt yvirskot í áravís - m.a. tí fiskiskipini eru so dýr at reka. Seinasta árið er størsta fiskavirkið farið á heysin og hartil eisini ein av teim stóru bankunum í Føroyum. Ímeðan fór arbeiðsloysið, eftir at kreppan tók dik á seg í 2008, frá bara 1,5 % upp til uml. 7-8 %. eftir rímiliga stuttari tíð. Minkandi keypsorka, manglandi skattainntøkur og fleiri fólk á almennari veitingarinntøku innanholar spakuliga landsbúskapin.

Allur flutningur av ferðafólki og farmi til og frá oyggjunum, bæði loftvegis og sjóvegis, má eisini líta 100 prosent á oljuna. Tað er longu serstakliga kostnaðarmikið at ferðast og at føra farm til og úr Føroyum. Hvat hendir, tá støðugt hækkandi oljuprísirnir gera hetta enn dýrari? Fólk fáa rætt og slætt ikki ráð til at ferðast ella til at flyta farm longur. Ferjusambandið til tvey av fýra londum kring Føroyar er longu kvett, tí tað loysti seg ikki fyri felagið at halda tað gangandi. Men hóast hetta, so hevur hetta felagið, sum røkir einastu millumlanda ferjusambondini, enn stórar fíggjarligar trupulleikar og hongur allatíðina í einum tunnum trá í vanda fyri at fara á húsagang. Skuldin er so mikið stór, at stórur vandi er fyri, at felagið skjótt ikki hevur ráð at gjalda fyri støðugt dýrkandi oljuna, sum skal reka skipið. Sostatt má felagið lána alt fleiri pengar og/ella hækka partapeningin alt meira. Men hvussu leingi kann hetta halda fram, um ikki inntøkurnar fylgja við?

Við einum oljuprísi, sum við smáum sveiggjum upp og niður tó í høvuðsheitum bara hevur lyndi til at sníkja seg uppeftir - og við lítlari vón um, at kostnaðurin nakrantíð fer munandi niðuraftur - er tað ikki torført at ímynda sær, at tann dagur kemur, har alt ferjusamband til umheimin verður ógjørligt - í øllum førum á privatum vinnugrundarlag. Um henda hættisliga gongdin heldur fram, so kann tað avbyrgja oyggjarnar í stóran mun.

Ikki ráð til at lata vera
Tað tykist at vera serstakliga torført fyri føroyingar at síggja henda veruleika í eyguni og byrja at umstilla seg frá at brúka olju sum grundarlag fyri nærum alt, til at gera íløgur í at útvinna aðrar burðardyggari orkukeldur enn olju, umframt gera seg minni bundnar at innflutningi. Eitt uppkast til eina føroyska ætlan um burðardygga menning fyri ár 2002 - 2020 varð gjørt í 2002, men so hendi stórt sæð einki meir (2e). Føroyar hava - eins og so mong onnur lond - valt ikki at gera allar tær neyðugu íløgurnar enn, sum skulu til fyri at fara (næstan) heilt burtur frá lívrunnum brennievnum. Bert í lítlan mun. Helst tí, at ábyrgdarhavarar ikki hava varnast, hvussu bráneyðug støðan veruliga er. Men hava Føroyar ráð til at bíða longur við at seta ferð á hesa menning?

Nógvir politikkarar hava als ikki sæð skriftina á vegginum, tykist tað, men tosa enn um at gjøgnumføra risa tunnilsverkætlanir (!), heldur enn at umleggja orkukervið, meðan tíð er - og tryggja meira sjálvbjargni á øllum økjum. Miðlarnir sova eisini fast og eru als ikki nóg nógv eftir teimum ráðandi fyri teirra óvirkni.

SEV hevur útbygt vatnorku í ávísan mun, men hevur lítið og einki gjørt fyri at útvinna aðrar alternativar orkukeldur. Og verkætlanir, har roynt hevur verið at menna aðrar orkukeldur, eru als ikki raðfestar politiskt. So langt er enn eftir á mál. Harumframt eru í roynd og veru eingi verulig alternativ tøk enn til flutningsfør, sum verða rikin av øðrum enn olju - ikki, tá hugsað verður um størri skip, so sum fiski- ella farmaskip.

Bumbað aftur í miðøldina
Tann dag, tá oljan kostar fleirfaldað so nógv, sum í dag, skuldin er vaksin upp um høvdið, lánimøguleikarnir eru uppi og/ella Danmark má spara blokkin burtur, so hava føroyingar ikki ráð til at keypa oljuna, sum brúk er fyri til at halda samfelagshjólunum í gongd. Um føroyingar ikki hava fyrireikað seg nóg væl í nóg góðari tíð til eina slíka støðu, so raplar alt tað, sum nútíðar føroyska samfelagið byggir á. Tað er júst hetta, sum føroyskir politikkarar verða noyddir til at sanna og gera nakað ítøkiligt við, ongantíð nóg skjótt. Gera politikkarar ikki tað rætta nú, verða føroyingar fyrr ella seinni bumbaðir aftur í miðøldina - ella til okkurt sum líkist.

Føroyingar liva eitt lutvíst múgvandi lív í dag, men hvussu leingi? Nógv fólk liva, sum um einki petti er galið, serliga í vesturheiminum. Men alt fleiri gerast tó sárt tilvitandi um sannroyndina, at vælferðin byggir á serstakliga ótrygga grund, og at tey sannlíkt kunnu missa vælferðina, um tey ikki steðga oyðslinum við náttúruríkidøminum og leggja sínar gomlu marglætisvanar um. Ung fólk, sum ikki hava upplivað annað enn vælferð, hava ilt við at trúgva, at tað ikki bara kann halda fram, men eldri føroyingar hava upplivað fleiri kreppur í sínari tíð, so tey vita, at framburðarríkar tíðir ikki halda á til ævigar tíðir.

Føroyingar eru tó hepnir í so máta, at nógv eldri fólk enn eru til, sum minnast og hava varðveitt vitanina um, hvussu føroyingar livdu, áðrenn teir gjørdust so bundnir at olju og innflutningi. Tey eldru kunnu enn læra yngru ættarliðini, hvussu tey bóru seg at við at yvirliva í gomlum døgum, tá øll máttu liva einans av tí tilfeingi, sum var á staðnum. Tí hava føroyingar - í øllum førum tey, sum duga at gagnnýta tilfeingið - kanska ein tjans kortini, um nú alt annað skuldi raplað.

Eftirverandi møguleikarnir
Hvat hendir, um Føroyar gerast meira ella minni avbyrgdar, tí eingin hevur ráð til at reka millumlanda ferðafólka- og farmaflutning longur? Ja, so mugu føroyingar fyrireika seg uppá í alstóran mun at minka um vælferðina og livistøðið. Allir møguleikar fyri at yvirliva eru tó ikki úttømdir. Verður vatn-, vind-, sjóvarfals- og alduorka útbygt, meðan fólkið enn so dánt hevur ráð, ber kanska til at framleiða nóg nógva orku til húsarhaldini og til eina ávísa mongd av smáídnað. Sum er, framleiðir SEV um 40 % av síni orku burturúr øðrum orkukeldum enn olju, so føroyingar eru á veg. Men bara ikki nóg skótt.

Hvat skulu fólk liva av, hvat skulu tey hita húsini upp við, og hvørja føði skulu tey eta, tá oljan er vorðin so dýr, at ráðini ikki longur eru til at innflyta oljuna og tær vørur í teim mongdum, sum vit innflyta nú? Tá er eingin annar møguleiki enn at brúka alt, sum atgongd er til á staðnum. Skuldi alt annað gingið galið, so hava føroyingar enn seyðin, ullina, fiskin, fuglin, hvalirnir, eplini, torvið, vatnið, vindin, sólina, aldurnar, sjóvarfallið osfr., umframt sína egnu arbeiðsmegi, sum er tað týdningarmesta. Føroyingar mugu rætt og slætt bretta upp um armar og fara til verka í stóran mun!

At ímynda sær: Um eingin olja er at fáa oljufýringarnar til at koyra, so mugu føroyingar flyta fleiri saman í best bjálvaðu húsini við brenniovnum, sum kunnu brenna torv - ella hús, sum eru sjálvhjálpin við sól- og vindorku ella jarðarhita. Allur flutningur má fara fram á hestavagnum og í bátum aftur. Tá eingin olja er til bátamotorarnar, mugu fólk út at fiska við smáum árabátum og seglskipum - ella fiska frá landi. Fuglur kann fleygast, um nóg mikið er til av ymsum fuglasløgum. Eplir og røtur kunnu veltast, og annað grønmeti kann dyrkast í vakstrarhúsum. Kanska nakað av alivinnu kann rekast tætt við land, um tað ber til at fáa nóg mikið av fóðuri til alifiskin (sum verður innflutt nú!). Alternativur matur, so sum tari, er eisini etandi og hartil heilsugóður, so taraskógir kunnu dyrkast. Skeljadjór er eisini atkomulig føði, ið kann alast. Men ber til eftir stuttari tíð at umskipa samfelagið til henda veruleika? Ber til at fáa hendur á hóskandi nøgd av amboðunum? Er nóg mikið til av tilfeingi til at breyðføða øllum?

Hvalatvøst verður tá kanska neyðugt at eta aftur, um nóg mikið av mati skal vera til at breyðføða alt fólkið, so fólk ikki doyggja í hungri. Sjálvt grindadrápið ber kanska til at gjøgnumføra við róðra- og seglbátum, soleiðis sum tað var gjørt fyrr í tíðini , um tað skal vera. Dálkaða tvøstið og spikið er sjálvandi ein stórur trupulleiki. Men standa fólk í eini støðu, har tey eru nóg svong, so eta tey eisini tað, sum er dálkað, um einki annað er at fáa. Um føroyingar einki annað alternativ finna til t.d. dálkað tvøst, verða teir allarhelst noyddir - um teir vilja tað ella ikki - at síggja burtur frá heilsuskaðiliga langtíðar árininum av dálkaða tvøstinum og spikinum og eta tað kortini, bara fyri at yvirliva her og nú.

Djór ikki ov fitt til at drepa
Eitt sovorðið lív er torført at ímynda sær, tí tað er so nógv øðrvísi enn tað lívið, føroyingar eru vanir við at liva nú. Men umbroytingin er ikki ósannlík, tíverri, og hon verður serliga skelkandi fyri yngru ættarliðini. Rakar kreppan so meint, sum mong spáa, so er einki annað at gera enn at góðtaka hesi rættiliga nógv herdu lívsvilkorini. (5f)

Í eini veruligari kreppustøðu hava føroyingar t.d. als ikki ráð til tann marglætishugburð, sum nú tykist at vera við at vinna fram - eisini í Føroyum - orsaka av trýsti frá sonevndum umhvørvisfelagsskapum: nevniliga at síggja djór sum ov fitt, ov sosial, ov kensluborin og ov klók til at drepa. Tað er beinleiðis ábyrgdarleyst at dyrka henda hugburð, soleiðis sum støðan sannlíkt kann fanta seg í framtíðini. Føroyingar verða noyddir - eins og í fyrndini - at síggja djórini í nærumhvørvinum sum eitt náttúrutilfeingi, sum má gagnnýtast sum best, so fólkið kann hóra undan. Føroyingar verða tí eisini noyddir til at varðveita og endurnýggja vitanina um, hvussu ein gagnnýtir og hagreiðir hetta tilfeingi á burðardyggan hátt, so grundarlagið ikki máast undan framtíðini hjá komandi ættarliðunum.

Spurningurin er, um fólk í Føroyum gera sær nóg greitt, hvørja vandastøðu tey kunnu koma í, um tey ikki eru betri fyrireikað til eina framtíð, har olja ikki er drívmegin í øllum meira. Hvussu førir eru føroyingar fyri at liva næstan sum fyrr í tíðini aftur? Hava teir vitanina til at kunna gagnnýta tilfeingið optimalt í eini slíkari støðu? Hvussu væl hava føroyingar fyrireikað seg, børnini og tey ungu til eina framtíð uttan allar teir nútíðar hentleikar, fólk hava í dag, uttan oljufýringar og skjótar bilar, uttan bólgnandi sjálvtøkuhandlar, og uttan italska pizza, amerikanskar burgarar og cola? Hendan spurningin má hvør einstakur seta sær. Harumframt má fólkið krevja av politikkarunum, at teir taka neyðugu stigini til at fyrireika alt samfelagið til at klára seg, tá oljan ikki longur verður so atkomilig meira fyri ein og hvønn, tí ein slík framtíð er kanska als ikki so fjar, sum fólk halda.

Henda greinarøð er ein roynd at vekja ans fyri hesum álvarsmáli. Vónandi rakna fleiri við - helst millum teirra, sum sita við ábyrgd og ávirkan - og viðgera hesar spurningar. Hvussu víkir og vendir, er tað alneyðugt at tosa saman um, hvussu føroyingar skulu bjálva seg til henda nýggja veruleika.

Til ber ímeðan at ogna sær meira vitan um heimskreppuna, og hvat onnur úti í heimi viðmæla fólki at gera, um - ella tá - skrædlið kemur, í teim mongu slóðunum til greinir, bøkur, frágreiðingar og dokumentarar um evnið í listanum niðanfyri.

Fyrra greinin í hesi røð:
http://elinbrimheimheinesen.blogspot.com/2011/09/fyrra-greinin-av-tveimum-um-hvussu.html

Keldur

1. Greinir:

a. Der Spiegel: 'Peak Oil' and the German Government

Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

b. The Observer: Peak oil alarm revealed by secret official talks

Behind government dismissals of 'alarmist' fears there is growing concern over critical future energy supplies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/peak-oil-department-energy-climate-change

c. The Guardian: Lloyd's adds its voice to dire 'peak oil' warnings

Business underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil, says Lloyd's of London/Chatham House report http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/peak-oil-energy-disruption

d. The Observer: Resource wars: the global crisis behind BHP Billiton's bid for Potash Corp

The battle for the fertiliser giant points to a near future in which world food supplies may need to rise by 70%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/bhp-billiton-potash-corp-global-crisis

e. The Guardian Professional Network: Why the ecology crisis poses a threat to business as usual

There is little sign that those gathering in Davos appreciate that current unsustainablity means that things have to change

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/davos-ecology-crisis-unsustainability-threatens-business?INTCMP=SRCH

f. Bloomberg Business Week: Barreling Toward Peak Oil

Energy analyst Charles Maxwell of Weeden & Co. recommends Canadian tar sands plays

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_23/b4181086607101.htm

g. The Nation (videogrein): Are We Running Out of Oil?

The Nation and On The Earth Productions: Peak Oil and a Changing Climate

http://www.thenation.com/video/157441/peak-oil-and-changing-climate

h. The Boston Globe: Oil supply to trail demand by 2030, study predicts

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/07/19/oil_supply_to_trail_demand_by_2030_study_predicts/

i. Børsen: IMF advarer: USA og Europa risikerer double-dip

http://borsen.dk/nyheder/oekonomi/artikel/1/215607/imf_advarer_usa_og_europa_risikerer_double-dip.html

j. The Globe and Mail: Why High Oil Prices Are Such A Threat To The Global Rebound

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/why-high-oil-prices-are-such-a-threat-to-the-global-rebound/article1916221/

k. Economy Watch: Bubble Economy

http://www.economywatch.com/economy-articles/bubble-economy.html
l. Jyllands Posten: USA igen tæt på at lukke og slukke
Demokraterne og Republikanerne toppes om et midlertidigt budget, og USA løber tør for penge i næste uge.
http://epn.dk/okonomi2/global/usa/article2556095.ece

m. DR.dk: Jørgen Ørstrøm Møller: USA går bankerot inden 2020

Inden 2020 er USA gået fallit. Gælden er allerede i dag så alvorlig, at flere stater burde være blevet lukket. Faktisk siger tallene, at USA's økonomi er værre end Grækenlands.

http://www.dr.dk/DR2/Danskernes+akademi/Oekonomi_Ledelse/VL_Doegn_2011/20110127222058.htm

n. EnergiTjenesten: Alternativ til olie – det skal du vælge

Tårnhøje oliepriser får rigtig mange danskere til at se sig om efter en erstatning for oliefyret.

http://www.energitjenesten.dk/files/resource_16/Alternativ%20til%20olie%2002%202007.pdf

o. Mathaba.net (the world's leading independent news agency):
Hard Times Getting Harder

Americans are being hammered economically, politically and socially. Paul Craig Roberts quoted Vladimir Putin calling America "a parasite on the world."

http://networkedblogs.com/nNr45
p. JP.dk: Ny amerikansk aktienedtur

Det værste kvartal for det amerikanske børsmarked siden finanskrisen endte fredag med ny nedtur.

http://epn.dk/okonomi2/global/usa/article2563901.ece
q. Der Spiegel: America's Debt Crisis
Why Europe Is Right and Obama Is Wrong
US President Barack Obama has recently suggested that Europe must take on more debt to stimulate the economy. Such reliance on cheap money, though, is what got us into the current crisis in the first place -- both in Europe and in the US. America's problem isn't too little money. It's a lack of competitive products.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,789624,00.html

r. Portfolio.com: The End
The era that defined Wall Street is finally, officially over. Michael Lewis, who chronicled its excess in Liar’s Poker, returns to his old haunt to figure out what went wrong.
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom

2. Frágreiðingar:

a. Jack Zagar: The End of Cheap "Conventional" Oil

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/symposium/zagar/zagar.html

b. Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population, and Energy

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/symposium/bartlett/bartlett1.html

c. L.B. Magoon: Are we Running Out of Oil

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-320/of00-320.pdf

d. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Exponential growth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

e. Uppkast til føroyska ætlan um burðardygga menning - Ár 2002 - 2020

http://vmr.fo/Files/Filer/VMR/Fragreidingar/Burdardygg_menning.PDF

3. Bøkur:

a. Richard Heinberg: The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies

b. Richard Heinberg: Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines

c. Stephen Leeb, Glen Strathy: The Coming Economic Collapse: How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs $200 a Barrel

d. Jeff Rubin: Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization

e. Stephen Leeb: Game Over: How You Can Prosper in a Shattered Economy

f. John Michael Greer: The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age

g. Jared Diamond: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

h. David Strahan: The Last Oil Shocki.
i. Michael Lewis. Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World

4. Heimasíður:

a. Post Peak Living: http://www.postpeakliving.com/preparing-post-peak-life#

b. Carolyn Baker: http://carolynbaker.net/

c. Permatopia: http://permatopia.com/

d. The Oil Drum: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5497

e. Peak Oil News: http://www.peak-oil-news.info/

f. Peak Oil Blog: http://peakoil.blogspot.com/

g. Early Warning Blog: http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/

h. Organic Consumers: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_6193.cfm

i. Life After The Oil Crash: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html

j. How to Save The World: http://howtosavetheworld.ca/

k. Dark Mountain: http://www.dark-mountain.net/about-2/the-manifesto/6/

l. Green Peace: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

m. New Economy: http://www.neweconomyworkinggroup.org/blog/missing-vision

n. The Corporation: http://www.thecorporation.com/
o. NIA - National Inflation Association: http://inflation.us/

5. Dokumentarar:

a. Meltup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb1n1X0Oqdw

b. The End of America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RcbpYR5Joc

c. Collapse: http://www.collapsemovie.com/

d. A Crude Awakening - The Oil Crash: http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/

e. The Corporation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

f. Der ingen skulle tru at nokon kunne bu: http://www.nrk.no/magasin/1.6508621
g. The Secret of Oz - Winner, Best Documentary of 2010 (v.1.09.11): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

Fyrireiking til alheims fíggjarligt skrædl

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 23:23:00 +0000

Fyrra greinin av tveimum, um hvussu alheims skuldarkreppan rakar føroyingar

Alheims búskaparkreppan er nú so mikið álvarslig, at alt fleiri búskaparfrøðingar meta, at um fleiri av heimsins fremstu londum ikki fáa tamarhald á sínari skuld, máast grundarlagið so mikið undan alheims peningakervinum, at øll skipanin er í vanda fyri at rapla - kanska innan stutta tíð. Hendir hetta, verður alheims samfelagið, sum vit kenna tað í dag, kollvelt. Hvat fer hetta at merkja fyri føroyska samfelagið?

Framstandandi altjóða búskaparfrøðingar hava leingi mett búskaparstøðuna í heiminum at vera sera álvarsliga (Sí keldur, 1g). IMF hevur júst ávarað um, at USA og Evropa eru á sera vágiligari vandaleið (1i). Alt fleiri óttast vandan fyri tvísporandi inflasjón - eisini í teimum londum, sum fram til nú hava verið roknað millum heimsins sterkastu og ríkastu (5a). Ein ótemjandi inflasjón kann fáa sera álvarsligar avleiðingar ikki bara fyri hesi londini, men fyri allan heim. Seinast tað hendi, endaði tað í roynd og veru við veraldarbardaga (5b).

Fylgir ein bara eitt lítið sindur við í miðlum kring heimin, ber illa til IKKI at geva sær far um allar ávaringarnar frá alt fleiri serfrøðingum um, hvussu álvarslig fíggjarstøðan í heiminum er. Ov mikið er til av larmi frá sonevndum 'konspiratiónsteorikarum' og 'dómadagsprofetum', sum varskógva um heimsins undirgang, men hetta er ikki tað, sum sipað verður til her. Her verður tosað um eina kreppu, har veruleikin og tølini tala sítt greiða mál. Høgt virdir altjóða felagsskapir og serfrøðingar viðurkenna støðuna - og ávara um, at støðan er hættislig.

Men her á landi verður hetta evni av ókendari orsøk ikki umrøtt serliga nógv sæð í mun til, hvussu álvarsligt málið er, og enn minni, hvat støðan merkir - ella kann koma til at merkja fyri føroyska samfelagið.

Umborð á søkkandi Titanic

Tey, sum sita við politisku ábyrgdini, tykjast næstan ikki at latast um vón. Tað er sera óheppið, at landsins ábyrgdarhavarar ikki hava nakra greiða støðu til, hvussu fólk skulu bera seg at, um heimsbúskaparkreppan versnar, so sum nógv bendir á. Tað kann gerast beinleiðis lívshættisligt at skúgva ávaringarnar til viks og at lata vera við at taka støðu.

Hví tykjast flest allir føroyskir politikkarar at tosa so lítið um alheims búskaparstøðuna? Trúgva teir ikki uppá, at støðan er so álvarslig - og at tað kann raka Føroyar meint? Vita teir ov lítið um tað? Ella skilja teir tað bara ikki? Til ber í øllum førum at staðfesta, at enn vilja fleiri politikkarar heldur raðfesta ómetaliga kostnaðarmiklar ørvitisverkætlanir, enn at seta alla orku inn á at fyrireika samfelagið til at klára seg undir eini ógvusligari kreppu, sum vit enn smbrt. serfrøðingunum bert hava sæð byrjanina av.

Møguliga er støðan í heiminum so mikið álvarslig, at politikkarar og onnur ikki vita síni livandi ráð. Ella óttast teir kanska fyri at loypa ov nógvan fjáltur á fólk við at nevna tað. Tá er lættari at lata sum um, at alt er í fínasta lagi og vóna, at alt allarhelst skjótt lagar seg aftur av sær sjálvum. Men hetta er sum at sita á fyrsta klassa á ovasta dekki umborð á Titanic og lata sum um, skipið ikki søkkur, hóast niðastu dekkini langt síðani eru farin undir kav. Onkur má gera vart við tað, so fólk fáa høvi at bjarga sær og sínum.

Men hvør hevur gjørt sær ítøkiligar tankar um, hvat hendir her á landi, um t.d. amerikanski búskapurin fór á heysin við ógvusligum gjarðandi árini á búskapin í restini av heiminum? Onkur einstakur kanska, men er nakar komin við uppskotum til eina tilbúgvingarætlan fyri Føroyar? Tá tað ER hent, er tað jú ov seint. Og tá skulu hesir somu politikkarar standa til svars. Men her tykjast so gott sum allir at liggja og sova.

Heimurin eftir "Peak Oil"

Hví skal støðan takast í so stórum álvara? Jú, tí tann álvarsamasta skuldarkreppan, heimurin nakrantíð hevur sæð, herjar í roynd og veru heimin beint í løtuni. Kreppan, sum vit uppliva nú, er ikki nøkur vanlig lágkonjunktur-kreppa, sum sveiggjar mestsum av sær sjálvum upp til hákonjunktur aftur, men ein kreppa, sum sannlíkt er væl meira álvarslig enn tær kreppur, heimurin fyrr hevur upplivað. Hetta fer meir ella minni at raka øll. Eingin sleppur undan. Tað er nevniliga váttað av mongum - eisini framstandandi leiðarum í sjálvum oljuídnaðinum - at heimurin er farin um "Peak Oil" punktið (1b, 1c og 1h) ; tvs. punktið, har oljuframleiðarar ikki megna at metta vaksandi eftirspurningin eftir olju, so skjótt og so títt, sum tørvur er fyri tí.

Eitt sera týðiligt tekin um hetta er m.a., at desperasjónin eftir at finna olju tykist vera so mikið stór, at oljufeløgini velja alt dýrari, alt meira víðgongdar og alt meira vandamiklar hættir at finna olju, t.d. á djúpri og djúpri vatni, uttan at taka neyðugu trygdaratlitini (Hugsa bara um Deepwater Horizon vanlukkuna í Mexico-flógvanum). Harumframt velja oljufeløgini at gagnnýta sløg av kolvetni, sum eru sera torfør at útvinna og sera kostnaðarmikil at fáa líkinda góð oljupreparat burturúr (t.d. tjørusand og oljufløgugrót).

Ímeðan byggja fleiri og fleiri u-lond enn teirra framgongd næstan bara á oljuriknan ídnað og flutning, samstundis sum at fólkavøksturin í heiminum veksur eksponentielt (2b). Fólkavøksturin fer uppum 7 milliardir fólk júst í ár. Øll hesi fólkini brúka alt meira av øllum tilfeinginum - mati, olju o.ø. Tá eftirspurningurin eftir olju veksur skjótari, enn útboðið - tvs. skjótari enn oljuframleiðandi londini kunnu náa at framleiða oljuna, hevur hetta við sær, at oljuprísirnir ósvitaliga hækka - kanska við smærri sveiggjum upp og niður, men rákið sum heild er ógvuslig dýrkan.

Avleiðingar av hækkandi oljuprísum

Hetta fær álvarsligar fylgjur fyri hvørt einstakt menniskja, ið livir á hesi klótu, tí oljuprísir hava so ómetaliga stóran týdning fyri heimsbúskapin (1j). So hvørt sum oljuprísirnir hækka, hækka allir framleiðslu- og flutningskostnaðir tilsvarandi. Harvið dýrka allar vørur. Hetta setur ferð á kostnaðarspiralin. Fakfeløgini krevja hægri løn til sínar limir at viga upp ímóti hækkandi útreiðslunum hjá limunum. Kravið verður ofta stuðlað av politisku skipanini, sum fegin vil halda keypsorkuni uppi. Arbeiðsmarknaðurin verður kroystur, tí fyritøkurnar í roynd og veru ikki hava ráð til at fíggja hækkaða lønarlagið. Arbeiðsplássini verða útflutt. Fleiri gerast arbeiðsleys.

