Edited to add: I put a handful of pics on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/p/DO0mTX3DE1I/?img_index=1 (and some videos on my profile too). I was lucky to have sunshine almost the whole time I was there.

The only downside was that you had to pay for most of the hikes, and the money isn't actually going towards any real work getting done.

[0] https://www.seashepherdglobal.org/latest-news/slaughter-dolp...

However, if you don't oppose the general consumption of meat, I don't find the argument against grindadráp compelling. It yields more meat per killed animal than most, and the slaughter itself is arguably no less humane than most commercial meat production (not a high bar, I admit).

In terms of publicity, grindadráp suffers from being inherently more visible than commercial meat production. Personally, I think this is a positive thing. It confronts you with the fact that meat doesn't magically appear in a supermarket freezer - if you want to eat meat, then by definition a living animal has to die. The visibility of grindadráp has prompted conversations with my young son about where meat comes from, and the animal welfare consequences of eating it.

The problem with commercial meat production is pretty much always the mega-farms that have them in horrible conditions during life. It's just cheaper, easier, and results in tastier meat to quickly perform the slaughter.

Not as cruel as factory farming though. I find it weird how people obsess over grind when pigs are treated a lot worse at a hugely larger scale. Maybe the problem is it is out in the open?

Industrialized whaling has done massive damage to global whale populations, but the Faroes are tiny and (to my knowledge) their hunting practices do not have a significant ecological impact.

And yes, there are plenty of very arguable inconsistencies (eg: eating pigs and cows is okay, eating horses is not) in how people look at animal consumption, but I don't particularly think that invalidates ethical concerns over whaling.

(edited for missing words)

Its not consumed in same amounts as beef for sure, but its not shunned by most. And yes there is no logical reason to eat beef (especially calves if we consider the cuteness factor) but not horses, horse meat is even healtier.

There are plenty of places where it's not considered okay by a significant portion of the population, so it's a pretty valid to use it as an example of an inconsistency.

It doesn't make the horses example any less of an example of an inconsistency.

Edit: not only that but the whole point of me bringing up inconsistencies was to say that just because they exist doesn't mean people can't have ethical concerns about whaling (or other kinds of animal hunting / farming).

This is the situation in the UK. Some people trace it back to chivalry, where horses were very expensive and mostly owned by the nobility. But I don't know if that is the real reason.

Although it turned out that British people have been eating plenty of horse. They just didn't know it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21375594

That doesn't necessarily make every ethical boundary they try to have "virtue signaling".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45209587

I’m not defending the Faroese here (nor casting aspersions on them, either), more just saying that it’s your responsibility to research the customs of the places to which you travel, and to not go if you think you might not like what you see.

> "The squealing from the whales was horrible. They were putting hooks on ropes in their blowholes to pull them in and then hacking at them with knives."

They are killed and butchered by trained people only with specialized tools that minimize suffering, and the meat is distributed to all participants.

The developed world has more or less eradicated slavery, but it was commonplace just 0.5% ago on the human civilization timescale. Some countries eradicated it at 0.4% and others at 0.6%.

Walk through most any suburban American neighborhood and you'll primarily see neutral shades of white, gray, beige, or the occasional muted blues and greens. Sometimes someone will be daring and paint their house in a deep, dark blue or purple (or even black) but that feels relatively rare.

If near the ocean, typical "seaside pastels" come into view.

What's the backstory to the Faroes' colors? Are they set by some local entity/government? Left up to the homeowners? Was there a push to make them colorful? Do the locals have a particular eye for color composition? Did someone help them?

Why are American homes so bland and the Faroes' so delightfully colorful?

So many questions!

I absolutely love places like this; places that treat you as a discerning, rational adult. The sense of being responsible for yourself feels freeing. It is an invitation for you to experience something entirely in your own way.

Unfortunately, that also makes it inherently more dangerous. Just a month ago, three tourists went missing at that location. [1]

[1] https://local.fo/three-persons-missing-after-visiting-vagar-...

Instinctively I often think I'd like to live in such a place, I'm not quite sure though why I think that. I'm fairly sure I would in fact not after a while.

I suppose everyone in Greece knows them. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-pT56a5ZUc

I have always thought it came from "fjær" (far). According to Wikipedia it is debated, and it may even come from "fara" (to travel).

Time (and distance!) are money.

"Constant storms and crashing waves have sculpted the volcanic rock over millions of years into some of the most jaw-dropping (and vertigo-inducing) coastlines on Earth. These towering basalt cliffs can reach heights of over 400 meters, dropping straight into churning seas below."

OK, enough with the hard sell, what's the immigration policy?

Sheep! https://photos.smugmug.com/Faroe2025/n-brbsQb/Faroeselected/...