Nuke the whales

Epistemic status: Messianic.

I was alarmed by a recent news story about the increasing population of blue whales in some tropical habitats. Any altruistic person would be seriously concerned about this development. In this article, I will explain a potential high-impact intervention that could mitigate this moral catastrophe.

Why we should nuke whales
It goes without saying that whales are net negative in terms of the aggregate global welfare. In a recent study on the effects of historical whale hunting, scientists wrote that: “Blue whales suffered the greatest relative defaunation [during the historical whale hunting period] and, as a result, estimates of population-level krill consumption declined 99.6%, from 167 Mt /yr in 1900 to 0.6 Mt /yr in 2000.” Since being eaten by a whale doubtlessly causes a large amount of pain and suffering for each individual krill, it is clear that the 20th century whale hunts were among the most high-impact altruistic policies ever pursued by humanity. Therefore, recent bans on whale hunting, and the associated increases in whale populations, should be cause for serious alarm.

This is already widely understood in the animal advocacy community. For example, the leading organisation PETA, which has a reputation for sensible, level-headed strategic decisions, has advocated for using blue whales for meat.

Fortunately, one intervention has been proposed since at least the 1990s: nuke the whales.

Consider blue whales. Estimates place the global population of blue whales at around 10,000 to 20,000 individual whales. Usefully, this is a very close match to the number of nuclear warheads currently in existence. With large scientific programmes dedicated to studying these whales, we already have a good understanding of where whales are located. Advances in technology have also allowed us to detect whales using remote satellite imagery.

Indirect benefits of nuking whales
Nuking the whales can also bring some important second-order effects:

  • Firstly, nuking the whales can increase public concern for the effects of nuclear weapons. This intervention would also cause a direct decrease in existing nuclear weapon stockpiles. Both of these outcomes may contribute to preventing nuclear war between global powers.
  • Secondly, the last time nuclear technology was really in vogue, we saw the emergence of the environmentalist movement and associated Greens parties. Given that the environment sucks (see below), this might appear net negative. However, the Greens parties also directly caused the emergence of many animal advocacy parties. As a recent analysis by a very classy and sophisticated researcher found, animal advocacy parties seem pretty good.

Why might nuking the whales be intractable?
Historically, there has been a strong, negative correlation between two variables: 1) humanity’s willingness to ruthlessly kill or exploit an animal species, and 2) the state of that animal species’ nuclear weapons program.

To demonstrate, the most exploited groups of animals on the planet are:

  • Pigs. It is difficult to imagine how a pig, with their thick, unwieldy trotters, could master the dexterity necessary to accurately enter nuclear launch codes in a high-pressure situation.
  • Chickens. The inclusion of chickens in this group may seem a surprise to some readers. As relatives of the parrots, chickens may have access to the ability to use language and the propensity to cause bodily wounds to the humans around them. As relatives of the pigeons, chickens may have the willingness to serve in the armed forces. However, as broiler chickens are typically slaughtered at around 45 days, it is difficult to see how any chicken could survive long enough to cultivate these latent abilities, obtain a university degree, and develop the advanced physics expertise necessary to design and build nuclear weapons1.
  • Shrimp. To date, there is no record of a shrimp venturing out of the water and onto dry land for long enough to enter a nuclear weapons facility and launch a bomb (though see the related discussion about finfish here). This is particularly surprising considering that there are, in fact, land-dwelling crustaceans. And this failure to take decisive action is clearly not for lack of opportunity, as many of the countries with major shrimp fisheries also hold a large number of nuclear weapons (United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and India). It is plausible that shrimp have developed an ethic of universal peace and steadfast non-violence, an achievement that has eluded at least one other globally important animal species. However, since some shrimp are known to wield weapons, the more likely explanation is that 99% of them are bloody cowards.

In contrast, the animal groups that have clearly made the greatest strides in nuclear weapons programs (e.g. great apes) also enjoy the most significant legal protections and are only really exploited when scientists reckon they could score a swanky publication.

It is no secret that whales are smart and are willing to breach the surface of the water for at least short periods. From an evolutionary perspective, whales have only recently returned to the ocean, after having spent some time adapting to land. The term “whale”, which refers to any cetacean, also technically includes dolphins, and there is a consensus among marine biologists that dolphins are complete dicks. All of these characteristics could plausibly increase whales’ propensity to building high-powered weaponry. At a first glance, this may seem to render this intervention intractable. However, even if this correlation has existed in the past, there are tentative signs that things may be beginning to shift.

As a case in point, consider the octopus. This group of animals has many characteristics well-suited to developing nuclear weapons: they are smart and well-trained in espionage; they have already developed an impressive defensive arsenal; and they are strange and unfamiliar, and therefore dangerous. Guided by astonishing foresight, some pioneering advocates have initiated diplomatic relations with octopuses2. Nevertheless, humanity has begun to expand octopus fisheries and is now even trying to farm octopuses, a move that clearly requires no small degree of intestinal fortitude. Humanity’s willingness to antagonise a clearly dangerous and competent foe may be motivated by the increasing tolerance of risk in global affairs brought about by the transition to a multi-polar geopolitical situation.

A quick BOTEC
Here is a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (BOTEC) supporting this intervention. I conclude that even under a relatively conservative hit rate (accounting for the general incompetence of the public service and other government staff), this intervention will undoubtedly save 450,000,000 krill per year. This could also win humanity a valuable ally in the coming years.

whale-botec.jpg

This BOTEC is limited by the amount of space available on the back of the envelope. I considered using the front, but I believed that doing so could be misleading. It would be good for future research to expand this BOTEC, perhaps on a bigger envelope.

Next steps forward
Unlike other research, this article is not merely an exercise in academic frivolity. In fact, if you’re convinced by my clearly compelling argument, there are several concrete actions you can take:

  • Firstly, raising awareness. There is at least one company that produces clothing advocating for nuking the whales. This company3 also uses highly ethical practices and donates its proceeds to charity, meaning that you can count these purchases towards any existing donation pledges. On the other hand, the company is environmentally friendly - since the environment is both a moral catastrophe and physically uncomfortable, this might advise against making any purchases from this company.
  • Secondly, education. There is at least one historical documentary that explains, in surprisingly candid detail, how to unilaterally launch a country’s entire nuclear arsenal. There are also training simulators available. This could be a useful source of career capital for people interested in spending their career working on this intervention. Such a career has the added advantage of not needing a financial runway.
  • Thirdly, the EA community has existing networks among well-paid, generous athletes, including football players. It could be worth advocating for these players to consider switching to nuclear football. The most talented and fashionable football4 players tend to be concentrated in the United Kingdom and the United States, which also happen to be both EA community hubs and global nuclear powers. Alternatively, for athletes who would rather not play an actual sport, golf has known anti-whale effects.

  1. This may be yet another reason in favour of the already promising strategy of infant outreach. ↩

  2. Those relations may be driven by ulterior motives; see here for a critical discussion. ↩

  3. Conflict of interest: I regularly shop at this company and, since doing so, have become at least 15% more attractive. This may be partially attributable to the fact that my EA Forum karma rose during the same period. Becoming more attractive could reasonably be cause for concern if you place a high value on your time. ↩

  4. I’m talking here about association football, also known as soccer, not the watered-down adaptations with misleading titles such as American football and Australian rules football. ↩