Hetta minkar alt um orkuna at megna hækkandi kostnaðarstøðið. Fólk velja tískil at taka lán - bæði privatu húsarhaldini og fyritøkurnar - at gjalda útreiðslurnar við og halda livistøðinum uppi. Men gjaldførið ER vánaligt, so bankar og lánsveitarar fella fyri freistingini at bjóða lán við lagaligari og lagaligari afturgjaldstreytum - bæði til privat og fyritøkur, so samfelagshjólini, harímillum týdningarmikli bústaðarmarknaðurin, kann haldast í gongd. Men tað er bara at skjóta pínuna út.

Alt er í veruleikanum bygt á tilgjørt "ríkidømi", sum ikki hevur hald í nøkrum veruleika. Pengar verða brúktir við heimild í nøkrum komandi, sum fólk vænta sær, men sum ikki finst í veruleikanum - og neyvan fer at finnast. Øll skumpa bara soleiðis skuldina frammanfyri seg. Men tá virðini ikki eru reell, og ov lítið kemur inn aftur í mun til tað væntaða, máast grundarlagið undan álitinum á lántakararnar, og so brestur bløðran at enda (1k).

Privat og fyritøkur fara á heysin í hópatali. Hareftir fara bankarnir og lánsveitararnir á heysin, sum aftur noyðir landsins stjórnir til at átaka sær skuldina fyri at bjarga smáspararunum frá fullkomnum húsagangi og soleiðis fyribyrgja, at samfelagið ikki steðgar heilt upp. Soleiðis verður skuldarbyrðan bara flutt uppeftir í skipanini. Men hetta tyngir landsbúskapirnar í sera stóran mun í longdini.

Loysa ikki skuldarkreppu við at taka fleiri lán

Mong lond velja í fyrsta umfari at "loysa" trupulleikan við at royna at pumpa pengar út í samfelagið fyri at fáa gongd á "vøksturin" aftur, men hetta er tilgjørdur, og ikki ein reellur vøkstur, sum kemur av framleiddum meirvirði. Populert sagt: "Vit kunnu ikki liva bara av at klippa hvørjum øðrum". Ein tilgjørdur vøkstur etur tiltaksgoymslurnar upp (um nakrar eru) rættiliga skjótt. Syrgiliga sannroyndin er, at flestu lond í grundini als ikki hava ráð longur til at halda høga livistøðinum uppi og varðveita tær mongu vælferðartænastur, sum fólk vandu seg við í betri tíðum.

Men stjórnirnar vilja ikki gera politiskt sjálvmorð við at linka krøvini til vælferðina. Manglandi gjaldføri ger seg galdandi í fleiri, fyrr so ríkum londum. Tað fær stjórnirnar at kenna seg kroystar til at taka lán at fíggja vælferðina við. Men tað kemur ikki nóg nógv inn í kassan aftur, so fleiri lán mugu til - eisini lán til at fíggja rentur og avdrøg fyri av gomlum lánum. Alt fleiri lond eru soleiðis endað í einum skuldarspirali, har tey hækka skuldarloftið alt meir. Men so við og við eru tey heldur ikki før fyri bara at gjalda renturnar av ovurstóru skuldini, sum veksur eksponentielt. Tað ber ikki til at koma burtur úr eini skuldarkreppu við bara at taka fleiri lán! Tað sigur seg sjálvt. Eins og tað ikki ber til hjá einum alkoholikara at drekka seg burtur úr alkoholismuni. Og hvør skal gjalda rokningina í síðsta enda? Hon verður send víðari til komandi ættarliðini, sum heldur ikki hava ráð at gjalda skuldina. At enda kemur húsagangurin. Fleiri lond kunnu knappliga standa í eini støðu, at hvørki alment lønt ella fólk á privata marknaðinum fáa útgoldið lønir sínar, tí eingin hevur pengar at gjalda teimum við. Og hvat hendir so, tá fólk ikki hava pengar á kontuni at keypa mat o.a. fyri? Tað óhugnaliga scenariið kann ein bara ímynda sær...!

Byrjanin til eina verri kreppu

Búskaparfrøðingar siga, at vit hava bara sæð byrjaninina av eini nógv verri kreppu, sum lond bara hava útsett og útsett við at lána meira og meira - nú so nógv, at summi lond ongantíð fara at hava ráð til at gjalda alla skuldina aftur. Tað ber ikki til.

Hetta ger seg ikki minst galdandi fyri tað einaferð so mæta heimsveldið USA, sum nú skyldar fýra ferðir sína egnu bruttotjóðarúrtøku. Tað merkir, at landið kann rakast av "hyperinflasjón", so øll luft fer úr búskapinum. Fleiri ættarlið fram í tíðina mugu so gjalda fyri marglætið hjá núlivandi amerikanarunum . Fleiri onnur framkomin lond skylda eisini upphæddir, sum eru størri enn teirra egna bruttotjóðarðurtøka, og fleiri eru farin - ella eru um reppið at fara - á húsagang, tí tey hava mist alt trúvirðið hjá lánsveitarunum. Á alheims stigi er skuldin nú komin upp í so astronomiskar hæddir, at hetta aldrin er sæð fyrr í søguni. Alheims samlaða skuldin er nú 10 ferðir størri enn samlaðu bruttotjóðarúrtøkurnar fyri øll lond í heiminum!

Vandin fyri, at øll peningaskipanin raplar, er reellur. Tískil mugu lond fyrireika, hvussu tey ætla sær at møta einum alheims fíggjarskrædli. Eisini Føroyar. Tey, sum lata eygu, oyru og munn aftur fyri hesum trupulleika og lata sum um, alt stendur væl til, kunnu vænta sær at vakna upp við kaldan dreym ein dag. Tí alt bendir á, at heimsins fólk yvirhøvur mugu fyrireika seg uppá eina longri varandi djúpa og kollveltandi kreppu, har øll mugu læra at liva nógv meira frá hondini í munnin í framtíðini. Tey, sum tá fara at standa seg best, verða tey, sum skylda minst og eru mest sjálvhjálpin lokalt.

Neyðugt at gera Føroyar meira sjálvbjargnar

Føroyingar hava livað beinleiðis av egnum sjógvi og landi í meir enn túsund ár, men í dag innflyta føroyingar so gott sum alt, sum etið verður av mati, og sum brúkt verður av tilfari í Føroyum, samstundis sum at føroyingar grunda so gott sum alla sína framleiðslu, flutning og upphiting á olju, sum eisini má innflytast. Hetta er ein lutvíst nýggj siðvenja, sum hevur gjørt samfelagið sárbært og sera ávirkiligt av konjunkturinum í heimssamfelagnum. Við hóttandi gongdini í heiminum í dag gerst henda nýggja siðvenja alt hættisligari og dýrari fyri føroyska samfelagið, umframt at hetta dálkar og tyngir umhvørvið í stóran mun.

Føroyingar verða noyddir longu nú at venja seg við, at oljan ikki longur kann vera álitið. Oljan fer um ikki so langa tíð ikki longur at kunna vera grundarlagið undir møguleikanum at veita fólki breyð á borðið, sum fyrr - heldur ikki um olja verður funnin í føroyskari undirgrund. Í framtíðini mugu føroyingar líta nógv meira á lokala tilfeingið, enn teir gera í løtuni, sum til ber at framleiða uttan brúk av olju. Ikki so nógv til at framleiða útflutningsvørur av, men beinleiðis sum tað, fólkið sjálvt skal liva av.

Versnar alheims støðan so nógv, sum spátt verður av so mongum, so verða Føroyar nógv meira avbyrgdar frá umheiminum aftur, enn tær eru í dag - og so kann støðan hjá fólkinum í Føroyum gerast beinleiðis lívshættislig. Um eitt veruligt fíggjarligt skrædl kemur, og føroyingar tá ikki ætla sær at vera tiknir á bóli og vera millum teirra, sum standa á berum, so er alneyðugt longu nú at fyrireika seg uppá at gerast nógv meira sjálvbjargin og t.d. økja um eginframleiðsluna av fleiri neyðsynjarvørum. Arbeiðsplássini, sum vóru útflutt, mugu innflytast aftur. Og nógv meira má fáast burtur úr egnum tilfeingi - sjálvandi á burðardyggum grundarlag - soleiðis at samfelagið gerst nógv meira óbundið at innflutningi, enn tað er í dag.

Hetta evnið fer seinna greinin í hesi røð at viðgera nærri, har hugleitt verður um, hvussu lívið man fara at síggja út í Føroyum, tá vit ikki longur fara at hava ráð til oljuna: Nýggjur veruleiki ger kanska grindadráp neyðug aftur - les greinina her: http://elinbrimheimheinesen.blogspot.com/2011/09/seinna-greinin-av-tveimum-um-hvussu.html

Ímeðan ber til at ogna sær meira vitan um heimskreppuna í teim mongu slóðunum til greinir, bøkur, frágreiðingar og dokumentarar um evnið í listanum niðanfyri.

Keldur

1. Greinir:

a. Der Spiegel: 'Peak Oil' and the German Government

Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

b. The Observer: Peak oil alarm revealed by secret official talks

Behind government dismissals of 'alarmist' fears there is growing concern over critical future energy supplies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/peak-oil-department-energy-climate-change

c. The Guardian: Lloyd's adds its voice to dire 'peak oil' warnings

Business underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil, says Lloyd's of London/Chatham House report http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/peak-oil-energy-disruption

d. The Observer: Resource wars: the global crisis behind BHP Billiton's bid for Potash Corp

The battle for the fertiliser giant points to a near future in which world food supplies may need to rise by 70%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/bhp-billiton-potash-corp-global-crisis

e. The Guardian Professional Network: Why the ecology crisis poses a threat to business as usual

There is little sign that those gathering in Davos appreciate that current unsustainablity means that things have to change

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/davos-ecology-crisis-unsustainability-threatens-business?INTCMP=SRCH

f. Bloomberg Business Week: Barreling Toward Peak Oil

Energy analyst Charles Maxwell of Weeden & Co. recommends Canadian tar sands plays

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_23/b4181086607101.htm

g. The Nation (videogrein): Are We Running Out of Oil?

The Nation and On The Earth Productions: Peak Oil and a Changing Climate

http://www.thenation.com/video/157441/peak-oil-and-changing-climate

h. The Boston Globe: Oil supply to trail demand by 2030, study predicts

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/07/19/oil_supply_to_trail_demand_by_2030_study_predicts/

i. Børsen: IMF advarer: USA og Europa risikerer double-dip

http://borsen.dk/nyheder/oekonomi/artikel/1/215607/imf_advarer_usa_og_europa_risikerer_double-dip.html

j. The Globe and Mail: Why High Oil Prices Are Such A Threat To The Global Rebound

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/why-high-oil-prices-are-such-a-threat-to-the-global-rebound/article1916221/

k. Economy Watch: Bubble Economy

http://www.economywatch.com/economy-articles/bubble-economy.html

l. Jyllands Posten: USA igen tæt på at lukke og slukke

Demokraterne og Republikanerne toppes om et midlertidigt budget, og USA løber tør for penge i næste uge.

http://epn.dk/okonomi2/global/usa/article2556095.ece
m. DR.dk: Jørgen Ørstrøm Møller: USA går bankerot inden 2020
Inden 2020 er USA gået fallit. Gælden er allerede i dag så alvorlig, at flere stater burde være blevet lukket. Faktisk siger tallene, at USA's økonomi er værre end Grækenlands.
http://www.dr.dk/DR2/Danskernes+akademi/Oekonomi_Ledelse/VL_Doegn_2011/20110127222058.htm
n. EnergisTjenesten: Alternativ til olie – det skal du vælge
Tårnhøje oliepriser får rigtig mange danskere til at se sig om efter en erstatning for oliefyret.
http://www.energitjenesten.dk/files/resource_16/Alternativ%20til%20olie%2002%202007.pdf
o. Mathaba.net (the world's leading independent news agency):
Hard Times Getting Harder
Americans are being hammered economically, politically and socially. Paul Craig Roberts quoted Vladimir Putin calling America "a parasite on the world."
http://networkedblogs.com/nNr45
p. JP.dk: Ny amerikansk aktienedtur
Det værste kvartal for det amerikanske børsmarked siden finanskrisen endte fredag med ny nedtur.
http://epn.dk/okonomi2/global/usa/article2563901.ece
q. Der Spiegel: America's Debt Crisis
Why Europe Is Right and Obama Is Wrong
US President Barack Obama has recently suggested that Europe must take on more debt to stimulate the economy. Such reliance on cheap money, though, is what got us into the current crisis in the first place -- both in Europe and in the US. America's problem isn't too little money. It's a lack of competitive products.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,789624,00.html
r. Portfolio.com: The End
The era that defined Wall Street is finally, officially over. Michael Lewis, who chronicled its excess in Liar’s Poker, returns to his old haunt to figure out what went wrong.
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom

2. Frágreiðingar:

a. Jack Zagar: The End of Cheap "Conventional" Oil

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/symposium/zagar/zagar.html

b. Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population, and Energy

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/symposium/bartlett/bartlett1.html

c. L.B. Magoon: Are we Running Out of Oil

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-320/of00-320.pdf

d. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Exponential growth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

e. Uppkast til føroyska ætlan um burðardygga menning - Ár 2002 - 2020

http://vmr.fo/Files/Filer/VMR/Fragreidingar/Burdardygg_menning.PDF

3. Bøkur:

a. Richard Heinberg: The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies

b. Richard Heinberg: Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines

c. Stephen Leeb, Glen Strathy: The Coming Economic Collapse: How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs $200 a Barrel

d. Jeff Rubin: Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization

e. Stephen Leeb: Game Over: How You Can Prosper in a Shattered Economy

f. John Michael Greer: The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age

g. Jared Diamond: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

h. David Strahan: The Last Oil Shock
i. Michael Lewis. Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World

4. Heimasíður:

a. Post Peak Living: http://www.postpeakliving.com/preparing-post-peak-life#

b. Carolyn Baker: http://carolynbaker.net/

c. Permatopia: http://permatopia.com/

d. The Oil Drum: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5497

e. Peak Oil News: http://www.peak-oil-news.info/

f. Peak Oil Blog: http://peakoil.blogspot.com/

g. Early Warning Blog: http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/

h. Organic Consumers: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_6193.cfm

i. Life After The Oil Crash: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html

j. How to Save The World: http://howtosavetheworld.ca/

k. Dark Mountain: http://www.dark-mountain.net/about-2/the-manifesto/6/

l. Green Peace: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

m. New Economy: http://www.neweconomyworkinggroup.org/blog/missing-vision

n. The Corporation: http://www.thecorporation.com/
o. NIA - National Inflation Association: http://inflation.us/

5. Dokumentarar:

a. Meltup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb1n1X0Oqdw

b. The End of America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RcbpYR5Joc

c. Collapse: http://www.collapsemovie.com/

d. A Crude Awakening - The Oil Crash: http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/

e. The Corporation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

f. Der ingen skulle tru at nokon kunne bu: http://www.nrk.no/magasin/1.6508621
g. The Secret of Oz - Winner, Best Documentary of 2010 (v.1.09.11): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

Hvar eru vit á veg í Føroyum?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:32:00 +0000

Eg fekk hug at endurgeva hesa grein, sum eg skrivaði í 2006, nú samgongan hongur í einum tunnum tráð og tað - møguliga - skjótt stundar móti vali aftur. Nú skulu vit aftur vera vitni til ein bardaga um sessir, har realpolitikkurin verður burturgoymdur, meðan politikkarar brúka meira orku uppá at skilja seg frá hinum í valstríðnum, enn uppá at finna saman um loysnir. Ein fær hug at spyrja: Hvat skal tað til? Er tað neyðugt? Fer ein nýggj stjórn veruliga at gera nakran mun kortini? Ella er tað meira sannlíkt, at eitt nýval ikki fær okkum av fetanum, men brýtur bara kontinuitetin av og frystir menningina niður, óvist hvussu leingi? Hava vit ráð til tað? Hava vit ráð til at spilla tíð á henda hátt - serliga nú í krepputíðum, har vit veruliga hava brúk fyri effektivum realpolitikki? Júst í tí høpinum er henda greinin enn líka aktuel:

Alheimsgerðin:
Hvar eru vit á veg í Føroyum?

Eftir Elina Brimheim Heinesen

Sjónarringurin má gerast breiðari, um Føroyar skulu klára seg á alheims marknaðinum í framtíðini. Visjón 2015 hevur sett ferð á eitt alneyðugt kjak um, hvussu føroyingar skulu síggja seg sjálvar í einum størri perspektivi. Men enn halda nógv fast í avoldaðum ideologiskum ímyndum og brúka – av gomlum vana – mestu orkuna uppá kegl um partapolitikk ístaðin fyri at taka støðu til tær veruligu avbjóðingarnar.

Politiska kjakið í Føroyum er beiskt, nú vit meira og meira gerast partur av alheimssamfelagnum. Tá talan fellir á støðutakanina til alheimsgerðina – til tjóðskaparligu virði okkara í mun til viðurskiftini við útheimin, serliga Danmark og ES – er ein av stóru spurningunum: Hvussu kunnu vit varðveita tjóðskaparligu virði okkara undir umstøðum, har umheimurin streingir meir og meir á.

Tá sambandskreftirnar aftur fingu betri fótafesti, royndi ytri tjóðveldisvongurin at teknað eina dapra mynd av framtíð føroyinga, tá valdið eftir teirra tykki var yvirtikið av einum afturhaldandi landsstýri, sum setti menning okkara sum tjóð ártíggjundir aftur. Ein skilir vónbrotið, men eru atfinningarnar relevantar, tá vit hyggja at tí stóra samanhanginum? Hvussu nógv hevur tað í roynd og veru at siga fyri menningina í Føroyum, hvør ið situr við róðri?

Eg lurtaði fyri eini tíð síðani eftir áhugaverdari sending á Danmarks Radio P1, har danski rithøvundurin og kunningartøknisserfrøðingurin Ole Grünbaum tosaði um danska samfelagskjakið um tjóðskaparlig virði. Eitt kjak, sum er frammi nú orsaka av økta trýstinum, mangir danir kenna frá stóru tilflytingini til Danmark – serliga frá muslimsku londunum. Danska kjakið um tjóðskaparlig virði kann á nøkrum økjum samanberast við føroyska kjakið um tað sama.

Ole Grünbaum vísti í hesum samanhanginum á, hvussu heimssamfelagið hevur broytt seg so ómetaliga nógv seinastu 30-40 árini, og hvussu hetta hevur broytt fyritreytirnar fyri hugburðin, og á hvønn hátt gamal hugburður ikki longur er tíðarhóskandi.

Tjóðskaparkjakið - ein anakronisma
Vit kunnu samanbera tjóðskaparkjakið eitt sindur við kapitalismukritikkin, sum serliga var frammi í 70’unum. Ole Grünbaum helt fyri, at í dag er sosialisman sum samfelagsskipan deyð. Fyri tað ber tó væl til enn at finnast at kapitalismuni. Men tað er bara ikki tann sama kapitalisman, sum ræður longur. Fyrstu 60-70 árini í fyrru øld var ímyndin av kapitalismuni ein tekning av einum feitum heilsølumanni í høgum hatti og jakkaveli við serviettinum bundnum um hálsin og við eini stórari steik á gaflinum, sum hann át gramliga, meðan tey fátæku svøltandi hugdu at honum. Henda myndin gav meining tá. Hon vísti eina klára mynd av fíggindanum - honum, fólkið skuldu gera uppreistur ímóti. Men í dag er kapitalisman annaðleiðis.

Kapitalisman kann ikki longur identifiserast við persónar. Kapitalisman er ein real time alheims telduskipan. Tað eru pensiónskassar – tvs. lønmóttakarar sum tú og eg – ið eiga ein sera stóran part av vinnulívinum í verðini. Tú kanst siga, at kapitalisman hevur sigrað, tí hon er í okkum øllum. Tá ið funnist verður at kapitalismuni í dag, er tað ofta á ein hykleriskan hátt, tí fólk ’gloyma’, at vit øll eru kapitalistar. (Spyr bara bankaráðgeva tín). Vit mugu eisini hyggja at okkara egnu kapitalismu.

Hvat er frælsi?
Kapitalisman er ikki tjóðarmonopolistisk longur, segði Ole Grünbaum. Tjóðskaparliga frælsisstríðið, sum blómaði í 60’unum og 70’unum, tá nógv hjálond fingu loysing, er í nógvum førum endað í einari sjálvsandsøgn – serliga fyri tey londini, sum sóu sosialistisku samfelagsskipanina sum eitt alternativ til kapitalismuna. Tey allarmest kollveltingarsinnaðu londini, sum rivu seg leys frá koloniharrunum og vildu gerast heilt óbundin av øðrum, eru í dag vorðin døpur kollveltingarfornminnissøvn – t.d. Cuba, Zimbabwe ella Norður Korea, har fólksins besta vón er, at leiðararnir doyggja.

Frælsi fyri eitt land er tí - eftir Ole Grübaum’sa meting - ikki at melda seg út úr heimssamfelagnum, at avbyrgja seg og bert ansa sær sjálvum. Frælsi er ikki ideologiirnar, sum gerast ein samfelagslig spennitroyggja. Nei, frælsi er at vera við í felagsskapinum! At vera við í netverkinum, tí tað er har, frælsi liggur. Tað er har, menningin fer fram. Tað er har, vælferðin liggur. Tað er har mentanin er, sum er til at halda út at vera í.

Hykleriskt at bólka hvønnannan
Royndirnar eru enn nógvar – eisini í Føroyum – at skapa gamlar ideologiskar ímyndir um tey ’óndu hini’, sum postmodernistarnir kalla tað. Ein konstruerar seg sjálvan við at konstruera tey ’óndu hini’. Eins og sosialisman gjørdi tað við kapitalismuna. Eins og (nógv) tjóðveldisfólk gera tað við sambandsfólk (og umvent) og/ella við danir. Eins og Dansk Folkeparti ger tað við muslimsku tilflytararnar í Danmørk. Og tey vinstraradikalu gera tað við Dansk Folkeparti. Øll henda ideologiska konstruktiónin við teim ’óndu hinum’, sum ein eisini kann kalla ’leguhugsan’ – er ikki longur aktuell. Øll hava bara ikki heilt givið tí ans enn í Føroyum.

Nógv hevur verið tosað um samanleggingar av fyritøkum í vinnulívinum seinastu 30 árini, meðan minni verður hugsað um, at minst líka nógvar samanleggingar eru farnar fram millum mentanir og ideologiir. Í dag ganga mørkini millum einu síðuna og hina síðuna mitt niður ígjøgnum hvønn einstakan av okkum. Vit eru ikki longur bara til eina síðu, men til báðar. Vit eru øll bæði national og transnational. Vit eru øll bæði vinstra- og høgrahall. Vit eru øll bæði tjóðveldisfólk og sambandsfólk…!

Tí er tað hykleriskt, tá ið ein vil identifisera tey ’óndu hini’ við ávísar bólkar í samfelagnum, har ein metir seg sjálvan at vera millum tey góðu og reinu – tey kroniskt óseku – meðan hini eru ”tey óndu”. Í hesum sambandinum er freistandi at spyrja: Eru allir sambandsføroyingar veruliga minni føroyingar enn tjóðveldisføroyingar? Og eru allir tjóðveldisføroyingar minni kosmopolittar enn sambandsføroyingar?

Hvør stýrir útviklinginum?
Ein kundi spurt: Men er tað ikki neyðugt at halda lív í politiska samfelagsliga kjakinum, har partarnir standa beint yvir av hvørjum øðrum og halda seg hvør sær hava rættin, meðan hini fara skeiv? Jú, tað kann vera sera undirhaldandi, men um ikki kjakið snýr seg um nakað, sum hevur rót í veruleikanum, er tað jú líka mikið.

Sum sagt eru vit í dag bæði national og transnational. Tað vil m.a. siga, at samfelagsgongdin í veruleikanum ikki verður avgjørd í serliga stóran mun inni í løgtingshúsinum ella úti í Tinganesi. Fólkið kann ikki velja eina ávísa leið, sum fólkið meinar, er tann rætta, við at velja ein ávísan meiriluta inn í løgtingið, tí gongdin verður í veruleikanum ikki avgjørd har. Heimsins gongd verður avgjørd í einari røð av netverkum, har nakrar (fáar) avgerðir kanska koma innum tingsins gátt – tær flestu ikki. Har eru stjórnir, har eru NGO-felagskapir (privatir hjálparfelagskapir), har eru Greenpeace og antiglobalistarnir, sum er heimsins størsta fólkarørsla í løtuni. Har eru altjóða felagsskapir, har eru alheims fyritøkur. Har eru films- og tónleikaídnaðurin – tónleikastjørnur, mótaskaparar og aðrir trendsetarar osfr. Landsstýrið og løgtingsmeirilutin er bara eitt lítið netverk út av so nógvum.

Vit eru heimsborgarar
So kunnu vit gera politiskar stevnuskráir og liggja og kjakast so galið vit vilja í lítlu Føroyum, til vit liggja næstan deyð og bløðandi eftir á víðvøllinum. Men tað hevur bara ongan týdning fyri stóra samanhangin, sum vit øll eru partur av meira enn nakrantíð. Vit kunnu ikki halda á at liva í illusiónini um, at Føroyar enn liggja óspiltar og órørdar í Norðuratlantshavinum, og at einasti mátin at varðveita okkara serkenni og reinleika er at leggja sjógv millum okkum og onnur. Hetta er vanahugsan, sum er avgomul. Og vanar eru sum vera man tíverri rættiliga seiglívaðir.

Veruleikin er, at tá vit keypa útlendskar vørur í sjálvtøkuhandlunum – tá vit byggja hús við útlendskum viði – tá vit selja fisk okkara – tá vit ferðast uttanlands sum ferðafólk, embætisfólk ella handilsfólk – ella bara tá vit hyggja at fylgisveinasjónvarpi ella rógva á alnótini, sum vit gera meira og meira, og soleiðis fylgja við í heimsins gongd, eru vit øll partur av heimssamfelagnum, eins væl sum av okkara egna lokala samfelag. Vit eru ikki bara føroyingar – tað eru ikki bara fjøll, fuglur, fiskur, seyður, grindadráp og kristnitrúgv, sum ger okkum til tað, vit eru. Vit eru eisini heimsborgarar. Tað er í allarhægsta grad eisini samskifti við umheimin, sum ger okkum til tað, vit eru, og sum ikki minst mennir okkum sum menniskju – og andslív og mentanarlív okkara.

Forðingarnar
Vit koma ikki víðari, so leingi vit hava tvíbýttar politiskar vengur, sum halda lív í gomlum svørt-hvítum fíggindaspøkilsum – tjóðveldisvongurin í sínari ímynd um reinleika føroyinga einumegin í mun til danska koloniharradømi og samansvørjingar móti føroyingum hinumegin. Og ímyndini um Føroya-elskandi tjóðveldisvongin einumegin í mun til ’hentu býttlingar’ dana í Føroyum (sambandsvongin) hinumegin. Meðan sambandsvongurin í sínum lag heldur lív í síni klettafastu trúgv uppá, at tað einasta ‘rætta’ er at tvíhalda um ríkisfelagsskapin, og ímyndini um at ein og hvør, sum hóttir ríkisfelagsskapin, hóttir eisini eksistensgrundarlag føroyinga. So leingi vit tvíhalda um hesar ímyndir – ja, so kemur lokala politiska kjakið einans at snúgva seg um, hvørji tey óndu eru, og hvørji tey góðu eru.

Hetta er bara við til at økja um óhepnu frástøðuna millum politisku partarnar og millum Føroyar og heimssamfelagið – og ger okkum enn meira maktaleys, tí vit nokta at spæla við har, sum veruligu avgerðirnar verða tiknar. Ístaðin brúka vit alla orku okkara uppá innanhýsis persónligt kegl og klandur. Hetta var m.a. orsøkin til, at Suður-Afrika, hóast ómetaliga stórt náttúrligt ríkidømi, gjørdist avbyrgt og eftirbátur á nógvum økjum, og at Apartheid livdi so leingi í Suður-Afrika. Øll orkan bleiv brúkt til at keglast um rasuatskiljing ella ikki, meðan tey ‘veruligu evnini’, so sum at finna konstruktivar politiskar loysnir í konkretum málum og fyri samfelagið sum heild, ongantíð fingu ordiliga loyvi at koma á dagsskránna.

Hvussu koma vit víðari?
Svart-hvíta kjakið førir ongastaðni, og leiðir bert burtur frá teimum stóru evnunum, sum veruliga hava týdning fyri framtíð Føroya at tosa um – nevniliga:

Hvat merkir ’frælsi’ í roynd og veru? Øll ynskja frælsi – men frælsi til hvat? Eingin ynskir at vera trælur – sjálvt ikki sambandsfólk. Øll vilja hava sjálvsavgerðarrætt og ávirkan á egna lagnu. Hvat kunnu vit gera sjálvi í Føroyum fyri at økja um sjálvsavgerðarrætt føroyinga, okkara sjálvsvirðing og okkara vælferð? Hvørjir eru bestu møguleikarnir fyri hesum - uttanfyri ella innanfyri altjóða felagsskapirnir? Hvønn leiklut kunnu vit sum føroyingar spæla í heimssamfelagnum? Hvussu kunnu vit spæla ein aktivan leiklut? Hvønn leiklut fáa vit, um vit fara burturúr ríkisfelagskapinum? Skulu vit halda okkum uttanfyri altjóða felagskapir – ella skulu vit melda okkum inn í t.d. EU?

Hetta eru relevantir spurningar at fáa greiðu á, tá vit vilja finna út av, hvussu vit gera samfelagið so demokratiskt sum gjørligt, og hvussu vit vilja tryggja, at tann einstaki fær so stóran avgerðarrætt yvir egið lív sum gjørligt. Sjálvsavgerðarrættur eigur ikki at snúgva seg um ideologi og dogmur um at varðveita eina reina óspilta tjóð mótvegis einum hóttandi umheimi (t.d. Danmark/EU), men í roynd og veru bara um at loysa nakrar praktiskar spurningar í mun til tann alheims veruleika vit liva í í dag (um vit vilja tað ella ikki).

Her mugu vit vera konstruktiv, um vit skulu náa úrslit, og ikki so bundin av vanahugsan, sum heldur okkum fast í slítandi ósemjum um hugburð og hugtøk, sum ikki eru til longur. Í øllum førum ikki í sama hami sum fyrr. Tí so leingi vit tvíhalda um svart-hvíta hugsunarháttin, ja, so leingi vengurnir hvør sær ikki rættiliga viðurkenna, at í einum og hvørjum tjóðveldisfólki býr eisini eitt lítið sambandsfólk – og at í einum og hvørjum sambandsfólki býr eisini eitt lítið tjóðveldisfólk – koma vit ikki av fetanum.

Elin Brimheim Heinesen, 2006

Why I'm not condemning pilot whaling

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:27:00 +0000

I'm not insensitive to animal suffering. I do understand why outsiders are concerned about pilot whaling in the Faroes. But in spite of this, I do not condemn pilot whaling completely. This might seem contradictory to people, who think pilot whaling is absolutely appalling and should be banned right away. But I have some compelling reasons for looking at pilot whaling the way I do, which I'll explain further in this blog post.

I'm NOT for pilot whaling unconditionally. I do acknowledge that environmental pollutants in pilot whale meat - and the fact that some researchers recommend not to use it for human consumption any more - is a major problem, which probably will put an end to pilot whaling eventually. But aside from this, of course, very serious issue - I could accept the continuation of pilot whaling - but just under certain circumstances, which I'll get further into later in this post - but only as long as the Faroese people only kill pilot whales for food (and not as a recreational activity) and do not eat more than what is within safe limits as issued by health authorities - and as long as they are willing to improve their killing methods as much as possible to minimize the animals' suffering - and as long as pilot whaling doesn't endanger the pilot whale as a species.

Sustainable At Least For Half a Millenium

Endangered species must of course be protected, but is the pilot whale endangered? The Faroese have always known that they depended very much on this natural resource, so they've been - and still are - very conscious and aware of that they can't exploit the pilot whale population beyond it's capacity, if they want to keep the 'grinds' coming.

To keep track they've kept a full public record of all whale killings since the 16th century. You won't find such scientific recordings many places in the world, conducted in such a thorough way for such a long time. The Faroese are still making continuous studies of the pilot whale population to prevent over-extraction - and they're very keen on administering their resources as best possible. According to several independent studies made around the world, the pilot whale is not an endangered species, so the Faroese still allow themselves to kill up to around 800 per year on average, which is less than 0,1 % of the whole - estimated - population of 1.000.000. Others claim the number is around 600.000 - but 800 a year is still not a big amount in comparison, even though some would only regard zero killings as satisfactory.

I know this does not convince people in the whale protection movement of which many tend to think that all pro-whaling arguments are just bad excuses for unacceptable human behavior. But this is not true in the Faroese case, in my view.

Like Burgers to Americans

It might seem 'easier' for the Faroese just to stop the pilot whaling. Why not just abandon this practice and thus spare the whales and get the pressure from the outside world off their shoulders? It is hard for outsiders to understand that this long lasting food providing tradition - unbroken in more than a thousand years - was one of the main sources of nutritional food for the Faroese up until only a generation ago. That is why pilot whale meat still is just as 'natural' for most Faroese to eat, just as burgers are for Americans - and just as difficult to abandon.

I do not want to get into an argument here whether the practice of pilot whale killing is any better or worse than the practice of mass breeding domestic animals for food, but people in the Faroes fail to see that meat from the farm industry in other countries could be any better than the meat they are used to eat. The pilot whale meat is - or was - perfectly organic, if it wasn't for the fact that the industrialized world has poisoned our oceans - the living habitat of the whales.

Still More Organic Than Imported Meat

Most of the world - even arctic areas far away from the densely populated industry areas - is polluted. And food production everywhere is "artificialized" or modified to such an extent, that it makes almost any food unhealthy and even dangerous for humans to eat, more or less. The Faroese often also take into consideration that the pilot whales after all do live a free life until just before they die, which can't be said about the domestic animals, from which most of the meat comes, that most people in the world eat.

Bottom line is that people still need food to survive. Hunting and killing not endangered animal species, living in and around the local environment - as untouched by human hands as can be in the world today - still seems to be a better way to provide food for the Faroese in a sustainable way, much less polluting in itself than industrial agriculture or transportation of imported food from far away, is. So I do understand why people in the Faroes want to continue to kill these animals for food, in spite of pollution - rather than keeping a completely unhealthy, unnatural and unsustainable food providing system alive, which only contributes to further destruction of our world.

New Reality Might Make Whaling a Necessity Again

Killing any living creature is no easy task, especially not wild animals - and even more so if we're talking about killing very large wild animals almost with your bare hands in an environment alien to humans: namely seawater. In fact, it is remarkable that this is even feasible and that it can be done as quickly and efficient as it happens, after all. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to avoid animal suffering completely under these circumstances. The blood loss is also very visible in seawater, which makes the killing seem even more dramatic.

But for people living in arctic regions where local resources are scarce, this is considered one of the harsh, but necessary fact of life. They simply do not feel they have many other options, if they want to survive on what's available on site. This is perhaps very hard to imagine for city dwellers living in more hospitable climates, who never have had to face such a reality. But this way of getting enough nutritional food was an absolute necessity for the Faroese until not very long ago - in fact in my life time - and not unlikely, it might become a probable reality again in a future, not so far from now, when scarcity might become much more common again, and the Faroe Islands might become much more cut off and isolated from the outside world than they are now.

This is a serious problem, whish also must be considered. I know that the Faroese have been living a quite modern life for the last 30-40 years or so and are considered to be "rich", where the old way of providing food suddenly didn't seem as necessary or appropriate any more - at least to the outside world. I'ts difficult to imagine that this might change again. Perhaps rapidly. What the outside world doesn't seem to understand is, that the Faroese have almost just entered the modern age - much later than most other people in western societies. (They didn't have TV before the early 80'ies for crying out loud). They've just gotten used to living a modern life - right before this new form of life seems to crumble and fall apart again!

The World After Peak Oil

It's been confirmed by many, that the world might very well have passed peak oil - with dire consequences for everyone living on this planet awaiting just around the corner. The most severe global financial crisis, the world has ever seen, takes place right now. An increasing number of people realize that this is not just a 'normal' recession, but much severer than that. It's a clear consequence of the lasting fact, that oil is no longer as abundant as it was. This will inevitably lead to a scenario where many countries will not have easy access to cheap oil any more. The world might - perhaps much sooner than expected - face a reality, where cheap oil simply is no longer available for everyone.

This situation seems to approach us much faster now than we could imagine just a couple of year ago. The world population passes 7 billion this year and the demand for oil increases faster than we can produce it. Oil producing countries will of course firstly keep the oil, they have left in the ground to themselves, which soon might leave nothing to the oil-importing countries. This is a very frightening outlook for the future - especially for remote lying countries like the Faroe Islands with arctic climate, and thus more dependent on liquid energy than most other countries.

To grasp the seriousness of this issue - as I see it, you might find this interesting:

http://www.postpeakliving.com/preparing-post-peak-life#

The Faroes Extremely Oil Dependent

Oil depletion - heavy pollution and climate change - financial crunch... you name it... hits the Faroe Islands hard right now. The Faroe Islands is totally dependent on imported oil, which drives their whole fishing fleet (which is their primary food source and provides more than 95 % of their whole export). The fishing industry hasn't had any surplus for several years and the biggest Faroese fish export company faced bankruptcy a few months ago, as well as one of the two biggest banks on the islands. Unemployment is rapidly rising - it's almost 9 % at the moment. All transportation of people and goods to and from the islands by air or by sea is also a 100 % dependent on oil. It's extremely expensive to travel to and from the islands in comparison (you can fly halfway the world for the same amount from other countries) - and ferry connections to two out of four surrounding countries have already been closed down.

If this alarming development continues, this might soon leave the Faroese with no other option than to return to former ways of survival - or something that resembles. The older generation is, fortunately for the Faroese, still alive. They have kept the inherited knowledge intact and they are able to teach the younger generation, how they managed to survive in the old days, where the Faroese had to rely almost entirely on what was accessible in the surrounding nature.

The Faroes In The Future

I wonder what will become of the Faroese people in the future, if they were prevented by outsiders from getting their food from their local environment. What alternative food provisions are available for the Faroese when oil has become too expensive to afford any more - and they cannot afford to import food in sufficient quantities any longer either? They will have no other options than to use everything they have ... eat the sheep, the fish and the whale meat, which is the only food within reach that they - only just - might be able to provide in sufficient quantities.

They will have to reduce or diminish their living standards quite substantially again, but they have plenty of water, wind, waves and currents, which they can use to produce electricity (right now already around 50 % of Faroese electricity production comes from renewable energy resources) and they can still have sheep grassing in the mountains, run their fish farms close to shore, and pilot whale drivings can be conducted without modern fuel driven boats, using sail- and rowing boats, just as it was done before. It will be a life very different from what the young generation has grown used to right now, but there might probably be no other choice than to accept the new conditions.

Food Sovereignty

You might also google the words "food sovereignty", to understand better, where I'm at.

According to this site: http://www.whyhunger.org/news-and-alerts/why-speaks/553.html - food sovereignty:

- is the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture

- is the right to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives

- is the right to determine the extent to which they want to be self reliant; to restrict the dumping of products in their markets

- is the right of local fisheries-based communities to have priority in managing the use of and the rights to aquatic resources.

- does not negate trade, but rather, it promotes the formulation of trade policies and practices that serve the rights of peoples to safe, healthy and ecologically sustainable production.

Well, let this be my end remarks for now. I hope you understand my viewpoint, even though you might not agree with me.

Varskó til politikkarar, miðlar og fíggjarvald 3/3

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:43:00 +0000

Sleppið lívshættisligu hvørvisjónini

Í okkara lítlu verð her í Norðuratlantshavi kenna vit okkum ofta fjart frá heiminum kring okkum, men kreppan, vit uppliva í løtuni, er partur av eini heimskreppu, elvd av eini í botn og grund órealistiskari og óskynsamari fíggjarskipan. Vit verða noydd til at síggja hetta klárt, um vit vilja fyribyrgja eini enn størri og álvarsligari kreppu.

Byggir samfelagið á lygn?

Støðan, sum heimurin er komin í, kann sjálvandi í ávísan mun tulkast sum úrslit av ódugnaskapi millum heimsins politisku og fíggjarligu leiðarar og ráðgevandi serfrøðina í bæði búskapi og politikki, serliga í londunum, sum eru eyka hart rakt av alheims kreppuni. Men hvussu kann tað bera til, at so nógv skilagóð fólk, sum sita við ábyrgd, hava yvirsæð so mong ávaringartekin? Hví eru tað so fá, sum veruliga hava gjørt nakað munagott fyri at fyribyrgja hesi støðuni? Hvat er tað, sum hevur blindað tey?

Í orðabókum verður orðið 'hvørvisjón' ella 'illusjón' soleiðis greinað: "ein misvísandi hugmynd" ella "okkurt sum snýtir ella misleiðir fatanina" ella "fatanin av onkrum, sum veruliga er til, men sum verður lýst á ein hátt, sum elvir til skeiva tulking av tí veruliga".

Stórir partar av heiminum liva í dag við eini samfelagsskipan, ið byggir á hugmyndina um óendaligan vøkstur - eisini her í Føroyum. Hugsanin er, at jú meira, vit keypa og brúka, jú meira profitt fyritøkurnar fáa burturúr, jú betri gongur tað. Henda hugmynd er við tíðini vorðin so sjálvsøgd, at spurnartekin hevur næstan ikki verið sett við hana í longri tíð. Politikkarar, búskaparfrøðingar og miðlar kappast enn um at tosa um vøkstur sum einasta parametur fyri framgongd og menning rætta vegin. Samstundis skapar samanrenningin av áhugamálum hjá politisku leiðslunum og miðlunum, sum í stóran mun verða stýrdir av fíggjarvaldinum, eina fatan millum manna um, at henda leið bæði er haldbær og gagnlig fyri einstøku londini og fyri heimin sum heild. Tað er enntá eydnast at billa fólki inn, at skipanin byggir á eina "frælsishugsjón". Men tað tykist meira og meira greitt, jú fleiri trupulleikar vit uppliva, at hetta er ein hvørvisjón.

Jú longri lygnin ræður, jú verri avleiðingar

Joseph Goebbels, propaganda-ráðharrin hjá Hitler, segði í sínari tíð: "Um tú tekur eina lygn, sum er nóg stór, og endurtekur hana aftur og aftur, fara fólk at enda at trúgva henni. Lygnin kann bert haldast á lívi, so leingi staturin megnar at verja fólk móti politisku, figgjarligu og/ella hernaðarligu avleiðingunum av lygnini. Tað hevur sostatt avgerandi týdning fyri statin at brúka allar sínar heimildir til at halda mótstøðu niðri, tí sannleikin er lygnarinnar deyðsfíggindi - og harvið er sannleikin eftirfylgjandi eisini størsti fíggindin hjá statinum." (Joseph Goebbels).

Men ein lygn er ikki burðardygg í longdini. Fyrr ella seinni tømist hon fyri meining og so máast grundarlagið undan henni, so hon dettur sundur - og so verður hennara sanna andlit avdúkað. Tá sanna andlitið hjá Hitler og stjórn hansara avdúkaðist, datt lygn teirra sundur við einum øgiligum dundri og braki, har fólk í milliónatali lógu deyð eftir á vígvøllinum.

Í dag liva vit uppá eina aðra lygn: At bara vøkstur og meira forbrúk er vegurin fram. Spurningurin er, hvussu leingi aftrat henda lygnin fer at kunna halda. Jú longri, vit bíða við at avdúka hana, jú ógvusligari verða avleiðingarnar.

Vakstrarhugsjónin ein hvørvisjón

Veruleikin er, at vælferð okkara hvílur fyrst og fremst á útvinnan og brúk av bíligum, men avmarkaðum tilfeingi, harav fossil brennievni er avgjørda grundarlagið. Hugsa bert um, hvussu nógv verður útvunnið úr hesum - plastikk og asfalt t.d. Hetta tilfeingið kann ikki endurnýggjast og verður fyrr ella seinni uppi. Heldur fyrr enn seinni, tí nýtslan bara veksur og einki tamarhald er á vøkstrinum. Vit hava enn ikki funnið nakað, sum fult og heilt kann setast í staðin, og trupulleikarnir í núverandi orkuveitingarskipanunum vaksa skjótari, enn vit náa at loysa teir. Hóast vit finna kolvetni, sum skal eitast at nøkta tørvin í 100-200 ár framyvir, so megnar framleiðslu- og flutningskervið kortini ikki at fylgja við, m.a. tí at fólkavøksturin, og tískil tørvurin, veksur eksponentielt - tvs. alsamt skjótari.

Vakstrarhugsjónin, sum okkara núverandi samfelagsskipan byggir á, hevur avdúkað seg sum ein hvørvisjón. Tann sosiala, politiska, búskaparliga og umhvørvisliga leiðin, vit ganga í løtuni hevur so dyggiliga prógvað, at hon als ikki er farbær. Trúgvin á óendaligan vøkstur er infantil utopisk sjálvsgyklan. Men tey, ið sita við valdinum, lata eyguni fast aftur - og vilja ikki viðurkenna henda veruleika og kunnu tískil heldur ikki loysa trupulleikarnar, ið standast av honum.

Ovurnýtsla týnir heimin

Tey, ið ráða fyri borgum, hava givið følsk lyfti um, at til ber at fáa "eitt betri lív" gjøgnum ovurnýtslu. Vanligi borgarin hevur fingið fyrigyklað, at tað er gott at keypa alskyns vørur, honum í veruleikanum ikki nýtist. Men ráðini eru ikki longur til at byggja enn fleiri risa handilsmiðstøðir og keypa enn fleiri bilar til at koyra í til handilsmiðstøðirnar, sum brúka enn meira benzin - harav tað mesta er fíggjað fyri læntar pengar.

Farið er framvið hægsta punktið á kurvini - sonevnda peak oil-punktið - tvs. har oljuframleiðslan her eftir ikki longur fer at kunna fylgja við eftirspurninginum eftir olju - við ógvusligum avleiðingum fyri heimsbúskapin. Vit uppliva longu nú eina heimsumfatandi fíggjarkreppu, sum í stóran mun hongur saman við hesum.

Men vit halda á at royna at økja um nýtsluna, samstundis sum vit útpína og oyðleggja jørðina fyri at framleiða óneyðugar marglætisvørur, har av ein risastórur partur als ikki verður brúktur, men blakaður burtur til onga verðsins nyttu, antin av handilsmiðstøðunum, áðrenn vørurnar yvirhøvur verða seldar - ella av húsarhaldunum sjálvum, antin tí farið er framvið síðsta søludag, ella tí fólk veruliga ikki hava brúk fyri vøruni. Og hetta hendir, alt meðan 1 mia. heimsborgarar svølta og 4.000 fólk - harav 700 børn - doyggja av hungri í meðal um tíman! Vit kunnu stutt sagt ikki loyva okkum at innrætta heimin soleiðis!

Frælsi at vera skuldarbundin?

Skulu vit framhaldandi leggja lív okkara í hendurnar á fólki, sum billa okkum inn, at okkara vælferð og allur framburður er grundaður á óavmarkaðan vøkstur, tá vit við vissu vita, at hetta ikki ber til í longdini? Tilfeingið er, sum sagt, avmarkað. Dálka og útpína vit skjótari, enn náttúran nær at rætta tað uppaftur, sigur tað seg sjálvt, at tað gongur galið.

Einum nýtist heldur ikki at vera búskaparfrøðingur fyri at rokna út, at fólk ikki kunnu blíva við at brúka meira enn tey forvinna. Rokningin má gjaldast so ella so, og hetta gongur út yvir onkran onkustaðni ella onkuntíð. Kunnu vit blíva við at fíggja eitt so høgt og tilgjørt livistøði fyri læntar pengar? Kunnu Føroyar og onnur lond halda á at fíggja livistøði sítt við lánum úr øðrum londum, sum ofta sjálvi eru skuldarbundin, og sum eisini senda rokningina víðari? Hvør skal gjalda marglætislevnaðin í síðsta enda?

Um vit framhaldandi lata okkum skunda til at keypa og brúka støðugt meira og lata okkum lokka til at taka fleiri lán fyri at fíggja henda lívsstíl, so førir tað einans við sær, at tað má arbeiðast meira og meira fyri at kunna gjalda lánini aftur. Ella eisini noyðast vit at senda rokningina víðari onnur, sum als ikki hava átt nakran lut í okkara marglæti.

Kunnu vit halda á at lata fólk skuldarbinda seg so nógv, at tey gerast skuldartrælir mesta av lívinum - ja, kanska mugu flyta skuldarbyrðuna fleiri ættarlið fram - og so blíva við at billa inn í fólk, at vit liva í "fría heiminum"? Hvat munnu okkara børn og teirra børn, sum skulu bløða fyri okkara skuld, fara at halda um arvin frá okkara ættarliði?

Luttaka í risastórum pyramiduspæli

Henda ábyrgdarleysa atferð, stuðlað av politisku og fíggjarligu leiðarum okkara, saman við eini skipan, sum loyvir hesum ábyrgdarloysi, hevur ført til botnleysa skuld og ta hættisligu støðuna, sum vit uppliva nú í nógvum "framkomnum" londum. Er tað rætt og skilvíst at halda lív í eini slíkari skipan, sum í botn og grund byggir á somu grundreglur, sum sonevnd pyramiduspøl gera? Nøkur fá vælbjargað vinna sær stórt ríkidømi og vald, meðan vanligi borgarin endar við at liva niðurbundin sum skuldartrælur fyri at fíggja vandamiklu og ikki-burðardyggu ovurnýtsluna, sum ríkar tey fáu upp, men oyðileggur lívsgrundarlagið fyri øll onnur.

Fíggjarskrædlið fer sum ein hvirluvindur um heimin allan í løtuni og hevur skumpað nógvar landsbúskapir út í óføri."Ríki" heimurin er vorðin so skuldarbundin, at nógv lond hava ongan tjans til nakrantíð at rinda skuldina aftur. Hugsa bara um Grikkaland, Ísland, Írland - og fleiri onnur lond, sum fella sum korthús í løtuni á hesi kontu. Halda vit veruliga, at tað steðgar har? Sjálvt USA skyldar nú so nógvar pengar, at meira og meira bendir á, at hetta einaferð so sterka heimsveldið kann fara á húsagang við óhugnaligum avleiðingum fyri allan heim. Halda vit, at vit sleppa undan? Tað er avgjørt ikki nógv, ið bendir á tað.

Onnur fíggjarskipan neyðug

Verandi fíggjarskipan er serstakliga effektiv, tá tað kemur til at skapa veruligt ríkidømi um til ríkidømi, sum í veruleikanum bert finst á pappírinum ella í telduskipanum. Men hon byggir á eina hvørvisjón uttan veruligt innihald, sum í veruleikanum bert førir við sær hættisligar fíggjarligar, sosialar og umhvørvisligar avleiðingar fyri samfelagið sum heild. Rík fólk gerast á henda hátt enn ríkari, men tað er samstundis eisini beini vegurin til kollektivt sjálvmorð.

Aðrir mátar at veita borgarunum neyðugar fíggjartænastur, sum eru fyrimunarligari, og minni kostnaðarmiklar, mugu finnast. Hví skal skattaborgarin t.d. bløða fyri ábyrgdarloysið hjá fíggjarstovnunum? Eru fíggjarstovnarnir veruliga so avgerandi týdningarmiklir, at teir hava uppiborið, at almennir kassar av sær sjálvum lata seg upp og bjarga teimum úr avleiðingunum av teirra egna hættisliga virksemi? Fíggjarstovnar framleiða einki, sum hevur veruligt grundleggjandi virði fyri samfelagið og nøkta ongan tørv, sum ikki kundi verið nøktaður á onkran annan hátt.

Í síðsta enda snýr tað seg um, hvørjum endamáli, vit ynskja, at fíggjarheimurin skal tæna - ella hvørji verulig virði, hann skal byggja á. Skal hann raðfesta pengar fram um lív? Skal hann raðfesta ríkidømi til tey fáu ella vælferð fyri øll? Um kannað varð eftir, høvdu tey flestu uttan iva ynskt, at verandi óstøðugu fíggjarstovnar verða skiftir út við meira álítandi stovnar, leiddir av ábyrgdarfullum fólkum, sum taka atlit at samfelagnum sum heild og ikki bara tæna sjálvsøknum áhugamálum hjá teim fáu, sum skulu eitast at "eiga" bankarnar. Fíggjarstovnar mugu nøkta ein veruligan tørv í samfelagnum, sum samsvarar við veruleikan her í 21'ndu øld, nú vit eru vorðin greið yvir, at tað ikki ber til at halda á sum fyrr við óskerdum vøkstri, men at vit mugu seta javnvág og burðardygd í hásæti ístaðin. Men hvør skipan skapar best gróðrarbotn fyri hesum?

Eingin samfelagsskipan enn gagnað øllum

Hóast bæði góðar og drúgvar útbúgvingar og eina rúgvu av royndum, hava alheims politisku og fíggjarligu leiðslur og ráðgevar teirra ikki megnað at sæð skriftina á vegginum. Tey hava ikki megnað at stýrt londunum á skilvísan og burðardyggan hátt og hava ikki tryggjað sær, at framd mistøk verða rættað - heldur ikki í teim sokallaðu 'demokratisku' londunum. Tey hava stutt sagt ikki tænt fólkinum - hvørki tí felags besta ella frælsi hins einstaka, sum ein skuldi trúð, demokratiskar leiðslur áttu.

Ístaðin síggja vit, at lobbyistar og serlig áhugamál fáa loyvi til at ávirka lóggevararnar til at gera lógir, sum mest tæna stuttskygdum egináhugamálum hjá teimum fáu, men ikki áhugamálunum hjá vanliga borgaranum. Her er í veruleikanum talan um oligarki, har ávirkanin og reella valdið liggur í hondunum á teim fíggjarsterku. Hvar er frælsið og demokratisku rættindini, tá samfelagsins byrður sum vanligt enda á herðunum hjá miðal hampafólki, sum í dýrum dómum skal gjalda fyri marglætið, mistøkini og fyrilitar- og ábyrgdarloysið hjá teim fáu valdmiklu? Søgan endurtekur seg. Vit kalla bara mekanismurnar okkurt annað í dag.

Men hvat kann setast ístaðin fyri hesa skipan? Tað er eyðsýnt, at eingin samfelagsskipan enn - hvørki til vinstru ella høgru - hevur megnað at umsita samfeløgini og náttúrunar tilfeingið, soleiðis at tey eru til størst møguligt gagn bæði fyri livistøðið og fyri frælsi hjá øllum borgarum.

"Business as usual" ber ikki til

Tað er alstórur tørvur fyri sunnum skilvísi, nú heimsins fólk mugu finna út av, hvussu siglt verður úr hesi hættisligu kós, heimurin í løtuni siglur. Ein tilgongd má finnast, sum sær heilt burtur frá fastløstum politiskum ideologium og atlitum til fíggjarstovnar og serfrøði, sum í veruleikanum bert tæna sær sjálvum og - tilvitað ella ótilvitað - ikki taka hædd fyri samanhangunum millum allar menniskjaskaptu vandarnar, ið hótta heimin.

Halda vit fram við "business as usual", halda vit eisini fast í eini hættisligari hvørvisjón. Vit kunnu ikki halda fram við at vóna, at alt á ein ella annan hátt fer at gangast væl kortini, um bara vit lurta eftir okkara vanligu serfrøði og okkara politisku leiðslum, tí tað er ikki hagani, broytingarnar til tað betra fara at koma. Okkum nýtist nakað annað - ein heilt nýggjan hugburð. Hugskot frá øllum síðum mugu sleppa framat - ikki bara tey hugskotini, ið tey, sum sita við valdinum, hava góðkent sum stuðulsverd.

Almenna kjakið fer enn fram í miðlunum fyri ein stóran part, men sum er, er hetta kjakið ikki konstruktivt. Tað avmarkar seg fyrst og fremst til at peika fingrar eftir persónum: Hvør visti hvat nær? Hvørji eftirlit svóvu í tímanum og sviku, tá tað galt? Um kósin skal rættast upp aftur, hevur tað sjálvandi týdning at fáa fram í ljósið, hvussu tað kundi ganga so galið bæði her og aðrastaðni, so vit kunnu fáa strangari eftirlit og avmarkingar av frælsinum hjá pengagreðingum til at misbrúka skipanina bert til egnan stuttskygdan fyrimun. Men hetta er bert viðgerð av sjúkueyðkennum. Tað tekur ikki orsøkina til sjúkuna burtur - tað vísir ikki frameftir. Tað sæst á øllum brøgdum, at tað mugu nógv meira radikalar broytingar til. Alternativar loysnir mugu finnast, og miðlarnir mugu í nógv størri mun bjóða seg fram sum pallar, har hesi alternativ verða gjørd sjónlig og viðgjørd á skilvísan hátt.

Alternativ til okkara samfelagsskipan

Sanna alternativið til ta óskynsamu og fyrilitarleysu skipan, ið ræður í dag, er ikki ein totaliter Sovjet-kend sosialistisk ella kommunistisk samfelagsskipan, sum endar við bert at tæna diktatoriskum bureaukratum. Tað er heldur ikki eitt skinn-demokrati, sum í veruleikanum er eitt oligarki - eitt krógvað diktatur-kent vald, ið letur alla ávirkan í hendurnar á globalum, vakstrarmaniskum risafyritøkum, sum bert hugsa um egináhugamál, og sum seta seg so tungt á marknaðin og á heimsins mentala landslag, at tað køvir og skerjir initiativið og frælsið hjá tí einstaka, við sera skaðiligum avleiðingum fyri allan heim.

Nei, alternativið má vera ein sonn fólkaræðislig skipan, sum byggir á sunt skilvísi, matvørusjálvhjálpni í so stóran mun sum gjørligt og lokalt grundfestar, sjálvbjargnar búskapir, sum æra sonn marknaðarprinsipp og virka á burðardyggan hátt undir greiðum reglum, stjórnaðir og stuðlaðir av veruliga demokratiskum stjórnum, sum taka atlit at bæði frælsi hins einstaka, at samfelagnum sum heild og at náttúrunar vistfrøðiligu javnvág, soleiðis at eisini børn og barnabørn okkara kunnu rokna við at hava eina framtíð.

Størsta avbjóðingin fyri framman er at náa at fáa tíð til at skipa okkara samfeløg skilvísari, áðrenn ov seint er! Her er eingin tíð at spilla. So hetta er ein áheitan til tey ráðandi í hesum landi um, sum skjótast - áðrenn vit ikki hava ráð til tað longur - at rakna við, taka seg um reiggj og raðfesta at brúka eftirverandi fíggjarorkuna til tað, sum tryggjar lívsgrundarlag okkara best undir teim treytum, sum fara at ráða, tá vit ikki longur hava lætta atkomu til bíligt kolvetni og tí mugu leggja álit okkara á alternativar orkukeldur.

Íblástur:

Gamla Testamentið: Fyrra Sámuelsbók 2:7 - Job 31:24-25, 28 - Sálmarnir 49:16-20 - Orðtøkini 11:4 - Orðtøkini 11:28 - Orðtøkini 23:5-6 - Orðtøkini 28:20 - Orðtøkini 30:8-9 - Prædikarin 5:10 - Jeremias 5:27-31 - Jeremias 9:23-24 - Ezekiel 28:2-10

Nýggja testamentið: Matteus 6:19-21 - Matteus 6:24 - Markus 4:18-19 - Markus 10:21-27 - Lukas 3:11 - Lukas 6:30 - Lukas 8:14 - Lukas 9:25 - Lukas 12:15-21 - Lukas 12:22-32 - Lukas 12:29-34 - Lukas 12:47-48 - Lukas 14:12-14 - Lukas 14:33 - Lukas 16:9-12 - Lukas 16:13 - Lukas 16:19-31 - Ápostlasøgan 2:44-45 - Ápostlasøgan 4:32 - Ápostlasøgan 4:34-35 - Fyrra bræv Paulusar til samkomuna í Korint 4:8-21 - Seinna bræv Paulusar til samkomuna í Korint 2:17 - Bræv Paulusar til samkomuna í Filippi 4:11-12 - Fyrra bræv Paulusar til samkomuna í Tessalonika 2:5 - Fyrra bræv Paulusar til Timoteus 6:6-11 - Fyrra bræv Paulusar til Timoteus 6:8-11 - Fyrra bræv Paulusar til Timoteus 6:17-19 - Brævið til Hebrearar 13:5 - Bræv Jákups 1:9-11 - Bræv Jákups 5:1-6 - Fyrsta bræv Jóhannesar 3:16-18 - Opinbering Jóhannesar 3:17-19

Varskó til politikkarar, miðlar og fíggjarvald 2/3

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:39:00 +0000

Miðlakvørnin gruggar heldur enn at avdúka

Flestu av heimsins leiðarum, ráðandi serfrøðingum og miðlum eru ofta tætt knýttir at fíggjarvaldinum, sum í sær sjálvum hevur ført heimin út í fíggjarligt skrædl. Vandi er tí fyri, at myndin, almenningurin fær av heimsins støðu, ikki er heilt í samsvar við veruleikan. Hvat gera føroyskir miðlar fyri at avdúka sonnu myndina?

Miðsavnan av valdinum

Vit síggja eitt alheims rák, har fíggjarliga valdið verður miðsavnað hjá færri og færri fólkum. Talan er neyvan um nakra tilvitaða samansvørjing, men tað er tankavekjandi, at nógvir leiðarar og serfrøðingar verða fíggjaðir ella á annan hátt beinleiðis ávirkaðir av júst teimum fólkum, sum sita á pengunum - teimum, sum hava valdið til at velja, hvønn, tey vilja lata fígging til, og hvørja gransking tey vilja fíggja - og sum tískil lætt kunnu stýra ráðandi serfrøðini tann vegin, ið hóskar teimum best. Samstundis er tað eisini tankavekjandi, at fleiri og fleiri miðlar úti í heimi verða lagdir saman í alt størri altjóða miðlafyritøkur, sum eisini eru tætt knýttar at fíggjarvaldinum - og at alheims dagsskráin í stóran mun verður løgd av júst hesum somu miðlum.

Fría pressan er undir stórum trýsti. Nakrir av heimsins stóru siðbundnu miðlum, sum vunnu sær støðu sum journalistiskt óheftir miðlar, tá teir lítla ella onga kapping høvdu, liva enn høgt uppá ta tign, hetta gav teimum, og seta kanska enn dagsskránna í miðlaheiminum í ein ávísan mun. Men fleiri av hesum miðlum mugu sanna, at tann óheftað støða, teir fyrr høvdu, verður útholað alt meira, nú fleiri og fleiri miðlar gerast ogn hjá valdmiklum miðlamagnatum, sum seta ófrávíkilig krøv um avlop. Miðlarnir mugu í dag laga seg nógv meira til harðar marknaðartreytir, har kappast verður undir heilt øðrum fortreytum enn áður, nú ein ørgrynna av reinum undirhaldsmiðlum eru komnir á marknaðin at kappast við.

Lítil munur á alment og privat fíggjaðum miðlum

Partaeigararnir, sum eiga part í miðlunum, streingja í sínum lagi á fyri at fáa avlop av sínum íløgum. Men heldur ikki almennir miðlar sleppa undan trýstinum. Eru miðlarnir almennir, kunnu politikkarar spenna ella loysa skrúvuna, alt eftir hvussu nøgdir ella misnøgdir, teir eru við miðilin. Eisini teir sokallaðu 'óheftu' miðlarnir kenna seg tí trýstar til at framleiða meira populistiskt tilfar, sum fellur 'í smak' hjá politikkarunum - og verða sostatt beinleiðis ella óbeinleiðis stýrdir av áhugamálunum hjá teimum, sum eiga ella á annan hátt fíggja miðlarnar.

Hesir miðlar eru tí - sum ein óbeinleiðis avleiðing - farnir at líkjast meira og meira miðlunum, ið teir kappast við, sum bert hava handilslig endamál. Ja, fólk eru enntá farin at halda, at tað als ikki er neyðugt við alment fíggjaðum miðlum longur, tí tey síggja ikki tann stóra munin millum handilsligar og alment fíggjaðar miðlar meir! Fría, óhefta pressan stendur sostatt í vanda, um fígging ikki longur fæst til hana.

Ávirkanin á føroyskar miðlar uttanífrá

Hóast altjóða miðlafyritøkur ikki eiga føroysku miðlarnar, so tykist tað tó greitt, at føroyskir miðlar eru ávirkaðir av - og ofta 'mima' - sama slag av tíðindaflutningi, sum gongur aftur í øðrum miðlum uttanfyri Føroyar. Miðlarnir í Føroyum endurtaka í stóran mun tað, sum verður varpað út í teim stóru miðlunum uttanfyri Føroyar um heimsstøðuna - serliga í teim gomlu, heiðurskrýndu miðlunum, sum byggja á aldargamla siðvenju, har journalistiskur integritetur higartil tykist hava verið settur í hásæti, og har tíðindaflutningurin tí mestsum av sær sjálvum verður roknaður fyri at hava stórt trúvirði.

Tað er eitt kent fyribrygdi í miðlaheiminum, at jú fleiri miðlar bera somu tíðindi - og jú størri miðlar, jú meira 'sonn' halda fólk tíðindini vera. Øll herma meira og minni eftir hvørjum øðrum - serliga teim stóru miðlunum, so teir seta í stóran mun dagsskránna fyri alheims tíðindaflutningin. Føroyskir miðlar so at siga 'keypa' hesar 'viðtiknu sannleikar' og bera teir víðari - uttan at seta stórvegis spurnartekin við teir. Okkara miðlar so at siga lena seg uppat trúvirðinum hjá teim tignarligu miðlunum úti í heimi. Teirra trupulleiki gerst tí eisini okkara.

Miðlarnir stýrdir av peningaáhugamálum

Men tennirnar eru í stóran mun trektar úr teim miðlunum, sum okkara miðlar ofta "herma eftir". Tað ber í øllum førum til at staðfesta, at meginparturin av alheims miðlunum í longri tíð ikki tykjast at hava skilt álvaran í ráðandi heimskreppuni, tí teir megna ikki at fáa stórt meira burturúr heimskreppuni í sínum tíðindaflutningi, enn at spyrja teir somu politikkararnar og búskapar- ella samfelagsserfrøðingarnar, (ið sum sagt ofta sjálvir eru partur av somu skipan), um "vanligi borgarin kann vænta meira niðurgongd í búskapinum - ella um vit kunnu rokna við, at gongdin skjótt fer at venda aftur..."(!).

"Kritiska" viðgerðin í flestu av temum stóru miðlunum í heiminum stingur sjáldan djúpri enn, at tá tað longu ER gingið galið (so sum tá stórir bankar ella fyritøkur fara á heysin) so leypa miðlarnir á tey, sum sótu í ábyrgdarsessunum, og sum longu hava felt seg sjálvi, og kappast um at føra tey til skafottið til háð og spott og ávaring fyri almenningin. Men kanska fekst meira burtur úr at brúka orkuna til at finna fram til aftanfyriliggjandi strukturellu trupulleikarnar, sum loyvdu hesum fólkum at gera mistøk, og harvið fyribyrgja, at tað ikki hendir aftur. Men nei. Fólkini verða feld, men skipaninar yvirliva, so tá ein tíð er farin, enda vit aftur júst sama stað.

Dagligi miðlaveruleikin er, at vit sjáldan síggja miðlar gera annað enn at skava á yvirflatuni. Kanska tí annað ikki kann loysa seg? Miðlarnir kring allan heim eru fyltir av tómum undirhaldi og grunnskygdum miðlatilfari, sum rættiliga einvíst tykist dáma best at dyrka inneftirlítandi tilfar, sum hevur fokus á einstaklingin, á tað sjálvupptikna og á nærumhvørvið. Evni so sum sjálvsmenning, útsjónd, móti, spiritualitetur/ átrúnaður o.a.t. fáa lutvíst stórt pláss. Ikki tí at tað er nakað sum helst galið í hesum evnum í sær sjálvum, men tá tað verður gjørt so einvíst, so virkar tað avleiðandi og fær fólk at gloyma álvarsligar hóttanir uttanífrá, sum í veruleikanum eru nógv meira viðkomandi og nógv tað mest týdningarmikla at kunna og gera almenningin tilvitandi um.

Journalistar undir vaksandi trýsti

Verulekin er, at journalistiska dygdin og trúvirði er í størri vanda enn nakrantíð, tí vaksandi kappingin og krøvini á miðaløkinum úrslita í títtari og títtari skoðbráum og krøvum um størri og størri tíðindanøgd fyri minni og minni pening. Hetta er ein sjálvstyrkjandi tilgongd, sum streingir hart á journalistar í miðlum kring allan heim og hevur ført við sær, at ein serligur skjóttflótandi skriviborðs-miðlaveruleiki verður framdyrkaður, ið skoytar á tromini og ikki torir (ella ikki hevur tíð ella orku) at fara í dýpdina. Hesi vilkor trýsta sjálvt teir mest samvitskufullu journalistarnar til at leypa uppum, har garðurin er lægstur.

Fólk hava vant seg so mikið nógv við henda endaleysa streymin av skjótt søgdum tíðindum og grunnum tíðindastubbum í miðlunum, at fólk hava lyndi til at halda, at hetta er einasti mátin, miðlarnir kunnu endurspegla veruleikan - enntá journalistarnir sjálvir. Nógv okkara eru vorðin so von við henda mátan, at vit gloyma at seta spurnartekin við tað. Men eitt ella annað stað kennist tað helst innantómt fyri mong. Tað mesta fer bara framvið uttan at vit gáa stórvegis um tað.

Undirhaldsvirðið framum sannleiksvirðið

Nú tá miðlarnir sjálvir hava tynt sogið so nógv, mugu teir í hørðu kappingini um miðlabrúkararnar í stóran mun síla teirra egnu endurspeglan av veruleikanum eftir einum leisti, har tað, sum er mest sensasjonelt, verður raðfest hægst. Tað ræður í nógvum miðlum ikki longur líka nógv um at avdúka sannleikar, sum tað ræður um at framleiða "góðar søgur", sum selja - tvs. søgur, sum fólk tíma at lesa, síggja ella hoyra. Samstundis fær alt tað, sum IKKI kemur fram í miðlunum, tí tað ikki eru nóg góðar ella áhugaverdar søgur, minni relevans, tí vit fáa jú einki at vita um tað.

Journalistar/ritsjórar tosa um at raðfesta "ta góðu søguna". Men hvat er "ein góð søga"? Er tað tann søgan, sum lýsir sannleikan neyvast? Ella er tað søgan, sum øsir kenslurnar mest? Forteljitekniskt tykjast journalistiskar søgur serliga í sensasjónsmiðlum alt meira bygdar upp og frambornar eftir einum leisti, sum í veruleikanum hoyrir heima í fiktiónini - men sum journalistar í hesum miðlum er farnir at brúka í sínum søgum, tí hesin leisturin er effektivur, tá tað ræður um at vekja ans.

"Vesentligheitskriteriið" í hesum miðlum tykist mest verða stýrt av, hvat ið hevur mest forargingar- og/ella undirhaldsvirði. Vinklar verða spentir á tamb fyri at kroysta tær mest sensasjonellu yvirskriftirnar úr søgunum, so tær gerast meira 'spennandi' og betur fanga eygað. Forteljiteknikkur og figurar frá fiktiónini - antagonisturin / protagonisturin (hetjan / bakbeistið) - eru fluttir inn í journalistikkin. Heldur enn at leita eftir sannleikanum, tykjast journalistarnir at leita meira eftir hetjum og bakbeistum - allarhelst bakbeistum - at manna sínar søgur við. Teir fara tí eftir manninum, heldur enn eftir bóltinum.

Kritiskur journalistikkur bert eitt eiti

Hetta líður avdúkandi journalistikkurin undir. Kritiskur journalistikkur er í mongum miðlum kring heimin eftirhondini bara eitt eiti av sær sjálvum. Gamaní, ein rúgva av atfinningarsomum spurningum verða settir intervjúofrunum, so tað sær út sum "kritiskur journalistikkur", men ofta tykjast journalistarnir lítið áhugaðir í at lurta eftir svarunum. Hvat nú um tey, sum eru útvald til at spæla "bakbeistið" í søguni, vísa seg at at vera heilt vanlig fólk - og als ikki so beistaktig? So fer luftin jú úr "góðu søguni"! So tað ræður um ikki at geva "ofrunum" ov nógva talutíð - ella at benda tað, tey siga, so tað hóskar til fyritreytirnar í søguni - har ein so altíð kann umbera seg við, at ein rættur journalistur ikki má vera "mikrofonhaldari". Eg havi hoyrt, at hetta er ein vanlig viðmerking á donskum redaksjónum í skemti at siga: "Grav nu ikke for dybt, så du dræber historien!"

Nógvir journalistar vilja halda uppá, at teir eru høgt hevjaðir upp um at dyrka slík undirhaldsprinsipp í teirra journalistikki - og tað er eisini møguligt, at nógvir teirra eru tað, ella at hetta ikki er eitt tilvitað endamál í øllum førum. Men til ber at staðfesta, at tað gerst alt vanligari, at intervjú eisini í meira seriøsum miðlum - ístaðin fyri at halda fokus á at avdúka okkurt, sum kann brúkast til nakað - líkjast undirhaldandi kappingum um, hvør er besti retorikarin, hvør dugir best at seta hvønn uppá pláss - ella hvør kann útstilla hvønn persón mest sum syndabukk, vit onnur kunnu forargast um.

Tað er møguligt, at hetta ikki er tilvitað, men nógvir av heimsins miðlum tykist at avmarka seg alt meira til at tekkjast lægsta felagsnevnara, har tað ræður um at finna "offur", sum miðlakvørnin kann mala til fars og spýta út aftur sum grunt undirhald ella øsing fyri fjøldina, heldur enn at tæna nøkrum góðum endamáli. Tað kann onkuntíð fatast sum, at jú meira dám av einum Jerry Springer-líkum "freak show", ein sending/grein hevur, jú meira innari svínahundurin verður kitlaður, jú betri.

Kitla innara svínahundin

Fyri summi kann tað persónliga gerast ein vanlukka at verða mald í miðlakvørnini. Fyri onnur er tað vorðið gerandiskostur og bara ein partur av arbeiðsvilkorunum - kanska serliga fyri tey veruligu bakbeistini. Um so er, at miðlarnir endiliga finna eitt satt bakbeist at koyra í kvørnina, fær tað so nakrar avleiðingar fyri viðkomandi at vera avdúkaður? Nei, sjáldan, tí í morgin hava miðlarnir kastað seg yvir eina nýggja sensasjón, eitt nýtt offur, ein nýggjan syndabukk, eitt nýtt "freak show", sum upptekur sinnini, so fólk sleppa at smáøsa seg og at nøkta grenji-genið.

Í dagsins skjóttflótandi miðlaveruleika gerast dagsins tíðindi skjótari og skjótari "óaktuell" og verða løgd til viks og gloymd, so okkurt nýggjari kann sleppa framat. Hvussu nógv fólk - politikkarar o.o., sum javnliga eru undir ágangi frá miðlunum - hava ikki upplivað, at tey bara skuldu vápna seg við tolni og "ríða stormin av", so kundu tey halda fram, sum um einki var hent? Hvørja nyttu gera miðlarnir tá?

Spæl fyri gallarínum varðveitir valdið

Kunnu vit av røttum kalla slíkt "avdúkandi journalistikk"? Er hetta fingrapeikaríið og dagsins øsi-fix ikki meira at samanbera við eitt spæl fyri gallarínum, sum miðlar og makthavarar spæla við hvønnannan fyri at halda hvørjum øðrum uppá pláss, har tey sita - nemliga við valdinum? Hesi liva jú í sera stóran mun av hvørjum øðrum. Miðlarnir spæla við fyri at hava okkurt at eksponera og gera søgur um - og fyri at tryggja sær sína fígging ikki minst, meðan makthavararnir spæla við mest fyri at fáa eksponeringina - næstan sektin á á hvønn hátt, bara tey eru sjónlig. Eru miðlarnir ov grovir, fellir sympatiurin ofta til "ofrið", so tað man ikki vera so hættisligt at stilla upp í miðlunum kortini.

Men fáa tey, sum lurta, hyggja ella lesa, veruliga nakað burtur úr hesum almenna sýnisglugga fyri politikkaranna og miðlanna glæntrileik? Fáa tey nakað viðkomandi at vita, sum fer afturum spælið, lærir tey nakað nýtt og førir tey víðari fram móti skilabetri loysnum á samfelagsins trupulleikar...?

Stuttskygd áhugamál stýra

Sannleikin er helst tíanverri, at her eru kreftir uppá spæl, sum ikki tæna nøkrum góðum altruistiskum endamáli, men heldur stuttskygdum egináhugamálum á báðum síðum - bæði hjá miðlunum sjálvum og hjá teimum, sum brúka miðlarnar.

Fyri nógvar miðlabrúkarar ræður tað um at hava okkurt til at avleiða seg sjálvan við - okkurt, sum kann doyva ella fáa ein at gloyma eins egna keðiliga veruleika - antin við at droyma seg burtur til okkurt betri - ella við at lesa, hoyra ella síggja okkurt forargiligt ella syrgiligt, sum kann fáa ein til at hugsa: So ringt er tað hóast alt ikki statt hjá mær - ella: Tað er í øllum førum ikki mín skyld, men hansara/hennara skyld, dett bakbeist! Í báðum førum snýr tað seg um avleiðing.

Fyri miðlarnar ræður tað um at fáa kontanta avrokning, so ráðini verða til at framleiða tað næsta, tað næsta og tað næsta tilfarið aftur. Miðlarnir verða tí alla tíðina freistaðir til at geva fólkinum tað, fólkið tykist at eftirspyrja: antin doyvandi sovimedisin ella syndabukkar, tey kunnu avleiða sínar frustratiónir á.

Miðlar ala skúlagarðsmentalitet

Men hesin sera stutt- og grunnskygdi miðlaveruleiki elur fram og stuðlar undir ein primitivan mentalitet í samfelagnum, sum mest líkist mentalitetinum í einum skúlagarði, har øll royna at verja seg sjálvi við at vekja minst møguligan ans og peika á onnur, so tey sjálvi sleppa undan happingini. Við hesum survival-of-the-fittest frumskógarmentaliteti, venjast fólk til at hugsa sjálvsøkið og einans um dagin í dag og ikki um dagin í morgin. Av ótta fyri at koma í skotmála tora øgiliga fá at átaka sær veruliga ábyrgd - allarminst fyri teimum avleiðingum hetta ábyrgdarloysi hevur fyri okkum øll og fyri framtíð okkara. Tað bítir seg sjálvt í halan og gerst bara verri.

Hetta er so ókonstruktivt og so niðurbrótandi, at tað er beinleiðis lívshættisligt, tí tað gruggar veruleikan, ger okkum blind fyri orsøkunum til ta serstakliga vandamiklu gongd, sum í løtuni førir samfeløg kring allan heim - har í millum okkara - út í óføri og forðar fyri kjaki um veruligar loysnir og fyri tí felags altruistiska andanum, sum er fyritreytin fyri, at skilagóð fólk sleppa framat og størri neyðug átøk kunnu verða viðtikin og framd, sum kundu tryggja lívsgrundarlag okkara framyvir og bjargað heiminum undan oyðileggilsi.

Mín næsta grein er ein roynd at varpa ljós á hættisligu hvørvisjónina, okkara samfelagsskipan byggir á, og - sum alt bendir á - ber í sær vandan fyri beinleiðis týning av mannaættini.

Íblástur:

Frágreiðingar

http://vmr.fo/Files/Filer/VMR/Fragreidingar/Burdardygg_menning.PDF

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/symposium/bartlett/bartlett1.html

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/symposium/zagar/zagar.html

http://www.peakoilassociates.com/PeakOilAnalysisOctober6-2007.pdf

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/3/executive-summary-koch-indus.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecocide

Blaðgreinir

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/peak-oil-department-energy-climate-change

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/peak-oil-energy-disruption

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/bhp-billiton-potash-corp-global-crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/davos-ecology-crisis-unsustainability-threatens-business?INTCMP=SRCH

http://politiken.dk/debat/kroniker/ECE689934/trussel-mod-kritisk-journalistik/

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_23/b4181086607101.htm

http://www.thenation.com/video/157441/peak-oil-and-changing-climate

Bøkur

Richard Heinberg: The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies

Richard Heinberg: Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines

Stephen Leeb, Glen Strathy: The Coming Economic Collapse: How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs $200 a Barrel

Jeff Rubin: Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization

Stephen Leeb: Game Over: How You Can Prosper in a Shattered Economy

John Michael Greer: The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age

Jared Diamond: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

David Strahan: The Last Oil Shock

Heimasíður

http://www.postpeakliving.com/preparing-post-peak-life#
http://carolynbaker.net/

http://permatopia.com/

http://www.180grader.dk/Politik/200-maend-styrer-danmark

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5497

http://www.peak-oil-news.info/

http://peakoil.blogspot.com/

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/

http://www.3k88.com/

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_6193.cfm

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html

http://howtosavetheworld.ca/

http://www.dark-mountain.net/about-2/the-manifesto/6/

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

http://www.neweconomyworkinggroup.org/blog/missing-vision

Sjónbond og filmar

http://www.thenation.com/video/157441/peak-oil-and-changing-climate

http://www.collapsemovie.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/
http://www.thecorporation.com/

Bíblian

http://www.biblian.fo

Varskó til politikkarar, miðlar og fíggjarvald 1/3

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:31:00 +0000

"Ballið er búið" - dómadagsprofeti ella realisma?

Eyðsýndu trupulleikarnir, vit uppliva í Føroyum í løtuni, tykjast ongan enda at taka. Tíð er at taka seg um reiggj, men politiska leiðslan tykist als ikki viðurkenna, at Føroyar eru í djúpari kreppu, sum kann gerast nógv verri, um einki verður gjørt fyri at fyribyrgja tí. Men hvat gera politikkararnir við tað?

Føroyingar fingu annars ein ordans kvøkk - m.a. nú ein av størstu bankum og ein av størstu fyritøkum okkara fóru á heysin. Men tað steðgar ikki har. Dýr olja og fakfelagsstríð úrslita í einum fiskiflota, sum liggur við kai; fiskivinnan gevur einki avlop; vit stríðast við londini kring okkum um avmarkaða tilfeingið í havinum og missa altjóða góðkenningar av veiðu okkara sum burðardyggari veiðu, við stórum avleiðingum fyri søluvirðið av okkara fiski; vørur eru nógv dyrkaðar; arbeiðsloysið og fátækradømið veksur, so familjur ganga nærum svangar; stórt undirskot er á fíggjarlógini og á handilsjavnanum, meðan tørvurin á almennum íløgum bara veksur osfr. Hetta eru serstakliga nógvir samfelagstrupulleikar, sum plága okkum í senn.

Einstaklingar neyvan ábyrgdina

Í tíðindaflutningi og í almenna kjakinum fær ein ofta ta fatan, at samfelagstrupulleikarnir verða sæddir sum einstøk fyribrigdi, óheft av hvørjum øðrum, og helst úrslit av ódugnaskapi hjá einstaklingum - tað verið seg politikkarum, banka- ella vinnulívsfólki, sum ikki hava umsitið sína ábyrgd nóg væl. Hetta er uttan iva rætt í ávísan mun.

Men hevði tað verið stórt øðrvísi, fyri tað um leiðslurnar vóru skiftar út? Neyvan. Tí hetta stingur nógv djúpri enn bert til vantandi persónligar leiðsluførleikar hjá einstaklingum. Tað hevði eyðvitað verið skilabetri at hugt at trupulleikunum sum úrslit av einum yvirskipaðum trupulleika. Tað átti ikki at verið nøkur loyna, at teir trupulleikar, sum vit uppliva í Føroyum í dag, avgjørt ikki eru nakað eindømi í heimshøpi. Onnur lond, sum byggja á somu skipan sum okkara, uppliva júst somu trupulleikar sum vit.

Venda blinda eygað til

Um ein peilar av kring heimin, hvat hendir júst í løtuni, so gerst tað sólarklárt - bara við at brúka eitt sindur av skilvísari meting - at her ruggar ikki rætt. Einum nýtist ikki at vera serfrøðingur og at hava skrivað doktararitgerðir um búskap ella samfelagsvísindi fyri at finna út av, at her er okkurt spinnandi galið í heiminum á so nógvum ymiskum økjum. Tað verið seg á fíggjarliga, sosiala, rættarliga, samfelagsliga ella umhvørvisliga økinum osfr. - fyri bara at nevna nøkur dømi um øki, har trupulleikar bara tykjast at vaksa.

Tað tykist sum um, at politisku og fíggjarligu leiðslurnar - ikki bara í Føroyum, men kring allan heim - og við teimum eisini búskaparligu serfrøðingarnir og lóggávuvaldið - umframt (og ikki minst) miðlarnir - í stóran mun hava tikið høvdið undir armin, tí tey hava leingi vent blinda eygað til allar reyðu lampurnar, sum ávaraðu um tað alheims fíggjarliga ódnarveður, sum vit uppliva í løtuni, ið heilt eyðvitað fór at koma - og sum sannlíkt bara er toppurin av ísfjallinum.

Okkara trupulleikar ikki eindømi

Lat meg nevna bara nakrar trupulleikar - bæði globalar og lokalar, sum eru sera viðkomandi fyri øll og upplagdir fyri miðlarnar at viðgera í nógv størri mun, enn teir hava verið higartil. Her eru bara nakrir av teim sera hættisligu trupulleikunum, nógv lond dragast við - t.d.:

at undirskotið á fíggjarlógini veksur alsamt meira
at undirskotið á handilsjavnvágini veksur alsamt meira
at alheims frymlar fyri fíggjarvøkstur eyðsýnt ikki eru burðardyggir
at nakrir av heimsins fremstu búskaparfrøðingum, umframt oljuvinnan sjálv, hava - á síðstu altjóða ráðstevnuni hjá WEF (World Economic Forum) í Davos í Schweitz her í januar 2011 - viðgingið, at alt bendir á, at heimurin er longu farin um 'peak oil' punktið - tvs. at eftirspurningurin eftir olju veksur skjótari enn gongdin at finna og útvinna nýggja olju
at alheims fólkavøksturin veksur eksponentielt (í ár fer talið upp um 7 mia.!)
at fólkavøksturin fær eftirspurningin eftir fleiri matvørum, hentleikum og orku at vaksa so skjótt, at ídnaðurin/marknaðurin ikki kann nøkta tørvin
at økti eftirspurningurin førir við sær ógvusligar kostnaðarhækkingar, ið gera búskapin sera óstøðugan
at nógv dýrkaðar vørur minka um livistøðið, alt meðan munurin gerst alt størri millum 'vanliga' fólkið og tey vælbjargaðu - eisini í ríka partinum av heiminum
at tað er inflasjón - tvs. at munurin millum lønarstøðið og livikostnaðarstøðið veksur í stórum
at framleiðsluliðið er so bundið at skjótt dýrkandi orkukeldum, sum í flestum londum mugu keypast og innflytast úr øðrum londum
at framleiðsluliðið minkar í stórum í flest londum í vesturheiminum
at arbeiðspláss minka í stórum talið og verða flutt til onnur fjarløgd lond
at arbeiðsloysið veksur í stórum
at miðalstættin minkar í stórum (serliga í USA)
at fleiri og fleiri liva undir fátækramarkinum, eisini í ríka heiminum
at fleiri og fleiri liva undir hungursmarkinum í heiminum sum heild
at fleiri og fleiri missa trygdina fyri at fáa (rætta) sjúkraviðgerð
at vaksandi (ovur)nýtsla økir um dálkingina og oyðingina av náttúruni, meðan vistfrøðiliga javnvágin fer alsamt meir av lagi og ger fólk sjúk
at atgongdin til feskt vatn minkar í stórum og at feska vatnið er í vanda fyri at ganga undan í nógvum pørtum av heiminum - eisini í ríka heiminum
at alheims veðurlagsbroytingarnar gerast alt meira eyðsýndar
at økt miðsavnan av miðlaeigaraskapi avmarkar óheftan og djúptgangandi tíðindaflutning, so fólk ikki gerast greið yvir vandan, tey liva í
at fíggjarheimurin hevur so stóra - og ofta korrumperandi - ávirkan á politikkin
at illa virkandi og fastlæstar stjórnir ikki tykjast førar fyri at leiða lond síni uttanum afturvendandi kreppur
at fleiri og fleiri pensjónsgrunnar fara á húsagang
at sosial- og sjúkratryggingar eru so óstøðugar og hava so lítið politiskt støðufesti, at tær sannlíkt ikki fara at megna at svara framtíðar skyldum
at fyritøkur verða lagdar saman og gerast so stórar, at tær eru "too big to fail"
at bankakervið og almennar fíggjarskipanir støðugt liggja á markinum til samanbrot
at lánibyrðan hjá privatum og hjá fyritøkum veksur alsamt meira
at talið av partabrøvum o.ø. derivatum, sum bert hava virði á pappírunum, veksur eksponentielt
at peningamongdin í ymsum londum ikki er verulig, men tilgjørd, og veksur í stórum, so vandin fyri devaluering veksur við ógvusligum avleiðingum fyri vanliga fólkið
at tað er manglandi gjøgnumskygni í heimsbúskapinum, nú USA hevur valt ikki longur at veita hagtøl fyri M3 peningamongdina (sí á Wikipedia undir 'Money Supply')
at fíggjarstovnar ofta verða umskipaðir uttan fyrilit
at Fiat gjaldoyra (sí Wikipedia undir 'Fiat money') verður mislíkahildið av ábyrgdarhavarum
at eitt vaksandi tal av fyritøkum søkja sær skattaskjól í øðrum londum
at lond luttaka í fleiri sera konstnaðarmiklum kríggjum í øðrum londum, sum hava vart longri enn Annar Veraldarbardagi, og sum eingin endi tykist vera á
at nógv vaksandi útreiðslur til tað almenna avmarka fíggjarliga mobilitetin og frælsið hjá einstaklingum og fyritøkum
at grundlógartryggjað rættindi og rættarvernd verður útholað
at fleiri og fleiri fangar sita í fongslum kring heimin
at talið av valdsgerðum veksur og yvirgangurin gerst ógvusligari

Omanfyristandandi listi er á ongan hátt fullfíggjaður, men hann lýsir greitt truplu støðuna, heimurin er í - ikki minst Føroyar! So nógvar avbjóðingarnar í senn taka orkuna, so minni yvirskot er til at loysa trupulleikarnar. Hesin negativi snyril, heimurin er komin inn í, er kanska allarstørsti trupulleikin.

Tað løgna er, at miðlarnir gera lutfalsliga lítið burtur úr hesum - als ikki í ein mun, so vanliga fólkið fær varhugan av, hvussu álvarslig støðan veruliga er. Tað er sjáldsamt at síggja hetta viðgjørt við tí álvara, ómaki og áhaldni, sum krevst, fyri at almenningurin fær rættiligt innlit í, hvussu stórir trupulleikarnir eru, hvørjar veruligu orsøkirnar til trupulleikarnar eru - enn minni, hvussu trupulleikarnir verða loystir! Sum kunnugt ber ikki til at loysa trupulleikar, ein ikki hevur eyðmerkt, ei heldur kennir orsøkina til. Heimsins trupulleikar eru so mikið álvarsligir - eisini um ein bara hyggur at teimum einstøku trupulleikunum hvør sær - at bara onkrir av teimum áttu at verið høvuðssøgur hvønn tann einasta dag í heimsins størstu og valdmiklastu miðlum, men tað eru teir ikki. Ein kann spyrja seg sjálvan hví.

Føroyar "in deep shit"

Í Føroyum hava vit, eins og onnur úti í heimi, riðið á eini bylgju, har vit - ella nøkur okkara - hava jonglerað við stórum virðum á pappírinum, men sum í veruleikanum ikki vóru meira verd enn páppírið, hesi sokallaðu "virði" vóru skrivað á. Bløðran er brostin - keisarans klæði eru ikki til, men kortini tykjast mong ikki ordiliga at rakna við enn - allarminst politikkararnir, sum tykjast at standa púra ráðaleysir. Tað er, sum um teir halda, at tað bara er ein óndur dreymur, og at vit skjótt fara at vakna úr honum. Men nei. Trupulleikarnir steðga ikki har, tí búskapur okkara hvílur als ikki á tryggari grund fyri tað, um Fíggjarligt Støðufesti - at síggja til - seinkaði ferðini "niður í avgrundina".

Nógvar reyðar lampur blinka í Føroyum í løtuni, nú Fiskavirking er farið á heysin og flotin liggur við kai. Hvat nú um oljan bara dýrkar og dýrkar, sum nógv bendir á, at hon fer? Sveiggini í heimsbúskapinum eru so ógvuslig í løtuni, at tað ikki er ósannlíkt, at oljan knappliga kann gerast dupult so dýr, sum hon er nú, har hon longu er dupult so dýr, sum hon var fyri bara fáum árum síðani. Hvat gera vit í Føroyum, um hetta hendir? Kanska longu innanfyri fá ár, sum summi óttast? Hvat gera vit, tá tað ikki longur kann loysa seg hjá fiskiskipunum at royna eftir fiski? Hvussu fáa vit so okkara vinnulív og búskap til at hanga saman?

Vit mugu staðfesta, at Føroyar eru ósjálvbjargnar á flest øllum økjum, av tí at her innflyta vit mestsum alt, sum vit brúka. Alt skal flytast yvir stórar frástøður við farmaskipum, tí vit eru so fjarskotin. Farmaflotin kann ikki sigla uttan olju. Umframt at nógv av fiskinum, sum vit skulu liva av, ikki kemur til lands og ikki kann avreiðast uttan eitt fiskiflota, sum heldur ikki kann sigla uttan olju. Øll ferðsla annars til og úr landinum - loftvegis og sjóvegis - er eisini 100 prosent bundin at oljuni.

Ov seint, tá oljan ER ov dýr

Tað skal ikki nógv hugflog til at síggja, at vit eru sera, sera sárbær, um oljan dýrkar enn meira! Men hvussu nógvir politikkarar eru ella hava verið nóg framskygdir til alment at bera fram visjónir um eina Plan B fyri Føroyar, um oljan gerst ov dýr? Hvussu nógvar politkkarar hava vit her í Føroyum, sum raðfesta at finna - skjótar (!) - loysnir, sum kunnu gera okkum minni sárbær og leysari av dýru oljuni?

Hví hava myndugleikar okkara ikki langt síðani syrgt fyri, at orkunýtslan hvílur nógv meira á burðardygga, varandi orku - so sum vatn, vind, sól, sjóvarfall og aldu? Tí tað má sjálvandi henda ongantíð nóg skjótt! Tað er ov seint at seta hetta í gongd, tá vit ikki longur hava ráð til at gjalda fyri oljuna!

Hví hevur ikki verið hugsað meira um at fyribyrgja kreppuni í teim góðu árunum við at gera størri íløgur í verkætlanir, sum skuldu tryggja okkum betri í ringum árum? Tað kann ikki taka fólka bóli, at oljan ikki fór at vera nøkur varandi orkukelda. Longu í 2002 varð uppkast gjørt til føroyska ætlan um burðardygga menning, men hví hevur verið so lítið at sæð til hetta síðani? Politikkarar tosa enn um at seta risastórar, lítið virðisskapandi ørvitisverkætlanir í verk, ístaðin fyri at brúka fíggjarorkuna til at taka stig, sum gera Føroyar meira sjálvbjargnar á orkuøkinum og harvið búskapin minni sárbæran. Hetta sigur alt um, hvussu lítið teir taka støðuna, vit eru í, í álvara.

Politikkarar og miðlar líka sein

Tað finnast nógv, sum hava roynt at tikið stig til framtíðartryggjaðar loysnir á orkuspurningin, men hava hesi fólkini fingið tað plássið í miðlunum, sum svarar til tann týdningin, teirra verkætlanir veruliga hava fyri framtíðina? Spurningurin er, um manglandi íløguviljin m.a. er ein avleiðing av, at miðlarnir ikki hava verið nóg áhugaðir í at varpa ljós á hesi umráðandi mál í nóg stóran mun. Miðlarnir tykjast líka so lítið áhugaðir í alternativum verkætlanum, sum tey, ið sita við valdinum, tykjast vera.

Í øllum førum ber til at staðfesta, at miðlarnir ofta so makliga "gloyma" at viðgera - ikki bara hetta, men eisini onnur sera álvarslig og umráðandi samfelagslig mál - ella fara alt ov lættliga og grunnskygt um tey. Tí Harragud veit, at her er nógv, sum tað er alneyðugt at varpa ljós á í miðlunum - m.a. tað, at sjálvt grundarleggjandi tilverugrundarlag mannaættarinnar kann vera álvarsliga hótt, um ikki vit taka annað skinn um bak. Um henda ignoransan er tilvitað ella ei, ber ikki til at siga, men at hon er sera høglig fyri tey, sum sita við valdinum, er eingin ivi um.

Dómadagsprofetar ella realistar?

Men ikki øll lata seg snýta. Tað er týðiligt, at ónøgdin millum vanlig fólk bara veksur - ikki bara í Føroyum, men í øllum heiminum. Tolið er uppi hjá mongum - bæði við fíggjarheiminum, við politikkarunum, við serfrøðini og við miðlunum. Tí nú eru ítøkiligar avleiðingar av teirra manglandi realitetssansi, viðsjóns- og ráðaloysi farnar at merkjast av álvara. Nú fleiri og fleiri sjálvi gerast offur, gerast tey eisini tilvitað um álvarsligu trupulleikarnar, sum herja heimin í løtuni, og kanska eisini um samanhangin aftanfyri.

Tað er alneyðugt at gera nakað við trupulleikarnar beinanvegin, um tað ikki skal enda púra galið, men nógv av teimum, sum leingi hava rópt varskó og roynt at varpa ljós á samanhangirnar, hava verið dømd sum dómadagsprofetar, heldur enn at verða tikin í álvara sum realistar - eisini hóast tey hava víst á ítøkiligar loysnir. Tey verða meira ella minni tagd burtur, meðan teir somu vanligu politikkararnir og serfrøðingarnir eru teir, sum enn lættast sleppa framat í miðlunum.

Hví fylla hesi álvarsmál so lutvíst lítið í miðlunum? Er tað tí, at tað verður hildið at vera ov fløkt at taka støðu til? Er tað tí, at miðlarnir ikki halda, at fólk orka at rúmast slíkum 'dómadagstosi'? Er tað tí, at miðlarnir óttast fyri at missa lurtarar/síggjarar/lesarar og harvið inntøkur, um tey taka slík óhugalig evni upp á tungu? Tað er spurningurin. Men úrslitið er í øllum førum, at tey, sum eiga ábyrgdina av skeivu gongdini, sleppa so gott sum ótarnað at halda fram snikkaleyst, meðan ringi standurin í heiminum bara versnar.

Í næstu greinini fari eg at viðgera leiklutin hjá miðlunum nærri, sum ístaðin fyri at brúka orkuna uppá at vísa á loysnir, brúka mestu orkuna til at peika fingrar ella framleiða doyvandi innantómt undirhald. Støðugt harðari avbjóðingar fáa miðlarnar at fara uppum, har garðurin er lægstur ella eftir lægsta felagsnevnara.

Íblástur:

Frágreiðingar

http://vmr.fo/Files/Filer/VMR/Fragreidingar/Burdardygg_menning.pdf

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/symposium/bartlett/bartlett1.html

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/symposium/zagar/zagar.html

http://www.peakoilassociates.com/PeakOilAnalysisOctober6-2007.pdf

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/3/executive-summary-koch-indus.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecocide

Blaðgreinir

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/peak-oil-department-energy-climate-change

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/peak-oil-energy-disruption

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/bhp-billiton-potash-corp-global-crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/davos-ecology-crisis-unsustainability-threatens-business?INTCMP=SRCH

http://politiken.dk/debat/kroniker/ECE689934/trussel-mod-kritisk-journalistik/

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_23/b4181086607101.htm

http://www.thenation.com/video/157441/peak-oil-and-changing-climate

Bøkur

Richard Heinberg: The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies

Richard Heinberg: Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines

Stephen Leeb, Glen Strathy: The Coming Economic Collapse: How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs $200 a Barrel

Jeff Rubin: Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization

Stephen Leeb: Game Over: How You Can Prosper in a Shattered Economy

John Michael Greer: The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age

Jared Diamond: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

David Strahan: The Last Oil Shock

Heimasíður

http://www.postpeakliving.com/preparing-post-peak-life#
http://carolynbaker.net/

http://permatopia.com/

http://www.180grader.dk/Politik/200-maend-styrer-danmark

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5497

http://www.peak-oil-news.info/

http://peakoil.blogspot.com/

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/

http://www.3k88.com/

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_6193.cfm

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html

http://howtosavetheworld.ca/

http://www.dark-mountain.net/about-2/the-manifesto/6/

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

http://www.neweconomyworkinggroup.org/blog/missing-vision

Sjónbond og filmar

http://www.thenation.com/video/157441/peak-oil-and-changing-climate

http://www.collapsemovie.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/
http://www.thecorporation.com/

Bíblian

http://www.biblian.fo/

THE GLOBAL DISNEY-WORLD

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 00:21:00 +0000

By © Elin Brimheim Heinesen, Head of Media and Development Department in Kringvarp Føroya, Faroese National Radio & Television.

The Faroese build their livelihood
mostly on available resources in the
ocean - including pilot whales.

Paul Watson and his Sea Shepherd activists, as well as others have declared war against the Faroese whalers and announced that they will be present in the Faroes in the summer 2011 to stop any attempt to drive or kill pilot whales.

The Oscar-winning documentary “The Cove” about dolphin slaughter in Taiji in Japan, has also brought attention to the pilot whale slaughter in the Faroe Islands. Many accuse the Faroese of being "sick in the head." But the Faroese believe that their practice is perfectly environmentally sound, and that it is the world out there, which has gone mad. In their opinion the world needs to learn from the Faroese much more than the other way round, if it wants to save itself from catastrophe.

Denmark's little brother in the North Atlantic, Faroe Islands, has now for a long time been at odds with a number of environmental and animal protection organizations, which fight against whaling – including the killing of pilot whales. But when the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen visited the Faroes this summer, he said that, personally, he had nothing against pilot whaling. Lars Løkke Rasmussen believes that the Danish Kingdom should support the Faroese, despite the many international protests, because, as far as he can see, pilot whales are killed in an appropriate way. As husband to a Faroese wife, Lars Løkke Rasmussen knows the Faroese position from the inside better than most. But there were many around the world, who were outraged by the Prime Minister expressing such an opinion.

Why does the Faroese pilot whale killings incite so much anger around the world? And what on earth makes the Danish Prime Minister support the pilot whale catch? Faroese people say that an important part of their identity is lost if they were forced to abandon the pilot whaling. But why is pilot whaling so important for the Faroese identity? Why do the Faroese stubbornly stick to this practice, although it obviously damages their reputation, not least their most important exports, which is the export of fish?

Faroese In Conflict With The Outside World
It is a fact that Faroese actions are no longer visible only to themselves. What they do is not only their own business any more. Just think of the current situation where fishing nations around the North Atlantic have been unable to agree on the distribution of mackerel quotas why the Faroese Fisheries Ministry has awarded the Faroese fishing vessels with quotas, which the others consider too big. It has made Scottish and Norwegian fishermen furious. At the moment they try to prevent the Faroese fishing vessels from landing mackerel in their ports.

In a world where resources are getting scarce, the Faroese can no longer be completely indifferent to what others think about their actions – no matter whether they themselves believe that they have the right on their side and the others are wrong.

Identity Evident In Cultural Divide
A controversy on mackerel quotas is perhaps not so much about identity and identity differences. But opposing attitudes to pilot whaling are an example of a conflict between the Faroese and others, which illustrates a very interesting issue, where the Faroese – at least the older generation – currently experiences a huge cultural gap between themselves and the outside world. This is something that definitely is about identity and identity differences.

The sense of identity occurs right there – in the breach of surfaces, where it becomes most obvious that we’re not like the others – in the differences between the ways to act and express ourselves. That is where we feel we have an own identity. What is it exactly that makes the Faroese identity distinct from other national identities? What is it, for instance, the Faroese do, which is totally alien to others. The pilot whaling is a very good example.

International Abhorrence Against The Faroe Islands
The Faroese have lived relatively isolated on these North Atlantic islands for one and a half millennium - and have never really been in conflict or have never provoked anyone outside the Faroe Islands (except from the Danes a few times in national community affairs, perhaps).

This was largely how things were until the 80s when the first pictures of the bloody pilot whale slaughter were shown in some major newspapers in England – after which there emerged an angry roar of unprecedented dimensions in the world against the Faroese, who suddenly became known as the worst scum, you could imagine.

All of a sudden it became evident to the Faroese – in a very direct manner, that there are other people in this world who have an entirely different worldview than they have. Suddenly, they were deluged with protests from people throughout the world. Suddenly they had to be accountable to others and explain themselves about something, which to them had been quite natural for at least 1200 years.

There are still thousands of protests pouring in through the mail slots in the Faroese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Tourism Board. Also the Danish Government gets its share. People from all corners of the world express, very passionately, how shocked they are about the killing of pilot whales in the Faroes. In their eyes, this is an outdated, cruel and brutal way of killing wonderful, innocent and intelligent animals, which in no way should be accepted in the modern world today. In return, the Faroese should be punished by boycotts and exclusion from the international community until they have learned to behave.

Incompatible Concepts Of Nature
It is possible that the Faroese were shaken at their foundation – at least initially, but it was not enough for them to stop killing whales. They keep holding on to their practice, despite continuing protests from the outside world. So why do the Faroese whalers not agree with the world out there? Are they just heartless, thick-headed idiots? How can it be that in this modern age, these people still choose to perform so-called "medieval atrocities"?

This conflict is something that has helped to force the Faroese to become more aware of who they are and why they do what they do – or at least what some of them do. The Faroese have, for example, learned that there seems to be a huge gap between – on the one hand those who live directly by and use nature – and then on the other hand, those who want to preserve nature completely untouched, but not always live in this very nature...

For those who protest against whale killing, whales are an almost holy symbol of the unspoiled, promised nature, which the terrible human race is about to eradicate – and what will be the end of us all together when the last whale is killed? While to the Faroese the pilot whaling is a living symbol of an – unspoiled – old hunting culture, which related to nature in a practical and pragmatic – and somewhat less romantic - way and utilized it in a sustainable manner – something, which the new world seems not to understand at all.

Shock Tactics Get Media Attention
If everyone tried to cool down a bit, perhaps they would find out that this conflict is something that everyone can learn something from – not just the Faroese, but also everyone else – about themselves and how to survive in the world on nature’s terms.

But this is not the way the piano plays. It's hard to get heard in a world where people are heavily bombarded with media stories all the time. The media are competing fiercely and mercilessly with each other on who can tell the most incredible, most sensational, most tearful stories. Many are therefore tempted to use emotionally manipulative shock tactics and excessive, showy rhetoric to get the attention they need. And the media swallow it raw.

This is undoubtedly one reason why, for example, anti-whaling activists use such methods when they want to 'sell' their message. But the activist’s eagerness to paint with a cruel brush results too often in stories full of factual errors. They can only appreciate that so few media ever bother to look carefully for the holes in their stories.

The Faroese have at least learned how much nonsense the media bring and how manipulative media can be. They have learned about the incredible power and influence media have in this world; how the most powerful media determine what people think – and how hard it is to do something about it. They have learned that there is a media created reality. They're just not yet as familiar with the mechanisms of the media world as others because they are novices and rough diamonds in this area vs. others. Just think about the fact that television first made its entry in the Faroe Islands in the early 80s!

Reality Fictionalized
It is therefore not an easy task for the Faroese having to behave in a world where increasing numbers of people form their worldview almost entirely through the media and entertainment industry. Most people are now exposed to a constant, massive flow of media sensations, in which reality is fictionalized and fiction becomes 'reality'. Many seem gradually to be almost more familiar with the media created 'reality' than with the real reality, if I may say so. The reality, as presented in media becomes normal, and it seems increasingly difficult for many to distinguish between reality and fiction. In such an alienated world, dramatic stories – eg. about a “cruel massacre of innocent dolphins “ – resound perfectly in many ears. People 'buy' the story right away, so to speak, and 'forget' to call into question what it is they see or hear.

Most people never get to hear the other side. Faroe Islands is a very small country, which cannot afford to get its message across. Anti-whaling activists allegations will therefore stand unchallenged.

Activists Need To Point Out Scapegoats
Many people are scared and frustrated with the development in our ailing world. Especially those who live in the western world, who deep down know that their extravagant lifestyle greatly contributes to the destruction of mother earth. But it is something that many probably prefer not to think too much about. It’s part of human nature that we do not like to blame ourselves for problems. People need a vent for frustrations and they need to soothe their guilty conscience. So they like to contribute to "save the world" with a signature to petitions, for example, so they at least have the feeling that they do something to support – apparently – good causes like campaigns against the “cruel slaughter of innocent pilot whales”. This will buy a little indulgence to ease their conscience.

It's this kind of mechanisms in the human psychology, activists can take advantage of – and the fact that so many people know so little about this small group of people, who live in a remote place in the North Atlantic, and who happen to eat pilot whales. Who does such a thing in the 21st century! It is very easy for activists to make this small group of people into the world's scapegoats. It also helps a lot that most people in the world aren’t allowed any longer to see what happens to animals in enormous farm factories and slaughter houses where meat is produced in huge masses to satisfy the insatiable market for meat products. There's a reason to why the industry tries to keep this practice a deep secret. Meanwhile the Faroese – naively perhaps – perform their bloody pilot whale slaughter in the open for everyone to see, who cares to look.

Hollywood-style Media Stories
The activists have been adept at getting attention, and they are much better and more trained than the Faroese in telling captivating media stories. By this they can win supporters and earn money, so they can get even more space in the media and entertainment industry. But in reality they do not make much difference to the cause they supposedly work for ... perhaps rather the opposite: There is much to suggest that the intrusive and often rude and disrespectful attitude of the activists, only intensify conflicts, slow the process down and defer solutions.

If the activists really were interested in making a difference and change the Faroese attitude to eating pilot whale meat, they might have more success by trying harder to talk sense to the Faroese – for example, make enlightening films about pilot whales, perhaps in Faroese language, showing respect for Faroese intelligence – rather than making a lot of noise throughout the world, moving people’s attention to their own role and highlight their own so-called 'heroic deeds', whereas the Faroese are presented as 'barbarians' and dehumanized. How much positive responsiveness from the Faroese can they expect to get out of that? What is the purpose of trying to portray the Faroese, as if they deliberately want to insult the whole world with their actions, while in fact they’re only providing food for themselves the way they’ve always done?

The Faroese have never made a secret of what they do in the Faroes and they certainly do not reject a respectful dialogue with others about how to improve their methods, if it’s possible to further improve it. But some activists just turn out to be more interested in keeping distance than to approach the Faroese. They probably need the Faroese to be their enemies to maintain and strengthen their own hero-image and to keep alive the stories about themselves in the best Hollywood-style, for instance, as "under-cover" agents "revealing the atrocities committed in the Faroe Islands" in imminent danger of being discovered and attacked by the "brutal whalers."

Such dramatic imaginative stories provide much greater resonance in the media world. Most media do no longer respect the principle of presenting the world as objectively as possible. They will rather worship hero figures fighting against evil, because such stories, based on Hollywood's narrative principles, sell a lot better.

Balance vs. Exponential Growth
The Faroese themselves see the pilot whaling as one of the few reminiscences left in the world after an old and artless way of life, well-tested through more than a millennium, where survival is based on local self-reliance, shared responsibility and solidarity, natural balance and sustainability. It is possible that this is a hard – and sometimes apparently cynical – life. It has its hardships and victims. But it’s necessary, if you want to live on what is available in your close neighbourhood, the Faroese say. This is indeed some of the principles, which experts all over the world say we need to restore, if humanity wishes to have a future.

Why should the Faroese be forced to let go of this way of life completely and go all the way and implement a modern lifestyle, which implies 100% dependence on an unstable, unsustainable system, which rewards greed because it’s based on the illusion of infinite exponential financial growth? The catastrophic consequences of such a system are – as we have seen already – that resources become extremely unevenly distributed and are used up, while the ground, the seas and the air become polluted and poisoned with accelerating speed, and sentient animals are tailored into consumer products by the billions and treated no different than exactly that: products among other products. This system is basically life-threatening and exposes us all too serious danger in the long run – not just humans but all living creatures on earth – including whales.

Isn’t this much more horrifying than the pilot whale slaughter as such? Shouldn’t all these activists, who claim that they are so much in favour of environmental and nature conservation, rather spend their energy on reversing this deadly progress and do something serious about the system that creates this development?

Can One Escape The Media Web?
But who cares? How many media bother to concern anyone with such issues and put them on the agenda? Simple and easily digestible stories about heroes, who save poor innocent whales from malicious people, are much more interesting and manageable. That other stuff is too confusing, so let’s close our eyes, so we can lull ourselves into a much more comfortable false sense of security. This is the reality the Faroese – and everyone else is up against ...

How should the Faroese relate to this reality created by the entertainment industry, which is so predominant in today's world? How can they stick to themselves and their identity, when the foreign media waves wash over the islands like tsunamis and threaten to wipe out their identity? How to tackle the fact that activists and the media out there use them to create lucrative sensational stories designating them as the villains? How to tackle the risk they face of sudden exclusion from the global community unless they start to behave like 'all others'?

What should the Faroese make of the fact that they live in a world where a global financial crisis rages because of an illusory monetary system based on false trust, while oil resources are running out, and where they – most likely – suddenly might find themselves isolated out in the North Atlantic, only able to survive by means of renewable energy, available on site – water, wind, currents, waves, their own muscle power, using skiffs and sailboats and the plants and animals that live there - on land, in the air and in the sea ... yes, whales not least ...

Admission Ticket To A Good Lifeline
The above scenario is very likely the serious challenges ahead, which the Faroese (and others) face. But it’s, perhaps, very difficult for many to imagine that such a kind of reality might be waiting just around the corner, because we are indeed 'safe' here in our lavishly decorated lounges in our lifted end aboard the Titanic. The water has not reached up to our deck yet. The lights flicker maybe a little, but we are sitting in first class and the orchestra continues to play as if nothing is going on. And we cannot see what happens in the darkness out there.

But all probability calculations show us that water is rising faster and faster and may already have reached the point where the ship is floating so heavily that it will tip and then slide straight downward in a sharp curve, pulling the whole ship down with it, fast.

But ... maybe the Faroese have just a slight advantage, if or when the world's oil resources run out or the oil becomes so expensive that the global infrastructure collapses. Instead of having to cling to the sinking ship, the Faroese are fortunate to have access ticket to one of the rescue boards, which might prove one of the safest to sit on after the sinking.

Wisdom From Before The World Went Mad
The Faroese are in the relatively fortunate position that it’s not that long ago that they entered the modern age. At the same time as the Faroese live this modern life – very similar to life in other Nordic countries – on the industrial world's terms, which also has brought them wealth, they have still managed to preserve parts of their old knowledge of how to live a simple life and survive in solidarity with each other on nature's terms in a sustainable way. Alongside the modern life the Faroese have kept these old traditions alive. They have passed this old wisdom on generation after generation.

They have not held on to this life style merely because of some kind of nostalgia, but primarily because the Faroese homogenous economy, almost entirely based on fishing, has shown to be very vulnerable. Some years everything goes really well – oil prices are low, fish prices are up – and people get relatively much money on their hands, which they often choose to invest in improving the conditions in the society – for instance the infrastructure, of which they can enjoy the benefits in harder times. At other times a combination of unfortunate factors tip the economic stability with dire consequences for many Faroese, who have lost everything during these periods. The deceitful modern monetary system seems to further increase the severity of these crises.

The Faroese have experienced several of these severe crises in modern times, which have forced many of them to live a very simple life from time to time. This means that many of them have not yet forgotten the old traditional self-sufficient way of life, based on other, more sustainable principles than the fraudulent system, which most of the world is relying on today.

The Faroese might therefore likely be able to "switch" back faster than most others, just because many of them have not forgotten how people survived back then, before the world went mad in an illusory oil adventure, wrapping itself into a pecuniary pyramid-scam carousel that spun the world out of control in a consumption celebration frenzy.

Are The Faroese Lesser "Evolved" Than Other People In The Western World?

Some believe that the Faroese are somewhat untimely backwards or ‘old-fashioned’ in their way of thinking, because they have preserved some old traditions, which others might perceive as conflicting with a more ‘modern’ mindset, but the Faroese don’t see it that way. Is everything ‘old’ dispensable, just because it is old?

It is a myth that the Faroese are lesser "evolved" than most other people in the Western world. Although the Faroese have been able to hold on to some old traditions, they have not at all been reluctant to change as a whole. For the last 150 years the Faroese have been very eager to evolve and to adapt to the industrial world as far as it was possible in this relatively remote area with it's limited resources. The Faroese have in fact been very successful at this, which today's high standard of living in the Faroes proves. But this evolvement is not always for the good.

The Faroese have the same obligation as everyone else on earth to take part in the efforts to save this planet from destruction. And they do not do that well if they're exploiting nature in an unsustainable manner. Unfortunately, when it comes to fishing (not pilot whaling!) some Faroese are getting a little off course for the time being. But this greedy way of dealing with nature is not the way the Faroese used to deal with nature in the past. It seems to be the modern world's ways of dealing with business, which urges some Faroese to adapt to unsustainable practices, very common elsewhere.

The Faroese had found a very fine balance which they are about to overturn, which is sad. They have evolved, like so many others, by being seduced by the modern life’s luxury and amenities. They are also infected by the western world's material greed. And it’s true that they in many ways live as people in other Western countries, first class, which demands a high level of consumption.

But by entering into the modern industrial world, the Faroese have made themselves dependent on oil, and thus vulnerable, like all others who also depend on oil. We see how the Faroese currently are fighting fiercely with others about ocean resources in order to get enough fish to be able to afford buying oil for their fishing vessels and maintain the living standards they have achieved.

Identity Strengthening Survival Strategies
But the Faroese have not commercialized the pilot whale catch. In this case they stick to the old tradition of communal sharing, so they have yet, still – unlike the rest of the world – preserved some kind of barter economy to some extent. Many of them get a portion of their food directly from nature's larder, and they still share food with each other – such as meat and blubber from pilot whales. This practice has proven to be of great advantage for them at a number of occasions when economy crises have hit them hard from time to time.

The Faroese have relatively often experienced periods, not so far apart, where they could not rely on their usual lifelines. The crises set in, in a quicker, more dramatic manner than most people on the European mainland are used to in their countries. The Faroese have grown accustomed to this fluctuating economy and the risks that follow. For instance, during World War II all connections to the 'mother country' Denmark were cut. There was a severe bank crisis in the mid 50'ties. Then again we had the oil and fishing crisis in the mid 70'ies. But also in modern times in the 90'ies a bank crisis forced the Faroese to their knees once again. A lot of people were ruined and a fifth of the population was forced to emigrate. But already after eight years the Faroese fought themselves out of the crisis, had paid their debts and re-established their economy – something experts otherwise predicted would take at least 20 years.

And now again we have a world crisis which started in 2008, which of course has affected the Faroese severely too. One of their two main banks just crashed recently – and we haven’t yet seen all the severe consequences, which surely will follow after this crash.

Their old local survival kit, if I may say so, has come in very handy in these periods of hardships. This is the main reason to why the Faroese still partly rely on old ways of surviving – including pilot whale hunting.

When the crisis hit, the above principles and the Faroese supportive culture proved to be very effective. This is one of the main reasons, why everything up until now has turned out so relatively well, because people helped each other through the crisis by sharing available resources as much as possible and by providing each other services – without interfering money into it. By this, everyone got an increased opportunity to be able to survive with the skin on the nose. It's this kind of valuable survival strategy that have strengthened the Faroese common identity, which is the source of their courage and capacity to face challenges – also in the future.

Nature As A Pantry Or Zoo
People could perhaps learn something from this. But instead of thinking about how to save themselves, while the water rises deck by deck, threatening soon to engulf us all, they are much more keen on spending time and effort to put these "primitive savage islanders" in place out there in the middle of the ocean and get them to stop perceiving nature as a pantry.

Instead, the Faroese – and everyone else is forced to accustom themselves to just enjoy the sight of all the beautiful sceneries in nature and the cute, cuddly animals in it as pure pastime and entertainment. Welcome to the Global Disney World. But for how long can the human race afford this luxury? How long will it be able to survive that way?

Why I Fail To See The Purpose Of Typical Anti Whaling Rhetoric

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 01:28:00 +0000

I have in former blog posts tried to explain the Faroese tradition of pilot whaling. Let me state right away: The main purpose of this blog post is not to defend pilot whaling. It is to question the rhetoric of extreme anti-whaling activists.

I'd like to give you an example of a claim, very typical for many anti-whaling activists. This is part of an argument I read in a debate forum about whaling:

"Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that lowbrow, knuckledraggers like you exist and are being vocal about your "right" to slaughter marine mammals. I suppose it never occurred to you that every creature on this planet did not evolve for the sole purpose of being killed or exploited by man. It truly amazes me that anyone would even consider killing anything as magnificent as a whale, or any other creature for that matter. You would think, or at least hope, that mankind would have evolved beyond the Neanderthal urge to bash everything it sees over the head and drag it back to the cave. Apparently, and you are a testament to this, that is not the case. I guess those of us who are more enlightened and actually give a damn about the other creatures we share this planet with can only hope that your primitive, ape-like kind will soon reach the extinction that is long overdue and leave the rest of Earth's inhabitants alone!"

It's obvious that this man (could be a woman, but lets' say it's a man) feels very strongly about this issue. He starts by saying:

"Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that lowbrow, knuckledraggers like you exist and are being vocal about your "right" to slaughter marine mammals."

I get it… People in favor of killing whales are so primitive that they must have a Neanderthal-like look… He's probably referring to the 'stupidity' of these primitive people. Funny comparison, perhaps, but if this had been said about Afro-Americans, for instance - jokingly or not - one could rightly accuse this man of being a rabid racist.

He goes on claiming that people who do not think like him, might not think at all – or as he puts it himself:

"I suppose it never occurred to you that every creature on this planet did not evolve for the sole purpose of being killed or exploited by man."

This is a statement, which should be followed by a more detailed explanation, because it raises more questions than it answers. The main questions might, for example, be: If not every animal is evolved for the sole purpose of being killed or exploited by man, which animals are? And why is it that these animals are more suitable for exploitation than others? And why is it that others are not? Clearly, in this man's view, the whales are not... but why? I guess he is trying to explain that in the next sentence:

"It truly amazes me that anyone would even consider killing anything as magnificent as a whale, or any other creature for that matter."

This shows that this man has attached himself emotionally to animals as a whole, but especially to whales. To him whales are a symbol of something ‘magnificent’, almost sacred, which – in his view obviously – has the right to be untouched by man. As sympathetic as this might seem, it is not a rational claim. It is based on emotions and belief.

Many whaling activists claim that whales are so highly developed and so intelligent that they might even be superior to humans in intelligence. But he forgets to mention that many of these intelligent whales he allegedly wants to protect are meat eaters themselves, and thus kill other creatures – sometimes including humans. I guess we have no other option than to accept that fact. But why is it okay for highly super-developed animals like whales to kill other animals, if it’s not okay for humans?

This man is of course entitled to believe what he likes, but then he goes on:

"You would think, or at least hope, that mankind would have evolved beyond the Neanderthal urge to bash everything it sees over the head and drag it back to the cave."

To me this is a peculiar claim, because mankind has probably never in history killed more animals than it does today. Furthermore, I fail to see any logic in this argument, because ancient food providing methods were probably much more humane than today's highly evolved modern industrial ways of providing food, which include mass breeding of domestic animals. In comparison with the cruelty, revealed in slaughterhouses all over the world, where massacres occur everyday, hunting of wild animals seems almost insignificant, unrelated and irrelevant – at least when we talk about sustainable hunting of not endangered species.

Note, that I do not in any way endorse killings of endangered species, but I really can't see why sustainable hunting should be much worse than the industrial way of mass-killing animals, which to me seems much more torturous and holocaust-like than killing and hunting free animals in the wild has ever been. But anyway...

I wonder why he expects the human race to have evolved significantly in such a short span, which a million years is in the big perspective. Just because we've developed very fast in a technological sense the last 200-300 years, it doesn’t mean that basic human nature as such has changed much since the time of the Neanderthals, who, by the way, were extinct 30.000 years ago. We're not even related to them, since we’re a whole other different species called Homo Sapiens. Anyway, as he rightly states:

"Apparently, and you are a testament to this, that is not the case."

This is true. We have not evolved much - emotionally. But what makes him believe that he himself and his allies are any 'better'? As he then goes on to state:

"I guess those of us who are more enlightened and actually give a damn about the other creatures we share this planet with can only hope that your primitive, ape-like kind will soon reach the extinction that is long overdue and leave the rest of Earth's inhabitants alone!"

Take a good look at this sentence. This man is obviously so angry that he's lost sense of what he really is saying. The first thing you notice is, that this man holds himself and his allies in such high esteem that he assumes that he and they are "more enlightened" and, thus, the only ones who care about this planet and about those who inhabit it – while others who disagree with his views about animal killings are labeled as "ape-like" - i.e. lesser evolved – and should not be allowed even to exist! He’ can’t think much of apes, since he compares these atrocious human beings to apes.

But when it comes to ethics or moral standards, are we humans, basically, really so different from animals, aside from our technological advancement? Does history prove that we have evolved much beyond other species in that field? Just to mention an obvious example. Is intelligence any guarantee of higher moral standards?

My point is: Isn't it self-exalting megalomania beyond any rationale to believe that humans are any better than animals? And to believe that whales are almost humanlike – at least when it comes to intelligence – and therefore better than any other animals?

What about the intelligent animals that happen to 'think' that it is okay to kill other animals? Should they be wiped out too? Do whales never attack other creatures – including human beings? How can we convince them to stop killing other creatures? Maybe we should suggest that it would be a good idea for them to become vegetarians… Joking aside. Whales are mostly kind creatures like many other creatures, but do whales have moral standards that exceed moral standards of other creatures – including humans?

Why do some people think that whales are superior to other animals? What about all the stupid animals? Is it okay to kill them just because they are stupid? And why would we want to rank animals like that? Or humans for that matter… How would we do that? I mean: Which criteria would we have to use?

If we should follow this man’s logic – and fulfill them, it could have disastrous consequences… So what is this really about? I don't say that this man is wrong in everything he believes, but what really is disturbing to me is, that he obviously hates people who happen to disagree with him, so much so, that he wishes to wipe them all off the face of the earth!

Let me quote our anti-whaling activist again: "(We) ... can only hope that your primitive, ape-like kind will soon reach the extinction that is long overdue and leave the rest of Earth's inhabitants alone."

It runs shivers down my spine when I hear such claims because they remind me – in an eerie, familiar way – of what a certain person, which rose to great power for a while in the past century, consistently claimed year after year until he made enough people believe in him and all hell of World War II broke loose. This man was also known for having a quite sentimental love for children and animals.

The hatred, which is revealed in this last sentence, is not in any way consistent with this man's claim that he loves all creatures on this planet. After all, some obviously don’t qualify to fall into the category of those worthy of this man’s love…. The inconsistencies in this man's claims are so obvious. But still, he fails to see the inconsistencies himself.

The problem is always that the self-righteous are too self-righteous to notice their self-righteousness.... What exposes their self-righteousness, though, is their firm conviction, which almost always is based on emotion and beliefs rather than on facts.

I couldn’t say if this is true for this man, but ignorance and insecurity does often turn people into irrational fanatics. The more insecure you are, the more you need to hold firmly on to something to believe in… And the more firmly you hold on to something you believe in, the more you attach yourself emotionally to your beliefs – so much so that you’re unable to accept anything that contradicts your belief. And thus you become: a fanatic.

This man is far from alone. Claims like his are seen in many, many forums on the net. Many are far more hateful and aggressive. And weirdly, other people admire the viewpoint this man and others express. They encourage it and think these activists are heroes, because they stand up for the poor whales’ rights. Which confirms to this man and his allies in the extreme wings of the anti-whaling movement that they really ARE more ‘highly evolved’ and better persons than others.

He doesn't like the fact that people kill animals for food – or not for any reason. It gives him the impression that he must love nature and animals more than other people who happen to think that humans need to kill animals for food, as they’ve done for millions and millions of years. It’s easy for an anti-whaling activist to jump to such conclusions about themselves. Those, who aren't as opposed to the killing of animals as this man is, are – in this man’s view – emotionally handicapped, and therefore they’re labeled inhumane primitive ‘knuckledraggers’.

As a result of the fact that the activists really believe they them selves are more ‘humane’ than others, they think they have the right to tell others – the primitive monstrous people – how to behave.

But this seems to be extremely naïve and reveals very little understanding of the fact that life is not just black and white. The man I've cited above obviously lives in an almost childlike universe, where good and bad is split up. He seems - just like a child – to be so convinced that he represents all that is good in this universe, while all bad things are being projected onto other human beings who do not share his beliefs. He even dreams of an Utopia where he can be freed from all evil - including the bad, bad whalers.

This clearly shows that he and his allies have become so alienated to the true nature in themselves – which includes both good and bad, as it does for everyone living on earth – that they seem to have lost any sense of reality.

It's only when man is incapable of seeing and acknowledging the bad in himself that he is truly capable of committing evil things. It's eerie that he and many others fail to see this.

I can’t see how this man's belief is any different from other religious beliefs – and as we know: fanatic religious beliefs is perhaps the most dangerous phenomena on earth. Religious beliefs have lead to wars that killed more people than any other phenomena – including natural disasters – in mankind's known history, because people really believed that their cause was SO right and unquestionable – and SO important that it gave them the right to rise above others and, in the name of God (read: good), actually kill other people. Believing in one's own pure goodness is to take the direct route to pure evil...! 9/11 is just one example in a very long row. History shows – again and again – what self-righteousness can lead to.

One can of course discuss back and forth, whether pilot whaling has a significant or severe impact on the pilot whale population or not - or whether it is right or wrong what a few whalers in the Faroe Islands, for instance, do to a small number of a not endangered whale species as part of a traditional way of providing food - a sustainable tradition, which has been taking place for more than a thousand years, perhaps even longer. In fact it is not much different from the Indian tradition of killing buffalos on the American prairie in the old days - a hunting method, which had been done sustainably for thousands of years before guns and rifles where introduced by the white man, which, consequently, lead to the extinction of almost the whole buffalo population, which you hardly can blame the Indians for. The pilot whale population is not so unlucky yet, though the increasing levels of methyl mercury and PCB in whales causes great concern for the health of the animals and those who eat them. But are the Faroese to blame for that?

Regardless of that discussion, the obvious self-righteousness and lack of doubt expressed in this, quite typical anti-whaling activist’s arguments cited above, is what disturbs me the most, because such rhetoric does not solve any problems – it just increases the gap between the two sides, entrenches rigid positions, and creates frustrations and even hatred. If one really is concerned about the whales and wants to reach actual results in favor of the whales, why on earth would one choose to express oneself in such a confrontational, unconstructive way? Which is why I don't get the rhetoric of extreme anti-whaling activists...

Are The Faroese People Caught In A Conflictive Time-warp?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 23:03:00 +0000

This is a response to a comment made by an anonymous reader to my blog post: "The Global Disney World" (http://elinbrimheimheinesen.blogspot.com/2010/09/global-disney-world.html).

Dear Anonymous,

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I appreciate your reflections to my blog post "The Global Disney World". I'd like to make some comments to your thoughts – and ask some questions, because I'm not sure that I'm quite getting what exactly you are trying to say. It puzzles me. Let’s start with the beginning. You say:

"The Faroese people today are caught in a conflictive time-warp, from which many other societies have since evolved. There is nothing unusual or exceptional in any society's resistance to change. In terms of "human nature" it is far more familiar and comforting to cling to a traditional lifestyle than to venture into the new and unknown."

From what you are saying, it seems that you have the impression that the Faroese are somewhat untimely backwards or ‘old-fashioned’ in their way of thinking, because they have preserved some old traditions. You and others might perceive these traditions as conflicting with a more ‘modern’ mindset, but the Faroese don’t. Correct me if I’m wrong, but between the lines I read a – slightly patronizing – attitude, as if you’re really saying to the Faroese: Hey, you’re in the 21st century. Why don’t you wake up to reality and evolve, just like the rest of us…

But what is it exactly you’d like the Faroese to evolve into? Do you believe everything ‘old’ is dispensable, just because it is old?

Since you choose to be anonymous and I have no way of knowing who you are, where you come from, or what relation you have to the Faroes, and why you're concerned with the Faroese, I don't know either how much knowledge you have about life in the Faroes. But from what you are saying, you seem not to be quite familiar with life in the Faroes – or aware of that the Faroe Islands is, in fact, a very modern society in most matters.

Although the Faroese have been able to hold on to some old traditions, they have not at all been reluctant to change as a whole. For the last 150 years the Faroese have been very eager to evolve and to adapt to the industrial world as far as it was possible in this relatively remote area with it's limited resources. The Faroese have in fact been very successful at this, which today's high standard of living in the Faroes proves.

But this evolvement is not always for the good. As I state in my blog: "It’s true that the Faroese have, like so many others, been seduced by the modern life’s luxury and amenities. It is true, that they are also infected by the western world's material greed. And it’s true that they in many ways live as people in other Western countries, first class. But by entering into the modern industrial world, the Faroese have made themselves vulnerable, like all others who also depend on oil. We see how the Faroese currently are fighting fiercely with others about ocean resources in order to get enough fish to be able to afford buying oil for their fishing vessels and maintain the living standards they have achieved."

As a Faroese I'm not too proud of the latest development in our fishing industry. I think that in the long run the Faroese would be much better of if they rather stuck to the admirable qualities in their lifestyle from the old days, which are all about social responsibility and sustainability.

I acknowledge that the Faroese have the same obligation as everyone else on earth to take part in the efforts to save this planet from destruction. And we do not do that well if we're exploiting nature in an unsustainable manner. Unfortunately, when it comes to fishing (not pilot whaling!) some Faroese are getting a little off course for the time being.

But I have to say that this greedy way of dealing with nature is not the way the Faroese used to deal with nature in the past. It seems to be the modern world's ways of dealing with business, which urges some Faroese to adapt to unsustainable practices, very common elsewhere.

I do not think that the Faroese are any better than anyone else… I mean: as human beings. But they had found a very fine balance which they are about to overturn, which is sad.

At the same time as the Faroese live this modern life – very similar to life in other Nordic countries – on the industrial world's terms, which also has brought them wealth, they have still managed to preserve parts of their old knowledge of how to live a simple life and survive in solidarity with each other on nature's terms in a sustainable way.

They have not done this merely because of some kind of nostalgia – as you seem to believe – but primarily because the Faroese homogenous economy, almost entirely based on fishing, has shown to be very vulnerable. Some years everything goes really well – oil prices are low, fish prices are up – and people get relatively much money on their hands, which they often choose to invest in improving the conditions in the society – for instance the infrastructure, of which we can enjoy the benefits in harder times. At other times a combination of unfortunate factors tip the economic stability with dire consequences for many Faroese, who have lost everything during these periods. The deceitful modern monetary system seems to further increase the severity of these crises.

The Faroese have relatively often experienced periods, not so far apart, where they could not rely on their usual lifelines. The crises set in, in a quicker, more dramatic manner than most people on the European mainland are used to in their countries. The Faroese have grown accustomed to this fluctuating economy and the risks that follow. For instance, during World War II all connections to the 'mother country' Denmark were cut. There was a severe bank crisis in the mid 50'ties. Then again we had the oil and fishing crisis in the mid 70'ies. But also in modern times in the 90'ies where a bank crisis forced the Faroese to their knees once again. And now again we have a world crisis which started in 2008, which of course has affected the Faroese severely too. One of our two main banks just crashed recently – and we haven’t yet seen all the severe consequences, which surely will follow after this crash.

As I have explained already in my blog, our old local survival kit, if I may say so, has come in very handy in these periods of hardships. This is the main reason to why the Faroese still partly rely on old ways of surviving – including pilot whale hunting.

Note that my primary goal is not to defend the continuation of pilot whaling as such, but simply to explain the circumstances and the reasons, why it still exists. Bottom line, I guess the Faroese fail to see that they really have any better alternative, because other options seem – from their viewpoint – scarier and even more hazardous.

"Presently, change is upon us all. Nature governs our existence, and nature is, as always in a constant state of change. Unfortunately, through no fault of the Faroese, eco-systems and the very bio-diversity of our planet has been adversely affected in recent history by mankind's greed and disrespect of nature through commercial and industrial exploitation and greed."

This is exactly my point in my blog. Couldn't agree more. My point is, that nature has always governed human kinds existence. Some humans have just been more aware of that than others, which is why they have been better at taking care of nature than others. I happen to believe that the Faroese have done just that with their way of living with and off what was available in their own environment in a sustainable manner. This is what I'm talking about, when I say that perhaps the world could learn something from the Faroese.

You say: "The destruction of our oceans and it's limited resources must be addressed globally. In a time of new environmental awareness and our unprecedented ability to communicate beyond man-made borders, the message to your shores is one in the same for all mankind."

Yes, of course... and it should be. Agree. Of course the Faroese should still take care of nature in a responsible way. They have done so in the past. So they should do that now too, instead of adapting to the destructive ways of the modern world.

"If we continue to live as we have in the past, the depletion of our ocean's resources is inevitable."

Yes, it’s true – given that “we” means “people living in the industrialized world”. But I’d like you to clarify: When you say “we”, do you include the Faroese? I ask, because the way the Faroese have been living ‘in the past’ has not endangered nature as much as the way people in the industrial world have lived. Very far from it. So it doesn’t seem to be a very good idea to ‘force’ the Faroese to adapt to modern, industrial exploitative ways of today completely and thus endorse them to make the same mistakes as everyone else. Which by the way, actually is about to happen, ‘as we speak’, unfortunately.

"It will be virtually impossible to resort back to survival techniques of the past when the ocean's resources are gone."

Very true again... on the other hand: I believe that if it comes so far – or close to it – every man will try to do what ever it takes to survive, and forget about the future, because nobody will have enough energy to think about what's best for the future, I'm afraid. They will have too much to do, struggling for their own lives here and now. The Faroese will perhaps be no better than anyone else. I assume it will not be pretty, anywhere...!

But given the fact that there are only 48.000 people living in the Faroes – a number which hasn’t increased for the last 20 years - I'd say, seen in the big picture: How big a threat can they really be to the world’s resources in comparison with the masses in the rest of the world? Not to take the responsibility away from the Faroese, but shouldn't we try to view things in the right perspective?

"It may sound dramatic but the international scientific community is predicting dire consequences as our global population increases while unsustainable food sources have and continue to decline at an alarming rate. Overfishing and pollution as well as climate change are now of global concern."

Agree again. This is very much a concern of mine too, as I have stated in my last blog post as well as in former blogs posts, which I am sure you must have read… or?

"Warning signs in nature are evident, as in the Faroes we see the very pilot whale meat that sustained your people's existence through countless generations, now poisons and threatens the health and survival of your future generations."

Which is why I, in several of my blog posts, urge everyone – also outside the Faroes – to take a look at their own behavior. Because the modern way of life contributes much more severely to this alarming development than the Faroese pilot whaling as such has ever done.

This does NOT take the responsibility away from the Faroese. They are also obliged to live in this world not harming the overall balance, but the Faroese can only deal with their own lives first and foremost, and do what is within their own power. I can assure you that all this is very much subject to debate in the Faroes, so the Faroese are not a bunch of ignorant morons (not that you said that, but many think so...) The truth is, that the Faroese are very much concerned – and that they are not blind to these warnings, even if it may seem so to an outsider.

"Nature's reaction to man's contribution of toxic waste can now be measured and has found it's way to your shores. In 2008 your Dr Pal Weihe issued a gov't advisory warning that pilotwhale meat was "unfit for human consumption". His research conducted on Faroese test subjects found a high incidence of irreversible neurological impairment and other disablities attributed to the excessive PCBs and methylmercury levels found in pilotwhale meat. Yet, grindadrap continues."

Yes, true. I have read the advisory warning. And the report. It has caused great concern here in the Faroes, as I said.

I have stated in a former blog post that, personally, I am not for the continuation of the Grindadráp, regardless. I acknowledge that it must stop if there is evidence that proves, beyond any doubt, that eating pilot whale meat is directly life threatening – or severely damaging people's health. The research, which has been done, should of course be taken very seriously. However – though this particular scientific paper's conclusion is that pilot whale meat ought to be regarded as unfit for human consumption – it is not perfectly clear on exactly HOW hazardous it is to eat pilot whale meat – for instance, in comparison with other kinds of widespread available food.

Don't be mistaken. I’m not saying that I don’t believe in Pál Weihe’s research, and I can assure you that people in the Faroes are very worried about this. But it is confusing to the Faroese, that there have been reports which claim that not all scientists/doctors agree with the conclusions in the report made by Pál Weihe's and others. There have been other scientific researches that contradict the conclusions in Pál Weihe's report.

At the same time we are bombarded with information about all kinds of other hazardous foods. I am talking about common industrially produced food, which we all buy in the supermarket or at the burger or pizza chains, full of hormones and other questionable, health threatening, perhaps even poisonous additives. We remember cases of cow disease, for instance, and we are also worried about contaminated foods mostly caused by extreme monocultures in the agriculture industry. We’ve learned that if you eat only MacDonald burgers for a month or so, you could actually die. If you smoke you're in extreme danger of getting cancer and all kinds of diseases too. It doesn’t make people stop though.

Therefore people here believe that pilot whale meat is, after all, perhaps not the worst food to eat – if you only limit the intake and let children and pregnant women avoid it. It is still very nutritious food, despite the fact that there are too high levels of mercury and PCB in the meat.

"This resistance to change at all cost is cause for worry and makes little or no sense to outsiders, many whose governments have officially classified dolphin meat as hazardous waste decades ago. Is it unfair to warn or advise the Faroese to stop this consumption from a humanitarian perspective?"

No, it is not unfair. Not at all – but I have difficulties believing this is the greatest concern of most of the people who claim they worry about the Faroese. It seems more to me that this is first and foremost used as an excuse to try to get the people of the Faroes to spare the whales. So why not call a spade a spade?

As I have stated earlier, Faroese people are not resistant to change – not if the change is for the better. They just fail to see if changing this particular tradition – the pilot whaling and everything that comes with it – really makes their way of life any better for anyone. Go to www.whaling.fo to study this issue further, if you like.

“Cruelty of the slaughter itself aside, as one Faroese friend once told me "nature can be cruel"... but as I see it, we must ALL acknowledge and adapt to these changes in nature before it's cruel vengeance disallows us the opportunity."

Well, I am sure that the Faroese will listen to arguments, which make sense to them. I am also quite sure, that they will be much less reluctant to change their ways than the global industry, the agriculture and the transport companies are. These are in fact the true dominators and destroyers of this world. Tell the multinational companies to stop polluting, because they kill people and animals by doing that – perhaps in a subtle and slow, but still very cruel way. But will they listen?

The pilot whale kill that went wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:15:00 +0000

The pilot whale killings, which have taken place in the Faroe Islands this summer, especially the one in Klaksvík, which a member of the Sea Shepherd organization claims he witnessed "under cover" and reported about to the world media, have, once again, created worldwide outrage and generated tons of protests from all over the world – also from a row of NGO’s.

This does, of course, instill respect, because these are powerful organizations with the means to influence a lot of people in the world. That is precisely why it’s a shame that some of the allegations in their protest are simply incorrect, while others are questionable, but that is expected, because they are based on beliefs. Nevertheless, it makes it difficult to have a fruitful dialogue holding beliefs against each other. When two sides have different beliefs, it is therefore even more essential to stick to the facts and get them right. It is also essential to separate facts from beliefs and emotions.

Sea Shepherd tactics

It was the report from Peter Hammarstedt, Sea Shepherd activist, from the Klaksvík kill, which triggered the current reactions. But as almost always when it comes to Sea Shepherd, their reports are exaggerated and emotionally manipulative – for instance the claim that baby whales are cut out from their mother's bodies and just left to rot... When one's errand is first and foremost to make anti whaling propaganda, graphic and dramatic sounding examples like these are always very effective, especially if you want to get people really agitated and angry. But it is not true that the baby whales are left to rot. Yes, they are cut out of their dead mothers bodies and are killed like all the other whales in the group. Sounds harsh, yes, but it is done, because - except from the bones and intestines - they are used just as everything else from the whales.

Another explanation

However, the way this particular whale kill in Klaksvík was carried out was not acceptable...! I was not at the site, but I've seen TV footage from the whale kill – and it didn't look pretty! I’m not insensitive and I understand perfectly why people would be outraged by what they saw on TV. As a matter of fact: the Faroese people are generally opposed to whale killings carried out like this. They agree that incidents like this must never happen again.

I'm not making excuses for this kill, because I would, personally, never applaud any kind of unnecessary brutality myself. I’m just trying to explain, because I think it is important to understand why it happened – and not just judge the whalers as evil maniacs that enjoy torturing whales, because that is not the case.

It is important to understand that these people regard pilot whales as a food resource. You might disagree with this viewpoint, but the whalers are carrying out a job, which in their own view is pretty much the same job, a butcher carries out in a slaughterhouse – only in a different, more difficult environment.

What went wrong?

What made this particular kill more difficult than usual was that the Klaksvík bay has been changed because of stone fillings on one side of the bay. This meant that it was hard for the whalers to get all the whales to beach themselves on the sand beach – like they usually do – where it would have been much easier to make a swift kill. Some of the whales where caught in deep water by the stone fillings where some whalers had to use quite forceful methods to pull some of the whales up onto the stones to get them killed.

What people might not understand is that it is almost impossible to kill a whale in deep water where you can't stand firmly on the bottom. That is why they dragged the whales up unto the stones. The problem was that it was almost impossible to do this, which caused the whales to be harmed. This is not an incident, which happens normally – but as I understand it, the whalers did what they did in desperation, because of the impossible circumstances to make a proper quick kill.

It was not possible in this case neither to move the whales to shallower water or let the whales go free, because the whales will swim right back into their deaths, since their instinctive urge is to stay with their group. Sad, but true. This must, of course, have seemed quite dramatic – especially to an outsider, who has a whole other view on whales and does not know, that this is NOT the normal way of carrying out a pilot whale kill.

Not a normal kill

Outsiders don’t know that this was not a normal whale kill. It went wrong – not all together, but for some of the whales. Most whales in the kill beached themselves on the sand beach and were killed in a swift way as they normally are. It was very unfortunate that a few of the whales did not swim up onto the beach, but where caught by the stones.

Unfortunately, incidents like this happen, but very rarely. There is a slight risk that things can go wrong during a hunt – like in hunting of any wild animals. If it happens in the last moments of a kill, there seems to be no way, entirely, to avoid some force – or 'brutality' – to get the kill done as quickly as possible. And this is sadly what happened this time.

It was unfortunate, first and foremost for the whales caught by the stones... but also for the Faroese people, because of course the news spread throughout the world immediately – and the story is used everywhere right now by the anti whaling campaigners as proof of the Faroese whaler's brutality – to anger people all over the world and make them boycott the Faroes.

The Faroese want to prevent this from happening again

I for my self think, that the kill should never have been allowed to take place in this particular bay... Now we at least know – what the whalers obviously didn’t anticipate – that there is a risk in this particular bay that some of the whales might make a sudden turn in the last moment and swim towards the stone fillings and not the beach.

People in the Faroes worry about this and have been discussing it eagerly in the Faroese media. The local animal protection society protested against the way the killing was conducted, and most people here are sorry about this incident and agree that we must do everything possible to prevent such things from happening again.

Politicians have suggested to ban whale killing in this particular bay and have also made suggestions to make rules that only allow people with special licenses to participate in a whale kill to minimize the risk of errors that might lead to situations like these, which get out of control. Some people even talk about banning whale killing as a whole.

The Faroese are not ignorant to animal suffering

I don't think, though, that this last suggestion will happen right now, because people here also know, that what happened in Klaksvík was an exception. And it doesn’t change the way people in the Faroes look upon pilot whales. They are still regarded as a food source. But I am sure that something will happen as a consequence of this that will help prevent that whales suffer more than absolutely necessary in future whale killings.

Even though many Faroese still support whale killing, because hunting and eating whale meat is so integrated in the culture, they are not ignorant to animal welfare. They are able to realize when something is inhumane and should be dealt with.

But this is – of course – not the picture the Sea Shepherd is interested to paint of the whalers or the Faroese out there. To them this is war... a war against the acts of the Faroese whalers – and in a war you're allowed to use any method to make your opponents look as bad as possible...

Does not help to dehumanize the whalers

But I'm concerned that it does not help the pilot whales much to dehumanize the whalers... I think that the best way to protect the whales from suffering, is to appeal to the whalers as the humane beings they are – because as such they are open to reason.... and emotion also, of course. Acting as if you're dealing with monsters, will not create grounds for a reasonable dialog, but just make people shut their ears. Nobody likes to be accused of being a monstrous maniac.

Okay, I just wanted to cast a little more light on, how the Faroese look at these events. This explanation, though, might not make much difference to those who have difficulties accepting that the Faroese regard pilot whales, first and foremost, as a food source, while to them whales – including pilot whales – are sacred creatures. I realize that it might be impossible to reach common understanding between people with such opposite views on the matter.

Hate Campaigns Only Make It Worse

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:15:00 +0000

The Oscar-winning documentary “The Cove” about dolphin slaughter in Taiji in Japan has drawn worldwide attention to the practice of killing dolphins. I don’t think that the Grindadráp practice - the pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands - can be compared to the dolphin slaughter in Japan. But many people do compare it. There is no doubt that the documentary "The Cove" will bring attention to the Faroese practice of Grindadráp also – perhaps raise and international outrage against it, once again.

I can see it coming. In many ways it is already happening. The Faroese are quite defenseless against a massive international outrage, because they are so few – only 48.000 – against millions of people who really don’t know much about how people in arctic regions like the Faroes live and survive. But I'm not sure that such an outrage will have any significant effect in regard to saving the pilot whales in the sea surrounding the Faroes.

"Wipe them off the face of the earth"
The Faroese will stop eating whales anyway – probably very soon. Most people in the Faroes have already stopped. But they will stop killing pilot whales because of the contamination of the whale meat – not because of international anti-whaling petition campaigns or boycotts.

Earlier campaigns seem only to have postponed solutions because most of them have described the practice of Grindadráp and judged the people in the Faroe Islands in a way the Faroese could not identify with, at all. Thus the Faroese were not open to influence. The only thing that the anti-whaling campaigns so far have seemed to do is just to condemn and dehumanize the people of the Faroes – all of them, also the people living in the Faroes who do not kill or eat whales.

Many people in the world have come to hate the Faroese because of these aggressive campaigns. So much so that they wouldn't care if a nuclear bomb made a big crater on the islands and killed everyone there. We see such arguments all the time. As a Faroese myself, it is very hard to hear people say such things. And I understand why some Faroese get sad and angry because they feel that this hostile attitude is so unfair.

I’m afraid that any new campaigns caused by this new interest in the issue now launched by “The Cove” will hit the people in the Faroe Islands hard. That would, perhaps, be okay if it could make a positive difference. But I’m afraid that it will not make any difference – not for the good anyway.

A Hollywood-like world

I have not seen "The Cove" documentary yet, but I have an impression of it because I've read about it and seen trailers. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that it might be like so many other anti-whaling campaign films - just made made more professionally.

I have, unfortunately, seen too many anti-whaling campaign films using Hollywood‘s narrative techniques to emphasize a particular position – i.e. dramatizing emotionally manipulative effects, typically a set-up with protagonists and antagonists: "the good people" (or "the heroes") against "the evil people” – not giving the other side a chance to argue their position. These films might be excellent pieces of artworks but do not give a fair, accurate or nuanced portrait of reality as it is.

"The Cove” has obviously fascinated a lot of people in the world, and I am sure it is a masterpiece seen from a film narrative perspective. But from experience I’m a little afraid that it's angle might be too unilateral – like in so many other films with the same message. There are so many agitating propaganda-like videos, circulating the net – many about pilot whaling in the Faroe Island – often full of overly dramatized, misunderstood and incorrect claims about the Faroese people and their whaling practice - not focusing on creating understanding between people, but mostly on finding villains or scapegoats to put the blame on for the problems in the world - as if the world were a place of Hollywood fiction.

You can't reason with people who have already made up their minds

It's not that I don't sympathize with people who love animals and want to protect them. I just don’t agree with them when their love turns into so much hatred that it overshadows their sound reasoning.

To be fair: A few anti-whaling campaigns are fair enough in their claims, but I have experienced that a great deal of these campaigns don't respect facts. They’re very emotional and almost entirely built on non-confirmed rumors – and they don’t acknowledge that there might another just as valid view on the matter. The "other side" is just portrayed as pure evil. Many of the anti-whaling film-clips, YouTube is so full of, are examples of this.

The people who make these films are not interested in listening to the other side. They have made up their mind in advance about people like the Faroese, and they will believe anything they hear that confirms what they already think. They don’t bother to check, if the information they get is right or wrong.

The goal justifies the means... or does it?
So many of the claims in these films or petition campaigns are simply not true. Some of the people behind them – or people that spread and distribute them all over in social media and elsewhere - say that they don’t care about these ‘insignificant details’ because the whale slaughter is cruel and wrong no matter what. They feel that they are in war against animal cruelty. And in a war the goal justifies the means. Even trespassing ethical borders. So it doesn’t matter to them if the claims in these films might not be quite accurate, as long as the films serve the purpose, to help stop whale killing practices.

But I believe that you should never trespass ethical borders, no matter what, because then you become part of the problem yourself. I believe these films in fact do more damage than good because they dig ditches and incite people against each other. Of course they do. Nobody accepts it if other people throw accusations at them based on inaccurate or incorrect rumors accusing them of being brutal beasts. Not the best way to create grounds for listening, I would say….

Postponing instead of accelerating solutions
So it is necessary to get the facts right and to be accurate and truthful. And it is crucial to make an effort to understand why people do what they do – come to the bottom of the matter and not just condemn it as evil acts, even though it might seem so on the surface. People might have reasons to do what they do that you just don’t comprehend…. yet.

I'm afraid that unilateral propaganda is not opening a dialog and promoting understanding both ways – it's just creating enemies and making everyone more fixed and determined that they should hold firmly on to their opinion. Consequently it brings the situation to a standstill instead of clearing the way for dialog and a positive development. It just pushes the goal further ahead and postpones solutions that perhaps could have been reached much earlier if people chose to communicate with each other more respectfully and with a will to find out and understand each other.

A Right To Eat What Is Available

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:28:00 +0000

If you are opposed to Faroese food traditions, consequently, you will also have to question if the Faroese even have the right to inhabit their remote islands any more. In fact you will have to question whether any people should live in arctic areas! Because how can people live such places if the rules of metropolitan people should apply?

The people in arctic areas can’t grow vegetables because of the scarce sun and the harsh climate. And they can’t live off the natural resources at hand because people elsewhere don’t want them to maintain their traditional ways of supplying food by hunting. And they can’t import their food because the food transportation pollutes the environment too much. The agricultural products they have to import might also have been produced unsustainably. Also there is no guarantee that the imported meat comes from animals treated more humanely than the whales. … How can these people even live in these areas then…?

Would it be fair to ask the Faroese just to move somewhere else? Where to? Or… should they perhaps be allowed to continue to do what is least damaging to the world’s ecological balance and eat what is available to them locally? But… even that option is ruled out now, because much of the food provided this way has become too polluted. What option is left to them then?

Alienated urban people
The Faroese are quite unhappy and sad about the fact that the old traditional and sustainable ways of utilizing the natural resources at hand are in imminent danger of being exterminated. Increasing centralization and urbanization - with more and more people living in big cities – has alienated humans from their true origin – nature itself.

When people see animals today, they don’t connect them any longer to what’s on their dinner table. Animals are something we have for pets or see on TV or in Zoos. People have very little knowledge of where their food really comes from and how it is processed because they’re not part of that process personally anymore.

People have so little contact now with most animals that the animals have in fact become almost completely alien to them. In order to feel comfortable with animals – and perhaps their own bad consciousness – people have begun to humanize the animals. They project them selves into the animals to identify with them. The mass media and the entertainment industry have "disney'fied" our relation to animals – especially people in urban areas who live relatively protected lives and never have to deal with being directly or personally responsible for providing and killing their own food.

An artificial world
It might be an unpleasant discomforting fact, but it is nonetheless true that most people are meat eaters – and thus in fact predators who need to have animals killed to meet those needs whether they like that fact or not.

But having grown up with Disney's way of portraying animals – not least Flipper in TV and Kelkoo (the Orca) in the cinema - it is difficult to face this truth about ourselves and much easier to displace the facts and just let somebody else do "the dirty work" somewhere where we don't have to watch it happen, so we can forget all about it – forget that every meat eater actually eats sentient beings. You could say: in that sense no meat eater is better than any Faroe Islander - they're just being hypocrites living in an artificial, fake world, as some Faroese would put it.

I think, actually, that the Faroese might have a point there that other people should take into consideration. They don't have to agree with the Faroese – just understand why the Faroese think and behave like they do and that they’re not doing it because they're evil people. They are just doing it, because they live in a place where hunting has been the most natural way of providing food for more than a thousand years - it still is.

Aggressive campaigns make matters worse
Shouting 'bastards', 'murderers', 'nuke'em' and other more or less hateful obscenities at the Faroese as if they are the worst scum of the earth will never make the Faroese understand the campaigners view or make them change their way of thinking.

The ‘tragic irony’ of it all, some would say, is that if the campaigners succeed in their effort to blacklist the Faroese people, getting large crowds of people outside the Faroes – or even countries – to boycott Faroese products or to refrain from traveling to the islands; this will isolate the Faroese people even more, making them less susceptible to other ways of thinking that could change their minds, and it might very likely cause an economic crisis in the Faroes which, consequently, will force the Faroese to continue living off what is at hand in their own environment more extensively – e.g. killing pilot whales... despite of the fact that the meat is contaminated. Simply because they might not have any other option. So maybe it is a much better idea to back off a little and not be so aggressive with the Faroese if one really wants to save the whales… and the Faroese children from contaminated food.

Save the world - not only the whales
We need to stop condemning each other and be more understanding in order to achieve peace and tolerance, which in my view is absolutely essential – and crucial – if we want to find fast and effective solutions to all the extremely serious problems we face in this world – first and foremost pollution and not least the problem of how to provide healthy and sustainable food to the world’s increasing population, wherever they live on the planet. We need to think thoroughly about how we are going to feed the 6-7 billion people on earth in a less polluting and more sustainable way in the future. We really need to focus on and address the problems that are the real threats to everyone's lives – humans as well as animals.

I understand the deep and sincere wish to protect the whales, but if one really wants to protect wildlife and the habitat in which it lives, it is perhaps not the most efficient way to do that by agitating and creating hatred against a very small population of only 48.000 people, which beforehand are relatively isolated, quite vulnerable and just trying to survive in their own way like they've always done, for instance by killing a few pilot whales a year, already very much aware of the problems and on their way to stop eating the contaminated whale meat.

Alas, it is not enough to put all one’s efforts into saving only the whales just by making life intolerable for the whalers. It is much more necessary for more people to put their full effort into stopping pollution and humankind’s damaging behavior to save, not only the whales, but all animals, ourselves and our environment as a whole.

An Old Life Style Near Extinction

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:56:00 +0000

The Faroese are in a crisis in these times because a very important part of their meat supply has been declared unfit for human consumption; namely pilot whale meat. Even though they have been warned not to eat pilot whale meat, they are still afraid to give up on the skills of pilot whaling because they’re accustomed to provide food this way. They can’t imagine living without this traditional food. If they stop pilot whaling completely, they will also be much more dependent on expensive imports, which creates other problems - also environmental problems.

Why don't they just stop?
If you were told that it might be hazardous for you to eat something you have always considered normal and have been eating regularly – with pleasure – since childhood, wouldn’t it be difficult for you too to stop eating it?

It’s very common in the world as a whole that people don’t always listen to warnings. Which is why we have so many people literally dying of obesity and heart diseases. It’s not that they don’t know it is unhealthy for them to eat what they eat, the way they do. They’re just used to eat stuff like that in this way. And it is just very difficult to change what you’re accustomed to, even though you might be confronted with the fact that it is ‘wrong’ or even dangerous for you.

When the Faroese heard that they could not eat pilot whale meat anymore, it was just as shocking for them as it would be shocking for most people in the world if they suddenly were told to stop eating burgers - because meat from cattle for some reason would be declared unfit for human consumption. The Faroese are trying to deal with this situation now. But it is not easy. Because what is the alternative…? What should they put on their plates instead?

It would seem a little hypocritical to ask the Faroese to replace whale meat and start importing more industrially produced meat from other animals – maybe treated less humanely than the whales, all considered.

To ask the Faroese just to become vegetarians, for instance, might be difficult, considering that the Faroese can't grow fruits and vegetables, and how expensive it is to buy fruits and vegetables in the Faroes because of the long distance freight costs.

Adapting a new modern life-style
You can grow a few… very few potatoes, some kind of roots and rhubarbs, for instance. But far from enough to cover the population’s need for fruit and vegetables and the essential vitamins that go with them. The Faroese have imported fruit and vegetables at least since the 50’s by freight ships only. The population has doubled since then and this import has slowly increased to quite substantial amounts today.

But the fact is, that it is expensive to buy fruit and vegetables in the Faroes in comparison with much cheaper prices on the European mainland. Furthermore, the Faroese do not get them as fresh as they are in European supermarkets. Until recently it was regarded unfamiliar and strange – and for most some kind of a luxury to eat fruits and vegetables. In recent years, though, prices have come down to a level where most people can afford to buy fruits and vegetables on a daily basis, though it’s still relatively expensive.

It was, until recently, much easier and cheaper to cover the need for proteins and vitamins by eating pilot whale meat – a diet the Faroese are much more accustomed to than eating fruit and vegetables. But people are aware now of the dangers eating contaminated whale meat. Consequently, today most people in the Faroes – especially in the bigger villages and the capital – have gone through some kind of a transition period where people eat more and more fruit and vegetables – adapting to a more European-like life style.

Well, this might be the only alternative for the Faroese now that the whale meat has become too contaminated. But is it really a better solution?

Which life-style is the most destructive?
As I said earlier, all of this food has to be imported and transported over long distances. The food comes in heavily polluting freight vessels that damage the habitat of all living creatures living in and off the ocean – including the whales. This transport contributes severely to the contamination and in fact, in the end, also the extinction of whales and many other animals... So in a way it doesn't solve the problem. It just moves the problem somewhere else.

Many Faroese think that people who care about the whales should rather try to understand who's the real 'sinner' here when it comes to endangering the whales as well as the natural balance in this world – and put their attention and efforts into solving that problem rather than leading hate campaigns against a small number of people in the North Atlantic who are already victims of one of the biggest problems in the world – namely pollution and all the side effects that come with that.

Instead of living off what our close natural environment provides, like the Faroese did for a long time, people of the world – also the Faroese – have become increasingly dependent on the modern world's farm factory food providing systems. These systems are basically built on a heavily polluting agriculture, an extensive not less polluting transport system and a destructive mass industry that utilizes domestic animals, often in a torture-like way, exploits and pollutes nature, exhausts the soil and contaminates meat, including whale meat.

(To know more about this, watch, for instance, the documentary film “Food Inc.” or read, the book: “Eating Animals” by Jonathan Safran Foer, and you will know what I mean. Watch interviews with the author Foer here and here.)

Old sustainable ways of living near extinction
It is difficult for many Faroese to understand this: What gives people outside the Faroes the right to impose this kind of modern life style onto them? Why should they buy products produced by an industry that is much more dangerous to life on earth than their own survival methods are? Is the modern world’s industrial way of providing food really a better alternative? Is it less cruel? Less dangerous? More life-sustaining? More nature-friendly? Aren't pigs, cattle and chickens cute too? Aren't they also sentient beings? Aren’t some of these animal species as social and intelligent as pilot whales? What is the difference? Why is it more 'natural' and 'humane' to breed and kill these animals in enormous farm factories? Where is the natural boundary to, which animals are okay to exploit and which not?

The Faroese therefore ask: Why should we completely adapt a modern life style, which – seen in the big picture – in fact is much more destructive than our own old ways of living and supplying food were? Is it people like us living in arctic regions who are just trying to live off their surrounding nature respectfully in a sustainable way, keeping nature's balance intact, who are the real threat to the whales – or to the world – here?

The Faroese have – as some of the very few people in the western world – been trying to keep their old ways alive until this day because it is a tradition that in their understanding represents survival in solidarity and a well tested, sustainable and basically much more balanced and more life-sustaining lifestyle with much less impact on the world's ecological balance – at least up until this day if it hadn't been for the pollution.

So they ask: Is it right to condemn people like us more than other people? Why are we made into the scapegoats of the world more so than so many others? Why don't the people of the world boycott Italy also for killing the near extinct tuna and condemn all Italians? (The tuna fish is in fact also an intelligent and a very social animal). Why don't they condemn and boycott all Canadians for killing the seals? Icelanders for the whales, Spaniards for the bullfights? These people might, perhaps, have much less reason to preserve their traditions than the Faroese have. So why is there so much anger directed specifically against the Faroese? This is very difficult for the Faroese to understand.

Holy Cows Of Today Or A Food Source?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:55:00 +0000

The world has come off balance to such an extent today that our survival is threatened. We have good reasons to fear the consequences if mankind goes on using nature’s resources the way we do now. Many people have this feeling that our world has become more and more artificial and that we are destroying all that is natural and pure, which in the end destroys ourselves also.

Whales have somehow become the primary symbol of natural purity and wonder. Many people feel a close emotional relationship to whales. They are such impressive grandiose creatures – the largest mammals ever to inhabit the planet. They are very likeable because they are social and relatively intelligent animals – and also mysterious because they live in an environment, which is alien to us humans. We admire them and fear their extinction. If the whales were gone it would somehow mean that the world is coming to an end.

It is as if people have come to identify with the whales and their struggle for survival so much so that the whales have become the ‘holy cows’ of the 21. century, worshipped by many people in the world. The practice of killing such magnificent creatures is so alien to whale worshippers that it is very difficult for them to understand – and even harder to accept – that some people in the world still see the same animals first and foremost as a food source.

A statement
Let me state right away, before i go further: I think that restoration and maintenance of the world’s ecological balance is of utmost importance – it’s absolutely crucial if mankind wants to survive in the future. I’m for protection of wildlife. I’m against killing of any animal species near extinction. I find whales to be wonderful, fascinating creatures that we should protect as best possible. I’m against commercial whaling. I’m against animal suffering – whether it is cruel treatment of livestock or the practice of killing whales in an unnecessary cruel fashion.

I wish people would be less dependent on farm factory meat production, because most of this industry is far from sustainable; it creates an unnatural, artificial and inhumane environment for it’s livestock, it decreases natural diversity and it pollutes and damages the environment all humans and animals inhabit, which, consequently, might kill us all.

That said, let me also state that I’m from the Faroe Islands where people still regard pilot whales as a food source. The Faroese have for a long time been killing pilot whales in a way that quite a lot of people outside the Faroes find disturbing. Personally, I don’t find this practice – locally called the Grindadráp – as appalling as people outside the Faroes do. You might ask: How can I say that, if I really mean what I said first? Well, this is exactly what I will try to explain in this blog.

What kind of 'tradition' is that?
I understand perfectly why people outside the Faroes find pilot whaling quite disturbing – even shocking, if it has been presented to them only in form of very graphic pictures, perhaps followed by often quite exaggerated, angry claims accompanied by dramatic music. There are a whole lot of rumors and hoaxes wandering around the net about Grindadráp. People outside the Faroes have this misconception of the Grindadráp that it is a “tradition” in the sense that the Faroese uphold it only because it is kind of a traditional ritual – like some kind of a “carnival” or a celebration of the coming of age of young men or a worshipping of killing and inflicting pain for it’s own sake – not because it is a necessity to these people. People also believe that pilot whales are near extinction. That is not true. Pilot whales are some of the most common whale species in all the oceans of the world.

Of course, the Grindadráp must seem absolutely insensitive and meaningless to people, if they have this conception of the practice. If it was a ‘tradition’ in this sense – and the whales were near extinction, it could never justify this practice – or the violence and the bloodiness of the kill. And because of this misunderstanding people tend to judge it as mere cruelty and barbarism and as an absurdity that should not be allowed to take place in a modern society today.

In other parts of the world it is normal – or in other words: a ‘tradition’ – to kill turkeys, for instance, so people can have them for a traditional Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner (even though they have the option of choosing a vegetarian meal instead, if the wanted to). To the Faroese, their whaling practice is just as ‘normal’ and just as much a ‘tradition’ in this sense. The practice of Grindadráp is regarded by the Faroese not only as an important part of their inherited skills, their history and culture, but indeed also as a necessity – an important way of supplying food and a key to their survival, also today.

Livelihood in arctic regions
There are a few things many people outside the Faroes don't realize. Just like people in many other scarcely populated arctic regions, where natural resources in form of plants are very scarce, the Faroese have developed a hunting tradition in order to survive. You can’t grow vegetables in the Faroe Islands because of the harsh climate, not in a scale that could bread feed the whole population. To the Faroese – as for most people in arctic regions – it has therefore always been necessary to utilize the few natural resources at hand on land and in the sea to be able to provide food enough.

Since the Faroese came to these islands more than 1200 years ago, they have had to live off their livestock – like sheep and a smaller amount of cattle – that could feed on the grass and the few plants that can grow there - only edible for animals. But this was not enough to get essential proteins and vitamins. Fishing and hunting wild animals was also necessary – also cute and perhaps intelligent animals. And sometimes it had to be in a violent way, because it could not be done otherwise.

The Faroese feel that there is no question that they still have the ‘natural right’ to use pilot whales as a food supply (as long as the pilot whales are not an endangered species), because they have had this practice for at least more than a thousand years. Just like other people feel they have the ‘natural right’ to kill turkeys, chicken, pigs or cattle because the have done so traditionally for God knows how long.

The only difference is that in most other places they have taken the step further than the Faroese and have made their food supply into an industry – the animals they want to eat are bred in enormous amounts for the sole purpose to kill them for food.

Which tradition is better?
One can always argue which tradition is better than the other – and people do. People discuss, for instance, which tradition is crueler. People discuss whether one method is more or less sustainable than the other. And people discuss whether it is more right to breed the animals first and keep them captive for their whole lives feeding them edible but unnatural altered substances to make them grow unnaturally fast, before you kill them and eat them rather than let them live a free and healthy life as wild animals before you kill them and eat them.

Many believe that the pilot whales are killed in an unnecessary cruel and inhumane way, but the Faroese say that the killing looks more violent than it actually is; that it is not crueler than what goes on in most farm factories and slaughterhouses, and that there is no faster way to do it.

There’s no doubt that the Grindadráp practice evokes strong feelings on both sides. So how can people in the Faroes and outside the Faroes reach a common understanding? Is it possible?

How can people, living in metropolitan areas surrounded by areas with highly developed agricultures, understand the conditions of people living in poorly populated arctic places with harsh climate – like the Faroes. While many people outside the Faroes claim, that it is not necessary to use ancient hunting methods any more to get your food supply, because you can import industrially produced food, the Faroese argue that if they are not able to use the natural resources they have access to, they will be much more dependent on expensive imports, which creates other problems. They need to be able to hunt in order to be less dependent. I will get back to this issue and discuss it in my next blog.

Cruelty or pragmatism?
The truth of the matter is, that in the eyes of the Faroese, you still have to have a pragmatic, fatalistic view on life – at least in places high up north like the Faroes. Not least in these times of crisis and climate change where you’ll never know when you suddenly might have to take personal responsibility for providing your own food. Most people in the modern world’s metropolitan areas have never experienced this: not to have any other option than to kill an animal in order to survive – cruel in the eyes of others, but necessary. But with an increasing worldwide food crisis already taking place these harsh living conditions, which have been normal to arctic people, might soon become very real to all of us.

The Faroese have never chosen to kill pilot whales because they had intentions of being cruel. Of course not. They just didn’t have any other option in the past. They have just kept doing what they’ve always done for food. They still live in a relatively vulnerable area. They still build their livelihood on very few natural resources. They're always under the threat of being struck by new crises. Which means that they might very soon be left with not many other options again than to hunt for food.

They don’t consider themselves any crueler than any butcher, working in a slaughterhouse providing food for people, which is considered a normal job in most countries. To the Faroese it is just as normal that some people provide pilot whale meat to their community, as it is normal for butchers in other countries to kill and slaughter cattle so others can eat the meat.

A philosophy of sharing versus self enrichment
I won’t go into the discussion whether one or the other way is right or wrong – or which method is better or crueler. I just want to say that people who eat meat because they’ve done so traditionally ‘for ever’ should probably hesitate and think about it before they judge the Faroese.

What I’m trying to say is that basically the Faroese are not more barbarians than any meat eater is. They have been living peacefully in these islands for more than a thousand years and they have maintained nature’s balance all this time out of respect for nature and each other – obviously because they were utterly dependent on both to be able to survive in this arctic area.

After a whale kill they share the whale meat for free in the community as they’ve always done. They have never turned the whaling into an industry or a commercial, unsustainable practice to gain profit to them selves. To them it was a question of helping each other to survive. So this is not – and has never been – an act of cruelty, but an act of solidarity and a necessity to secure survival.

In my next blog I will discuss, which options are left for the Faroese – if they stop killing pilot whales.

Check the latest updates on www.faroeislandsreview.com! Week 10-13

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:08:00 +0000

Wednesday Mar 31, 2010:
ARCH ENEMY To Headline Faroe Islands' G! Festival
Budget Traveler: A Faroe Islands Vacation For a Truly Unique Experience

Tuesday Mar 30, 2010:
Podcast Episode 48 is out! The Faroe Islands As Film Location?

Monday Mar 29, 2010:
Football On The Net: Matters Of Size

Saturday Mar 27, 2010:
The Times About The Faeroe Isles: ‘Silence. Isolation. It’s breathtaking’

Friday Mar 26, 2010:
Canvas is still sailing for Petaluma artist Hans Skalagard

Thursday Mar 25, 2010:
Football: The Lands that FIFA Forgot

Tuesday Mar 23, 2010:
Podcast Episode 47 is out! Interview With TUTL's Founder Kristian Blak - Part II
SIC To Record Album "Fighters They Bleed"
Gudrid Hansdóttir in Momo's, Austin

Monday Mar 22, 2010:
Faroe Islands And The Sweetness Of Seclusion

Sunday Mar 21, 2010:
Interview With Short Film Director Bjarki Thomsen

Saturday Mar 20, 2010:
Greenland Vikings Had Celtic Blood

Friday Mar 19, 2010:
Faroe Islands and the European Union

Thursday Mar 18, 2010:
The Faroe Islands Self-Government Arrangement

Wednesday Mar 17, 2010:
US Market Open To Faroese Salmon Farmers

Tuesday Mar 16, 2010:
Podcast Episode 46 is out! Must Be The Music - Interview with Kristian Blak - Part I

Saturday Mar 13, 2010:
Bakkafrost To Be Listed At Oslo Børs
Travelling: Life Drawing Reportage From The Faroes by Olivier Kugler, illustrator

Friday Mar 12, 2010:
Anna Eliminated From Danish X-Factor Show
Trash Metal News: SIC Taps HATESPHERE Drummer For New Album

Wednesdayg Mar 10, 2010:
Interview With Hogni in Spinner

Tuesday Mar 09, 2010:
Podcast 45 i out! Sneak Previews Of Future Podcasts
Hotel For Sale: Dream Of A Future As Hotel Owner in the Faroe Islands?

Pilot Whaling again: Know ALL the facts from source, not from distant opinion, before you decide on your own position

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:11:00 +0000

Some months ago I wrote a blog about Pilot Whaling in the Faroe Islands, explaining why the Faroese still kill Pilot Whales despite the fact that so many people outside the Faroes protest against it.

(Read the blog "Are The Faroese Senseless Terrorizing Murderous Dolphin Killers?" here: http://elinbrimheimheinesen.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html).

I got an E-mail the other day with some questions about the same issue. Here is part of that E-mail:

"I have a question which I hope you can answer. I've tried to clarify errors that are circulating on the web and a persistent one is this:

Many pilot whales are now left to rot as they are no longer needed as food. The last two years the meat has been deemed too toxic for human consumption, so the killings are purely for the entertainment.

I have seen some similar comments about carcasses being left to rot on the beaches. I personally find this hard to believe, as it would make the beaches unsafe from a health perspective. Is there any truth in this, as far as you know? What DOES happen to the remains, once the flesh has been distributed?"

And this was my answer:

(Sigh...) Not that I don't want to take people's feelings or views about Faroese whale killing seriously. I appreciate that people are concerned and want to do good. But many of the stories about the issue flourishing on the net are just highly dramatized and appear almost absurd to me.

Sometimes I have the feeling that this world becomes more and more artificial and "Hollywood-like" because many people seem to have this need to invent stories about "bad people" doing "wrong things" in reverse to themselves as "good people" (or the "heroes") doing "the right thing". These stories give the "good people" a meaningful purpose in life and not least: the right to tell the "bad people" how to behave. It's nice to feel like a 'better' person. It's a good feeling to 'know for sure' what is right and what is wrong. It makes life much less complicated.

But it's a little eerie and sad at the same time because it is also self-righteous to think that you 'own' the only 'truth' and that you have the right to impose this 'truth' on others. It seems that this self-righteousness makes people loose their sense of reality and forget all about self-criticism in the process. Truth becomes pliable. It's as if people really need someone to blame for something, much more than they need to understand reality and get the facts right. Is it because people nowadays are more or less brainwashed by Hollywood into thinking that we live in a simplistic black and white world with no nuances between the bad and the good... just like the world often is portrayed in Hollywood movies...? Has Orwell's vision in the book "1984" come true: "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth."?

There are some pretty attractive benefits to be gained in this make-believe-world. Having a "just cause" you're willing to fight for gives you a higher status and perhaps even faithful followers who will regard you as a heroic figure. Your status as "hero" might give you such popularity in some circles that you can create a whole industry out of selling your cause to others. Who doesn't want to be part of a community with a cause - something imortant to live and die for? It might become so important for you that you shot your eyes or ears even to the obvious truth if it somehow contradicts your cause.

So many people are not questioning what they're being told. They seem willing to just blindly follow what immediately seems political correct ... like wolves howling with other wolves. To justify this, it is important, in this case, to make the Faroese behavior look as bad as possible. So a little altering of reality to make it suit one's agenda makes the trick. It is of course much easier to feel righteous and get agitated over something that seems deadly wrong - or perhaps even looks like pure 'evil acts'. But that is a too simplistic way to look at it. It also manipulates the truth. And it's not just to the Faroese.

The quote you refer to is, once again, highly exaggerated. Faroese people do not kill whales for entertainment. That's a preposterous claim. Perhaps this rumor arose because of an old song Faroese people used to sing in the old days that said it was "a joy" to kill whales. But you have to place the lyrics of this song in the right context. In the old days people lived in a very harsh, merciless environment. They needed to encourage themselves to struggle and do all the hard work which was absolutely necessary for survival back then. And killing whales was "a joy" in that sense that it meant food on the table for a long time.

It is not true either that whale carcasses are left to rot on the beach - or anywhere else for that matter. This is also an unjust claim. People wouldn't dream of wasting anything, because whale meat and blubber is still considered a delicacy. Every single bit of meat and blubber is therefore still used for food. We also have a law that demands that nothing must go to waste and that any leftovers, like bones and intestines which can't be eaten, must be taken away within 24 hours. Bones and intestines are dumped in the ocean in deep water with strong currents, where they probably would have ended up anyway if the whales had died of natural causes.

It is true that the whale meat is contaminated to a certain extent and that people do not eat as much whale meat and blubber as they did before, but they still eat it. The mercury levels are not THAT dangerously high - there are still health benefits of the meat and blubber, if the intake is limited. The meat and blubber can be preserved for a long time in freezers or as salted or dried meat so you could say that the meat from a catch just lasts longer today.

So most people in the Faroes have not stopped eating whale meat and blubber, though they're not eating it as often as before. Many don't serve it to their children any more. Also young women prefer not to eat the meat and blubber because health authorities have recommended them not to.

Let me quote an info note about this issue from the Foreign Ministry in the Faroe Islands, which can be found here: http://www.whaling.fo/Files/Filer/whaling/pilot_whale_meat_and_blubber_-_info_note_(2)%5B1%5D.pdf

"Over the past two decades, extensive international research has been undertaken into the health effects of contaminants from whale meat and blubber in the diet of Faroe Islanders, led by Dr Pál Weihe of the Department of Public and Occupational Health in the Faroes. The first published results of these studies, suggesting a correlation between high levels of mercury intake and some subtle aspects of neurological development in Faroese children, were presented and discussed widely in the 1990’s. These results led health authorities in the Faroes (the Chief Medical Officer, the Department of Public and Occupational Health, and the Food & Veterinary Agency) to issue in July 1998 comprehensive revised recommendations for safe limits on the consumption of pilot whale meat and blubber.

The recommended levels of consumption are no more than 1-2 meals of whale meat and blubber per month. As a precautionary measure, women of child-bearing age are advised not to consume blubber at all until they have had their children and are no longer breast-feeding, and to refrain from eating whale meat 3 months prior to, and during, pregnancy and while breast feeding. These limits are intended to safeguard consumers against the risks, while also acknowledging the health benefits of whale meat and blubber, which are rich in poly-unsaturated fats, and essential vitamins and minerals, such as selenium."

Bottom line: The quote you refer to is again an example of a claim that very clearly is a conclusion made too hastily, based on deficient data and lack of knowledge... probably made by people trying to justify their aversion against whale killing with something they, perhaps, believe are the facts. It's just that many of these so called 'facts' are not correct - far from it. The internet is full of incorrect facts or claims about pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands. But why would many deal with important facts like these so recklessly? Why do so many put more effort into justifying their own personal beliefs than into getting it right, selecting just to hear what they want to hear and blissfully ignore other arguments? And then pass on the unconfirmed rumors as the 'truth'...? That is why I sometimes get the impression that this really is more about people's personal feelings than it is about anything else.

It's perfectly alright with me that people have an aversion against whale killing but it is a pity if they base it on incorrect information that unjustly destroys the Faroese people's reputation.

Thank you for being willing to also view "the other side" and regard it with respect even if you don't support the whale killing. I respect that. There aren't that many people of your kind "out there".

Kind regards

Elin

I got an answer back right away where the sender said - among other things:

"I feel it's important that people know ALL the facts (from source, not from distant opinion) before deciding on their own position."

I couldn't agree more! :-)

Check the latest updates on www.faroeislandsreview.com!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:56:00 +0000

Updates on www.faroeislandsreview.com week 8 and 9, 2010:

- Anna Still In The Run In Danish X-Factor With the UK-hit "American Boy"
- Sailing with Smyril Line's ferry Norrøna
- Beautiful Timelapse Photography From The Faroe Islands
- Interview With Singer/Songwriter Guðrið Hansdóttir
- Football - The Premier League in the Faroes
- Row Row Row Your Boat - about the national sport of the Faroes
- Britain claims Rockall - again. Adventurer wants to sleep on the rock this summer.
- Anna Rocked At The X-Factor Show With Christina Aquilera's "Fighter"
- Shrimp Dispute With Canada: Faroe Islands In A Fume Over Port Closures
- France very interested in Faroese Band Budam
- Cross The Atlantic In A Small Flatsboat: You'll Get Swamped...!
- The Story Of The Sunken Ship SS Sauternes - "Jólaskipið"
- Atlantic Airways summer 2010 services: Twice A Week Between London And The Faroes
- Two Faroese Musicians To South by Southwest Festival in Austin, US - Høgni and Guðrið Hansdóttir
- Football - Kerr Seeks To Revive Tiny Islands

Check it out on www.faroeislandsreview.com. Enjoy!
Become a fan of Faroe Islands Review here: www.facebook.com/pages/Faroe-Islands-Review/177913231687

Lots of new interesting udates on www.faroeislandsreview.com

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:15:00 +0000

Updates on www.faroeislandsreview.com in week 7, 2010:

- Anna Is Through To Another Round in X-Factor
- Shrimp war: Faroe Islands blast Canada’s ports ban in fishing dispute.
- bARBARA i gONGINI Continues To Get Rave Reviews
- Funny Story About Faroese Drunken Sailors in 1972
- Another Timelapse Video From The Faroes
- Funny Ride From Tórshavn To Klaksvík
- Interview With Dutch Film Director And Author Threes Anna making research in the Faroes
- Oil-Industry: Three Wells In Prospect Off The Faroes
- Shrimp War Continues: Faroes And Greenland Make Breaking News In Canada
- Remember the old 'hit' "Farewell Faroe Islands"?
- Anna Nygaard Made It To The Next Round Of The Danish X-Factor Show
- Faroese Short Film "A Bad Day" Screens At European Indie Film Festival 2010
- Canada closes ports to Faroe Islands
- Copenhagen Fashion Week 2010: Faroese Designers Get Good Reviews

Check it out on www.faroeislandsreview.com. Enjoy!

Become a fan of Faroe Islands Review here: www.facebook.com/pages/Faroe-Islands-Review/177913231687